Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2011/January

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Coin images copyrightable?

I just found File:AntimachusIICoin.jpg, which was deleted several years ago as a replaceable nonfree image. Is it possible to have copyright over images of coins that are taken from directly above, or are coins sufficiently 2D to make this impossible? The coins in this image are from an Indo-Greek king; there's definitely no problem with copyright or counterfeiting laws for the coins themselves. Nyttend (talk) 13:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

We normally count these as 3D objects, and lighting, focus and camera angle and exposure all play a part in getting some new copyright to a photo. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

File permission for File:Alton S Tobey Sailboats.jpg

Stale
 – File speedy deleted under WP:F6 by User:Courcelles. --NYKevin @983, i.e. 22:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Somebody takes issue with this jpg file. I took the photo myself, I also relinquish all rights to it, and I think it would constitute fair use for the Alton Tobey article anyway. The file was also never published previously to being uploaded to Wikipedia in 2006. What should I do to prevent deletion of this image, which is the only visual image anyone has provided for this article about a visual artist? MdArtLover (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is the problem. This is a photo of a piece of a copyrighted 2D artwork and any photo taken of a copyright artwork is a derivative work for which you need permission from the copyright owner, i.e., usually the artist. Even though you took a photo of it and you may want to release that photo into the public domain, the image is not entirely yours to do with as you wish due to the artwork being copyright. Such images need permission for both uses; the artwork and the photo. You indicate that you know the artist and they are willing to release the image into the public domain, so please have them follow the procedure found at WP:PERMISSION but make sure they understand such a realise means that anyone can use the image for anything including commercial usage. While you also mention "fair-use", which applies to images that are copyright, if you want to release your photo into the public domain you can do that but the artwork still needs to comply with all 10 fair-use criteria with a completed fair-use rationale if you don't get a freely licenced permission from the copyright holder. ww2censor (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I own the painting. I also own the rights to the image of the painting. I took the photo and I created the jpg file myself. And I release this photo, this jpg file, for the free, unlimited use of any and all in this universe and any other conceivable universe, whether for commercial or for non-commercial purposes. I swear, I own this painting. I took the photo of the painting. And I relinquish all rights to the use of this photo image or jpg file or whatever you want to call it of this painting. I do not see what can be the problem here. MdArtLover (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
While you may physically own the painting, the artist owns the copyright unless you can show that the artist assigned that copyright to you and you are now the copyright holder. Possession and ownership of artwork does not confer any copyright to that artwork. I thought I had explained everything quite simply and clearly above but you are still making the same claims without any proof. What don't you understand? ww2censor (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. How could I prove this to you? MdArtLover (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how I can prove this to you, nor why I should have to -- after all, I don't even know who you are. Why should I provide such personal legal and financial information on demand to a cipher on the internet that calls itself "Ww2censor"? So, instead of "proving" my ownership, I have provided a fair use rational that is exactly modeled on those provided for numerous other images in visual arts articles on Wikipedia (for example, see the fair use rationale for the image of the painting "Psychological Morphologies", by Roberto Matta, in the article about that artist), and applies every bit as well. MdArtLover (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
You don't have to prove anything to anyone or provide anything to anyone if you don't wish to, but Wikipedia also doesn't have to allow the image to be used. ww2 explained very clearly (and nicely) to you why your photograph may be a copyright violation. Whether use of the image might nonetheless be fair is a separate issue. If you wish to argue that the use is fair, you should do so. At the moment, your argument on the image's page does not go to fair use but to a misguided claim that you own the painting, etc. You should also calm down as getting all riled up won't help those who are evaluating whether the image should be deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
You write: "If you wish to argue that the use is fair, you should do so." OK: have you noticed that I am now doing exactly that? Please address my fair-use rationale. I don't see what objection there can be to it. Thank-you. MdArtLover (talk) 02:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I meant you should argue it on the image file page itself so people can understand you're comparing your image of a painting to another image of another painting. Just like you did above re the Matta painting. I don't feel comfortable commenting on your fair use argument. Maybe someone else on this board with more experience as to what Wikipedia accepts as fair use and what it doesn't will do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, I have in fact already put my fair-use rationale on the image file page itself, and had already done so before you commented here — so: perhaps, before meaning to tell me I should do that, you should have checked to see whether I had done that. MdArtLover (talk) 04:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
You're very stubborn. I did look, and this is what you wrote: "Here is the fair use rationale: I own the painting. I also own the rights to the image of the painting. I took the photo and I created the jpg file myself. And I release this photo, this jpg file, for the free, unlimited use of any and all in this universe and any other conceivable universe, whether for commercial or for non-commercial purposes. I swear, I own this painting. I took the photo of the painting. And I relinquish all rights to the use of this photo image or jpg file or whatever you want to call it of this painting. I do not see what can be the problem here."--Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
That is the old version. It's the one you already read. Didn't you recognize it? I asked you to look at the updated version. I placed it at the top of the page, where I mistakenly thought it couldn't be missed, even by the most determined. I will delete the old rationale. Given this new, updated fair-use rationale, the fact that I own the painting is no longer relevant, and so I don't need to provide any information to you - and to any number of other strangers of unknown identity and intent, on an unsecure webpage - proving ownership. MdArtLover (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

HLKA Studios Photo Fair Use For Seoul City Sue historical context?

I propose to add a photo (c. 1950) of the former HLKA studios and transmitter in Seoul, ROK, to illustrate the notability of Seoul City Sue during the Korean War. My proposed fair use rationale and off-wiki links to the photo can be found at User:Cmholm/Sandbox. Will it pass muster for fair use?

Originally a International News Photos (INP) Soundphoto. Per the Library of Congress, INP photographs published with proper copyright notices between 1923-1963 may be protected if properly renewed. The INP photo archive became part of the UPI collection, later brought by CORBIS. A search of both the LOC Prints & Photographs Online Catalog and CORBIS Images failed to turn up the image, thus the current copyright status is unknown. Cmholm (talk) 10:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the criteria for using non-free content is, “Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.” Your stated purpose: “Illustrate a historically significant subject” does not explain why seeing a picture of the studios and transmitter is necessary for understanding the article. (And I can't guess what necessity there might be.) Sorry. —teb728 t c 11:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Let me add that the photo of Anna Suh fulfils the significance criterion because it identifies the subject of the article — not because it "Illustrate[s] a historically significant person" as stated in the rationale. —teb728 t c 12:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, good points. I'll work harder to turn up a definitive copyright status. Cmholm (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

What copyright tag would best fit a logo or picture of an upcoming American/Japanese video game? I am young, and having trouble determining one. There are many logos for almost every video game, so I'm sure that there should be a license for all of them, especially when they are from the same company.

Lacon432 (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

{{Non-free logo}} and you will also need to add {{Logo fur}} and complete all the sections thereof. – ukexpat (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
You must also be careful that the logo or proposed artwork is genuine and not just a fan creation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you guys able to add that tag onto the pictures for Necromachina and Gun Loco? I think I might be unable to, since it means going over a format that I can't have come up again. Do you know where I can put the copyright tag you guys gave me?

Lacon432 (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I have added the fair use rationale using furMe and that non-free logo, and added to the articles. Please add the caption to the article to explain what the pictures are. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Now, I just got news from the Square Enix DLG's Facebook page that they changed the name of "Necromachina" to "Moon Diver", and they have changed the logo as well. How do I fix that? Do I make the Square Enix DLG Facebook page an external link? Lacon432 (talk) 18:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Selecting the correct licensing code

Hello,

I just got a comment from ImageTagginBot regarding a picture I personally took: File:Shevchenko_in_Nastasiv.JPG

I am supposed to add some licensing info there based on the list provided.

I studied the list and found it extremely unhelpful to figure out what exactly I should select. In my opinion, it is too complicated and for a first-time user quite hard to find the correct info.

Could you please take a look at the picture and attribute the correct license info and edit it? The picture is mine and the bust on it is the work of my father who has died recently. So there is definitely no licensing conflict here whatsoever.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Regards, Margo999 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margo999 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

  • This one is not quite so easy as just choosing a copyright tag from the list because it is a photo of a sculpture, a 3D artwork, and therefore your photo is a derivative work which likely retains the copyright of the artist in addition to a specific copyright for the photo itself. I see that this sculpture is in the Ukraine and there is no freedom of panorama exception in the Ukraine per FOP Ukraine unless the sculpture is already in the public domain which requires the sculpture to have been created before January 1, 1951 and also that the author died before that date per this and this template. We need to know when it was made and when the artist died in order to advise you further but if the image is not in the public domain then it is copyright and cannot be used in the gallery where it is currently placed. ww2censor (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Australian football club logos and jumpers/guernseys

I'm finding with Australian rules football logos and logos on jumpers that it's a bit confusing how wikipedia allows some logos/jumpers yet doesn't allow others despite the copyright allow/disallow criteria appearing identical between the images. There appears to be a inconsistent policy. For instance the St George jumper image http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:St_George_Dragons_Jumper.svg has their logo on the front and is allowed on wikipedia yet the logo by itself was not and was deleted (without any explanation I might add). Another example is the jumper for another club http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Holroyd-Parramatta_Blacktown_AFC_Goannas which has a goanna on the front and was deleted despite the image being my own replica creation of it. Then there's the example of the Western Suburb Magpies jumper whose WS logo is allowed by wikipedia on the jumper http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Western_Suburbs_Magpies_Jumper.svg yet a small icon I created with the same WS logo was deleted.

It seems the only explanations I can gather is (i) the images accepted are on a en.wikipedia page whereas mine were uploaded to the commons (some still exist http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_rules_football_jumper ) and (ii) certain images are allowed on wikipedia if you include the {{logo fur}} - "The entire logo is used to convey the meaning intended and avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the intended image" and "The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing insert football club's name, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey" and "Because it is a logo there is almost certainly no free equivalent. Any substitute that is not a derivative work would fail to convey the meaning intended, would tarnish or misrepresent its image, or would fail its purpose of identification or commentary." However in the case of the St George and Western Suburbs jumpers above this {{logo fur}} was not included and there's no proof the uploader is the copyright holder as he/she has uploaded a whole set of different club jumpers http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Saebhiar/Table.

May I have some clarification please on the first paragraph and also how do include the above {{logo fur}} template when you first upload an image?

ps. The images of logos and jumpers that I want to upload but have been deleted would make each club's wikipedia page complete and are of public interest as some clubs have the same colours so just stating colours doesn't distinguish between all clubs.

Mtiges (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: This discussion began at the Help Desk, see Wikipedia:Help desk#Australian football club logos and jumpers/guernseys. I will close that discussion so that it can continue here. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
You should have a few days to get a logo fur added so you do not have to add it straight away. Anyway the way to do it is to click the upload link, then select "It is the logo of an organization" and you will ahve fields to fill in, you should put the article name, and source, and use to dropdown license to pick logo. Fake logos are dubious and may not be fair use. I also use the FurMe tool. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Graeme Bartlett. Mtiges (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Can User:ImageTaggingBot be improved?

I noticed that we have some old files without a license so I'm trying to make a list of the files: User:MGA73/No license. The list still have some files with a license (see the intro on the page). But it will take some time to make the list perfect. But I was thinking that perhaps the bot could help tag some of the files that really has no license. Perhaps if some of the files was checked to see why the bot has not found it allready. --MGA73 (talk) 08:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

With some good help from User:Multichill the list is now 500 images shorter. If you find images with a valid license on the list please let me know. --MGA73 (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
There's no technical reason why the bot can't go through old files, but there are some practical concerns. It's quite possible for older images to be validly licensed but have no tag (say, because the description page was vandalized, or a deprecated license tag was deleted without being properly replaced), and the bot is ill-equipped to do the detective work needed in these cases. --Carnildo (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. In that case I see two alternatives. 1) We modify the bot so it adds a special "no license notice" so the files end up in a special category where files are not deleted without an extra check in file history etc. (the idea is that uploader will get the notice and hopefully add the relevant license and problem is solved) or 2) We need to check all the files manually and in that case I hope someone will help check them manually. I will try to update the list from at least once per day untill it is gone. --MGA73 (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Can I upload this image of the plans for the new Carrara stadium?

I wish to upload an image of the plans for the reconstructed Carrara Stadium. The photo on the stadium's wikipedia page is outdated as all the old grandstands have now been demolished and the new stands are in the process of being built. So a updated pic is warranted and in the public interest. I also would like to use this updated pic in my stadia summary for the new Australian rules football club knockout competition starting this year.

The image of the new stadium plans has been used numerous times in the Australian media over the past year or so and also exists on the austadium website - http://www.austadiums.com/stadiums/photos/carrara5.jpg - so I'm not sure who owns or has the rights to the image.

Any help/suggestions with what to do to satisfy copyright issues when uploading it to Wikipedia would be much appreciated.

Cheers, Mtiges (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

That will be a problem. Someone must own the copyright, so the only way to use it would be under the non-free use criteria, which will itself be a problem as someone could take a picture of it and release it under a suitable license. – ukexpat (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

After some further investigation, the image appears to come from the contractor Watpac who in charge of the redevelopment's construction - http://www.watpac.com.au/skins/WatPac/Images/Projects/GCS_ariel_140410.JPG. The pic is listed on the following page - http://www.watpac.com.au/Projects.aspx - as well on the stadium redevelopment's project sheet. As this pic I wish to upload is an architectural drawing of what the stadium will look like, if someone later on takes a photo of the actual stadium when its construction is all finished and uploads it to wikipedia then that photo can replace this pic of the planned stadium and wikipedia can delete it. Is that okay? Mtiges (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Help with Image

If you go to the page I've been trying to update Cardinal Gibbons School you'll see the logo I uploaded earlier today. I'm new to working on pages here. I found a logo from my school from the old website (the school is shut down now) and was wishing to make the page appear more pleasant by adding a logo. Can you advise on what I have to do since it said I'm missing a tag. Did I upload the picture in the wrong way? or did I not do something correctly? What do I need to do to fix the problem? Wberkey (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I added the {{Non-free logo}} tag to the image info page. Non-free logos need that template and {{logo fur}}. – ukexpat (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you!! Wberkey (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Spartan7W has been uploading images to Commons that they have taken from the Cessna.com website. They have been uploaded with an incorrect copyright status. Cessna does allow fair use, but I believe their notification, reproduced below, is incompatible with Wikipedia. Unfortunately I don't deal with Commons so I can't take action on the images myself.

"By using the Cessna Media Gallery ("CMG") page, you agree to the following in addition to Cessna's standard terms of use: All images and textual, graphical and other content appearing in the CMG, unless otherwise noted, are and shall remain the sole property of Cessna Aircraft Company or its assigns and are subject to copyrights and other intellectual property protections under applicable common law, U.S. statutes, and international laws and treaties. All such rights in the content of the CMG are reserved. You may view, copy, print, download and use content contained in the CMG solely for your own personal use and provided that: (1) the content available from this Web Site is used for informational and non-commercial purposes only; (2) no text, graphics or other content available from this Web Site is modified in any way; (3) no graphics available from this Web Site are used, copied or distributed separate from accompanying text; (4) you will not use the content in any way that is misleading, that falsely suggests the existence of a business relationship between you and Cessna, that is derogatory, disparaging, or which displays Cessna, its products, employees, affiliates or representatives in a negative light and (5)Cessna may, at any time and in its sole discretion, revoke its authorization for you to use the content and may require you to immediately cease using that content. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel or otherwise any license or other grant of right to use any patent, copyright, trademark or other intellectual property of Cessna Aircraft Company or any third party, except as expressly provided herein. Any other use of the content contained in this site is expressly prohibited without the express, prior, and written consent of Cessna Aircraft Company or its assigns. " Canterbury Tail talk 02:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think they've got everything covered: the license is revokable, only permits non-commercial use, and forbids derivative works. I don't think they can make the images any less allowed on Wikipedia without switching to "all rights reserved". --Carnildo (talk) 04:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I've tagged all the images that were not already tagged for deletion as having no permission. ww2censor (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Right Livelihood

In further to my earlier query archived here, I had emailed Right Livelihood on the possibility of them releasing a few images under PD. I received a reply today stating the follows:
.... We could state that they are free to use as long as they are used in the context of our laureates' work or in the context of the foundation, in this case modifications are allowed, too, as long as they do not add or take away important features of this pic. .... But I suppose this is not what you need to use them on Wikipedia, right?
Is this of any use on Wikipedia? Help on this is issue is appreciated. Cheers --Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 13:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

That is not sufficient. A release must be a release for all purposes not just for particular articles or uses. – ukexpat (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 07:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Public domain question

I have a question about public domain images. I read somewhere that any reproduction of an image or object within the public domain is governed under the same rules as the original image or object. What if I were to scan an image created in (for example) 1880 from a book from 2000? Would the image I scanned be public domain because the original was created in 1880, or would permission from the copyright holder for 2000 book need to be obtained? Also, is any scan of an official U.S. government creation public domain? For instance, is a scan of a coin with a plain background and no alterations public domain, no matter when it was taken? I ask because I see many interesting PD images in books and the internet, but I'm not sure if they are allowed or not. Thanks in advance for reading my long-winded question!-RHM22 (talk) 03:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  • If the reproduction of the old image is faithful, then it is still public domain. and you are free to copy it. Even some derivatives may be trivial, eg change of contrast, cutting, resizing, so you can freely reproduce those too.
  • If it is realy the work of the US government, then a reproduction will have PD-USgov apply. For scanning a 3D object, there will be a new copyright created, so for coins we count an image as if it had a new copyright. Some web sites add a watermark that has a copyrights, so you be sure not to reproduce that sort of thing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! That information is exactly what I was looking for.-RHM22 (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Somebody left me a boilerplate message about Rainbowheart.gif.

This picture is of the Encyclopedia Dramatica Vox Dramatica Award, which I won in October 2010. It was awarded to me, and I have a right to display it. I wanted to add some color to my page. Trust me, nobody at ED will care. I have no idea how to navigate the huge amount of instructions on Wikipedia. I'm guessing it's a logo. Really, it's just an image of an award I received. I doubt anyone at ED would care. I quit writing for them after I got the award, BTW. PBF1974 (talk) 04:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a goal producing reusable content. Therefore Wikipedia distinguishes two kinds of content: Free (i.e. content that can be reused by anyone for anything) and Non-free. Free content can be used on Wikipedia for any encyclopedic purpose, but as a matter of policy non-free content can be used only under these restrictions. Among the restrictions, non-free content can’t be used on user pages. The ED copyright statement (encyclopediadramatica.com/Encyclopedia_Dramatica:Copyright) says “You may not copy, modify or redistribute the material found herein for any reason, at any time in accordance with law”; so clearly their content is non-free. But even if they gave permission for use on Wikipedia (which apparently they do not), it wouldn’t matter (as long as they don’t allow it to be reused by anyone for anything): It's non-free so it can't be used on a Wikipedia user page. Sorry. —teb728 t c 10:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I see somebody has a photograph taken in 1890 posted on Flickr. They've marked the photo as copyright reserved, but to my understanding the image was already in the public domain because it was taken in 1890 and they can't slap their own new copyright on it (unless they altered it in some artistic way that made it original again, but that's not the case here). That would be like me taking a photo of the Mona Lisa, posting it on Flickr, and saying that I own the copyright to the Mona Lisa, right? So despite the fact that somebody claimed copyright on Flickr, isn't this image in the public domain? --Fife Club (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be the default action of flickr, to say all rights reserved. If the image was never published before, it may still have copyright, so check into that, but otherwise if it was Public Domain before, reintroducing on flickr does not make it non public domain. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Licence - attribution question

Research site http://reference.findtarget.com/ is using Wikipedia articles to populate it's site, but is claiming the opposite in the attribution - "Article featured on Wikipedia". Is this a breach of licence ? Thanks, -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 20:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue that I see is that it is just giving blanket attribution to Wikipedia. In cases such as Kirk Douglas there is zero indication of the licenses and/or attribution for the images and their links don't go to the Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons description page/s, it simply goes directly to the image. That part is a clear breach of license terms, and the standard disclaimer on every page that says "additional terms may apply" doesn't cut it. However, in the larger picture, as long as Wikipedia has provided the correct details many feel there is no further requirement for "us" to do anything because "we" can't control what every end use does with what they obtain here. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

File:MississippiHall at NEMCC.jpg and File:YarberHall at NEMCC.jpg question

This file is from the college's website and is used for publicity purposes. It was taken by the Public Information Office for that purpose. What Licensing information is required if any?

These files are being used to add additional interest to the article Northeast Mississippi Community Collge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdnichols (talk • contribs) 23:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Based on the source, which currently seems to be a website under construction, there is no copyright information listed. That does *not* mean these images are free, so until their copyright can be verified all one could do is claim fair use - but such use would fail Criteria one of the policy as they could be freely replaced. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Old Recordings question

Is the music of Amedee Ardoin, who died in November 4, 1941, in public domain this November? Since the recordings were before 1978 copyright expires 70 years after his death if not renewed after 28 years right? Also, if the recordings were taken from a modern day CD, they'd still be in public domain, because even though it has been "remastered", it hasn't been changed in an artistic way. I want to see what the rules on this are. Thank you Michael miceli (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Normally the copyright would expire on 1 January the following year, but sound recordings are more complex, and you also have to consider copyright of lyrics and music as well. The copyright is owned by the person recording the music rather than the performer, but the performer may have additional rights too. So you will have to know who did the original recording, and what law applied. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I would think the lyrics are in public domain because they are traditional and weren't written by the performer but have been around for many years prior. Thanks for the info. I'll look up the recorder and see what I can find.Michael miceli (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

File Permission for File:Srimanta sankardeva kalakshetra.JPG

Hi.This is to inform that the File:Srimanta sankardeva kalakshetra.JPG is my own creation, has been clicked by me, and has not been uploaded on any source other than Wikipedia. I had already endowed Wikipedia with all rights to usage of this file. I request you to grant permission to this file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killerdove (talk • contribs) 05:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  • If that is the case then please fill in all the missing details to the information template that has been added to the image, i.e., description, source, date image was taken and source. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 06:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Added. Thanks Killerdove 08:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killerdove (talk • contribs)

Image help

Hey all,

I'm trying to determine the whether I can use this image of Binayak Sen. I'm having difficulty attributing it. Perhaps someone with more experience than myself might take a look at this?

Many thanks in advance, NickCT (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Very confusing message

Somebody is telling me that I can't release my copyright of a small advertising statue for use on Wikipedia (and anywhere else, under a Creative Commons license) because the advertising statue itself is copyrighted. What should I do? The instructions are not at all clear. http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=File:1984-Big-Boy-Hamburger107.jpg&curid=20404097&diff=405954584&oldid=382559049 Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you own the copyright on the statue itself? If so you can grant a license on an image that you made of it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
From, the {{derivative}} tag: For example, a photograph that includes a two-dimensional image or statue created by another person is a derivative work of that statue (unless covered by Freedom of panorama or de minimis exemptions). The Non-free content policy may allow this file to be used under the doctrine of fair use in some circumstances depending on the scope of use. If fair use is not claimed, or an assertion that the work depicted is free is not provided, this image may be deleted. For more information, see Wikipedia's FAQ on derivative works or the Wikimedia Commons page on derivative works.
In other words you took a photo on a copyrighted statue that you do not own the copyright (or trademark) on. (Big Boy and Bob's Big Boy are registered trademarks of Big Boy Restaurants International LLC. SOURCE: http://www.bigboy.com) Soundvisions1 (talk) 11:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I get that, but is it not fair use to make a photograph that illustrates a WP article on the subject? Surely I have seen such use in WP in other articles. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The image is being used in Big Boy (restaurant) which is an article about the restaurant organisation and not about the statue. If the article was about the statue itself then you could make a fair-use claim to use the image in that article but no such article exists and I doubt such an article could be supported by reliable sources nor would it likely be notable enough. ww2censor (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  • In other words, what ww2censor, said is even if you make a fair use claim for the image it would fail to Wikipedia policy requirements do such use. And in direct response to the such image in other articles - it depends on the article and it depends on the use. Also there are numerous images that have slipped by without being noticed/tagged as a {{derivative}} work. Aslo if you compare your picture to File:BobsBigBoy Burbank.jpg you can see a difference - in your image the statue is the main element. In the other the statue is just a very small part of the overall image so it is not an issue. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Picture of game board

This game board photo File:Sergeant_Preston_Game_04.jpg (as others I looked at) make no mention of the game board being copyrighted. But, I found several photos of the game box having an original copyright from the game's manufacturer (e.g. File:2007-0601-SquareMile.jpg). Why would you not need to do the same for the game board photo. What is the correct way to show a copyright for a photo of a game board. I had a photo removed from the Tank Battle board game recently. --Dpnew (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes this board will have a copyright, so the photo is a derivative, and may be able to be used under fair use, but as it stands it is a copyright infringement. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Sowell photo

I am curious if File:Thomas Sowell.jpg is a keeper. It illustrates a notable subject, but it is of a living person and it has an unknown copyright status. Any help?

You have said it yourself. The subject is still alive so we assume a replaceable image can be made and the source is useless as it does not lead us to any copyright information that confirms its status either way. Until we can confirm it is freely licenced, which I doubt, it has to go and clearly fails WP:NFCC. ww2censor (talk) 05:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Concur with Ww2censor. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Old book cover

File:Armed_Services_Edition_UnprocessedHuckleberry_Finn_&_Country_Lawyer.jpg

Since I'm uploading my own photo of my own copy of a 67 year old book, I think PD is the proper copyright tag. Other possibilities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollisbrown (talk • contribs) 15:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

  • It being your own copy of the book doesn't transfer rights to you. We have to know what the copyright status of the book is, and 67 years old isn't enough to place it in the public domain automatically by way of age (though it might be PD by other means). I've removed the {{PD-link}} license that was on the image, as it was invalid, and tagged it for deletion as missing a license. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I would direct your attention to: File:Stout-NQDE-3.jpg

Virtually all of the rationale which applies to this image is applicable here. Additionally, the image I've uploaded is a photo of a book in the middle of its manufacturing process--the image's purpose is to illustrate that process, not to recreate any author's work.

Further, the original publisher of the books, The Council on Books in Wartime, was dissolved in 1947.

Further, the mandate of The Council on Books in Wartime was to educate and entertain American service personnel during WWII--they never had any intention to profit from the free distribution of these books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollisbrown (talk • contribs) 18:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

  • That an organization no longer exists does not mean copyrights expire. That's a mistake a lot of people make, so don't feel too bad. Whether or not they intended on profiting from their work is really not of a concern. That still doesn't vacate any copyrights. Plenty of non-profit agencies copyright their works. Just because they don't intend on profiting doesn't mean they don't want to protect their work from others doing so. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I have been referred to this page to ask a question about a logo: File:FirstGroup.svg. I was wondering what everyone thought about whether the logo is not sufficiently original to be copyrighted. I personally think the f in a circle is quite original. However, I am often surprised at what else isn't sufficiently notable, so with the advice of someone I thought I'd ask here. Thanks for any help. Arriva436talk/contribs 16:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Photos were removed

I created a page about a musician and had uploaded their own photos (with their permission). I retrieved the photos from their own website. A month or so later, the photos were removed.

I tried searching on how to fix this but many of the advice I found were difficult to understand (such as topics on licensing etc).

The photos I used are their own work. What sort of licensing should I use? How should I fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harpfans (talk • contribs) 17:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Photographs taken by a deceased relative

Hi, got a question regarding this topic. I've recently come across a shoebox of photographs taken by a relative just prior to WW2, of an event of some historical significance (vagueness intentional, but we do have an article on this event). The relative in question died in the 1970s. Are these photos usable on Wikipedia under any terms? Thanks! ArakunemTalk 17:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Are you the rightful heir of the photographic works? If so, you can release the images under a free licenses, uploading them and tagging them with {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} for example. You can upload them to Commons if you are releasing them under a free license. Note that such release is irrevocable usually. See Commons uploading (must be logged in to Commons). --Hammersoft (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't know the answer to that, so for purposes of discussion I would say I am not. Also, I understand the licensing ramifications of owned images, but my prior comment would appear to render that irrelevant. Would fair-use apply in such a case? I don't think NFCC applies, but I may be wrong there too. ArakunemTalk 19:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Forum Administrator,

I got a message telling me I need to show copyright. I created a graph using MS Excel and then converted it to JPEG. I am unsure which copyright I need to select.

[[1]]

Thank you.

Sincerely,

bigbenboa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigbenboa (talk • contribs) 01:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Please pick a free copyright license such as {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}} and add that template to the file page. This will mean you grant permission for any use to be made and derivatives to be made, but you must be attributed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Proper tags and licensing for photos

I created a wikipedia page regarding a musician and used pictures (that are her own and approved by her) and uploaded it on the wikipedia article. How should I properly tag the photo so that I can upload it to the page.


Information of the photos:

Photos were retrieved (saved and copied) from the musician's own website. Photos were taken with her permission. When uploading it to Wikipedia, what proper tagging should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harpfans (talk • contribs) 07:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You should have the owner of the copyrighted image contact the OTRS team and verify that they wish to release their images under licensing that is suitable for use on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:IMAGE#Requesting_images_from_others. Active Banana (bananaphone 07:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Iim_sri_Lanka.jpg copy right

Iim_sri_Lanka.jpg copy right is University of Colombo.So how to add it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayubowan (talk • contribs) 07:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I am guessing that you did not take the photo? You should have the owner of the copyrighted image contact the OTRS team and verify that they wish to release their images under licensing that is suitable for use on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:IMAGE#Requesting_images_from_others. Active Banana (bananaphone 07:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

"No known copyright restrictions" - what does this mean?

I am interested in a few images from Flikr Commons but almost all of them are tagged as No known copyright restrictions. For example this image which doesn't even have a clear date (1930 to 1939). I tried to search through the archives about this kind of licence, but ended up even more confused. Can somebody please clarify if images like this can be used on Wikipedia? Cheers --Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 09:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It means that the Museum thinks that the file public domain. Instead of saying it they say "Wo do not know of any Copyright restriction." Generally You can upload them to Commons with a tool (for example http://toolserver.org/~bryan/flickr/upload ) unless you have reason to believe that the museum made a mistake.
Files from Flickr should always be uploaded to Commons unless the file is uploaded as fair use. If you upload them to Commons they will be reviewed and protected from deletion if the Flickr user changes the license. If you upload manually on Commons make sure to add a {{flickrreview}} to make sure the file is reviewed. --MGA73 (talk) 10:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks --Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 14:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Use of images in my book

Iam writing a book- i found some pictures of faces on a site/public domain site- if i alter the picture in someway_ex. blue eyes instead of black- or half of the face versus the entire face- can i use it without being sued by the copyrighted owner? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.146.199 (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry we cannot help you - this page is for questions relating to copyright issues on Wikipedia. We cannot give you legal advice about copyright issues relating to your book. – ukexpat (talk) 00:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

On the Internet troll article, several people would like to use the "trollface" image, which was created and copyrighted by "Whynne" but is a common internet meme. I am copying pasting a question from Talk:Troll_(Internet)#Troll_face.3F:

I sent a message to the creator of the troll face. (Whynne on DevianArt). I sent this:

"Hey can I add the trollface to the Internet meme article at wikipedia? I need your authorization. What is the license of the image? Creative Commons, Public Domain, Copyrighted but allowed for commercial use, etc Thanks"

and he replied:

"Copyrighted, I have to explicitly lease it for commercial use, as I have done with DeviantArt. Go ahead and use the image though."

So this is the classic example of "valid for wikipedia/non-commercial use". So we can't upload the troll face to WikiCommons. Still, the guy said the has no problems with it being on Wikipedia, and I believe the image is a _must_ of the troll article. You can almost understand the meaning of trolling just by looking at the image. I think it falls under Fair Use (and in that way it can be included in the article). What do you think? --Neo139 (talk) 06:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Could some expert advise on whether this is ok to upload as a Wikipedia file and if so what license to use? betsythedevine (talk) 12:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, the image has now been uploaded under (I hope) the right license and is in use on the article. betsythedevine (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Photo used on Wikipedia from Flickr without the proper license or owner's consent.

Hi there

I'm all new to this so I am not sure if I am posting my question on the right place. Apologies if not.

The thing is: I am an amateur photographer and I upload my pictures to Flickr and I choose All Rights Reserved as license for them. However, I have a found one of my photos in a page on Wikipedia. This photo on flickr has a watermark which was removed/erased by the person who put it on Wikipedia. So I would like to know what are the procedures to have my photo removed from Wikipedia as it was used without any consent. The photo in question is this...http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgley_cesar/3352951103/ while the Wikipedia page where it is being used is this (and in other languages too) http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Jo%C3%A3o_Pessoa

Thank you in advance for any helpful answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eacesar (talk • contribs) 00:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Note - original image for composite is on commons at File:Orla.jpg MilborneOne (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I've tagged both the 5-image and single shot image as copyvios on Commons. They likely will be removed soon. --MASEM (t) 00:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Good they were found and deleted. Files from Flickr should always be uploaded to Commons (if not fair use of course) because that way license can be reviewed. But will only work if uploader does not claim own work - sadly it is hard to find out if they so. --MGA73 (talk) 11:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

File:127HoursCover.jpg

This image is a cover art of an album which does have a Non-free media use rationale in wikipedia. But I'm constantly reverted whenever I add this image to the article 127 Hours (soundtrack). Kindly inform me why this image fails to be there in wiki.Arfazph (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Uhm, am I right that the only thing wrong with File:127HoursCover.jpg’s non-free use rationale is that they didn’t change the article name when they split out the soundtrack article: 127 Hours → 127 Hours (soundtrack)? I made that change; it is unbelievable that nobody did it before me. —teb728 t c 10:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The Wand Factory

Holly and Strawberry Do Some Magic Pratice When Ben and Barnaby and Play Too She Broke Her Wand and Must Go To The Great Elf Tree To Get It Fixed Ĥó —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.11.203.107 (talk) 15:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

SkySports.com image

What are the copyrights for this images? File:Messi 2524516 (resized).jpg and File:Messi 2524516.jpg source: http://www.skysports.com/gallery/stream/0,20502,11833,00.html, page 2. Taro (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

They are copyright and have been deleted as copyvios, see the copyright notice on the page you linked to (© 2011 BSkyB).  – ukexpat (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I received this message:

Thanks for uploading File:WEAU twitter icon.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

What is the appropriate tag to use for this logo? (The logo is the current logo of this television station.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1986q (talk • contribs) 21:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

{{non-free logo}} - I added it for you. Non-free logos need that template and {{Logo fur}}. – ukexpat (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Jialingpus footprints.jpg

I have uploaded this image (File:Jialingpus footprints.jpg) from a foreign wikipedia, see the file page for a link. The copyright status says 'copyrighted but use of the file for any purpose is allowed'. Unfortunately I still don't know how to tag it. Please help. Toothless99 talk to me (View my Contributions) 09:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You didn't need to upload it here at all, since it apparently is already on Commons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I changed the article to use the version on Commons and tagged the file {{NowCommons}}. —teb728 t c 11:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Metro_Manila_8.jpg

I got my image File:Metro_Manila_8.jpg from flickr. Please help. --Mervynbunique (talk) 10:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for asking here. Can you please provide a link to the image page on Flickr, so we can check its copyright status as declared there? Please note that most images on Flickr are not free, so there's some likelihood we'll have to delete it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Im sorry. I dont have the link anymore and its hard to find. So I'll delete it ok? --Mervynbunique (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, yes, that'll be the best thing for now then. I'll delete it for you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Image Tagging Bot

The Image Tagging Bot posted these notices to my talk page about three images I uploaded. All are tagged with {{OTRS pending}} tags, indicating that license issues are being solved by email with the OTRS team. Why is the bot tagging the images as without licenses when the OTRS pending tags already make this perfectly clear? I would have asked at the bot's talk page, but its user page says to ask here. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The images dont have a licence which is why the bot has acted, although permission is being sent through OTRS the images should still have a licence to let us know what licence is applicable. As you have sent the emails then you should be able to add public domain or whatever to the image page. The OTRS email will confirm the licence which may be difficult if you dont qoute one. MilborneOne (talk) 15:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what the license will be, I'm not the copyright holder. However, if you look at the standard email requested at WP:CONSENT you will see that the wording includes explicit statement of the license from the copyright holder, so I don't forsee the situation being difficult for the OTRS volunteer to handle. Indeed, I was advised by the OTRS volunteer to upload the images myself; apparently it is more efficient than asking the OTRS volunteers to spend time uploading, which makes perfect sense to me. It strikes me as a waste of time and effort for a bot to tag images and notify uploaders when an OTRS pending notice is present. It's not as if the OTRS volunteer who handles the ticket is going to need bot-prompting to check that the license named in the email matches that shown on the image page. Further, an uploader who tags images as OTRS pending does so knowing the licensing for use was incomplete - I mean, isn't that a necessary consequence of an OTRS pending tag? I certainly didn't need a bot to tell me the obvious. Now, if a bot checked whether an OTRS pending image was used in article space, that might be a useful check. For the record, I will not be moving the article in which these images appear into article space until the license issues are resolved. But, with a pending tag present, why doesn't the bot just leave the matter to the OTRS team? EdChem (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Because as I explained the image has not got a licence so nothing wrong with the bot. Not sure about your statement I don't know what the license will be as the uploader you must have a good idea what the licence is so it would not be difficult to add as presumable you already have seen the email as it should be copied to you as well as being sent into the OTRS system. The bot is working fine, the OTRS is confirmation of the licence that is already on the page. MilborneOne (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I accept your explanation that the bot is functioning as designed. I am suggesting that the design is flawed, because tagging an image as incompletely licensed when it is already carries a tag the necessary consequence of which is that the license is incomplete is redundant, and notifying the uploader who tagged it in the first place is somewhere between pointless and irritating. In an effort to remain constructive, I am further suggesting that checking whether such images are actually used in article space might be a useful task, but tagging them with a redundant tag is not. As for the content of emails between myself, the copyright holder, and the OTRS team, these communications occur off-wiki for good reason and I am not going to discuss speculation of what they contain. EdChem (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I have a basic misunderstanding of what the OTRS system does, you get an email with permission, you upload the image, you add the OTRS pending and the licence information, the OTRS volunteer checks and adds the appropriate OTRS ticket number. You didnt have the licence info so the bot warned you. Nobody is asking for the contents of you emails to be revealed in toto but the licence is fairly fundemental and will be public knowledge when the OTRS is completed. So in my opinion the bot is functioning OK by warning you that you forgot the licence. Just in case my undertanding is flawed then I will leave this to others because we appear to be going round in circles, thanks MilborneOne (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Files should not be uploaded until you have a valid permission. Once you have a valid permission then you can upload the file, add a license. What if author says no and/or will not release it under a free license? --MGA73 (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  1. I got the images from the copyright holder.
  2. I uploaded folllowing a comment made by the OTRS volunteer handling the case.
  3. I remain of the view that what the bot is doing here is pointless and irritating, but apparently I am in a minority.
  4. I am going to continue following the directions from the OTRS team irrespective of what a bot may claim I am doing wrong.
EdChem (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I am an OTRS team member, although mostly inactive these days. Next time, please wait until you have confirmation from the copyright holder about the specific license before sending in the OTRS request. {{OTRS pending}} means, "I've already sent in the necessary information and now I'm just waiting for it to be verified by an OTRS team member". However, your current course of action is, "I've contacted the copyright holder and they will talk to the OTRS team, and it's probably going to be OK, but I can't say for sure". I hope that makes the distinction clearer. howcheng {chat} 20:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Obama birth announcement

Hi, I'd like to add the "Obama birth announcement" image from this article (the newspaper clipping near the bottom) to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Can I fair use this, or do I have to get permission? --JaGatalk 21:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

According to the Star Advertiser's webpage at http://www.staradvertiser.com their content is copyrighted so the only way would be to make an argumnent that it meets all of the non-free content criteria. – ukexpat (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
{{PD-text}} might be applicable but these were never a specialty. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Ukexpat. Also, I don't know that it would pass muster under WP:NFCC. The content can be replaced noting that an announcement appeared in the paper about the birth, with a citation pointing to the source you noted. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
A scan of the birth announcement would be excellent addition to such and article IMHO. Considering that it shut up my aunt who was a birther. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I was never a birther, but that definitely removed any doubt for me. I tried contacting the Advertiser a couple of weeks ago and got no response. --JaGatalk 23:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
For the more extreme birthers it's just evidence of an even bigger conspiracy to deceive the electorate, dating back to his birth . – ukexpat (talk) 23:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC) (cannot vote in the US, not a birther)
naw ah... it just proves time travel exists ;-) The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe that newspaper copyright carries within it the copyrights of the advertisements (this is one) within it without separate copyright notice needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The newspaper would own a collection copyright on the assemblage of ads, but the individual text of the ad would be copyright to the original writer. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
So I would have to track down two permissions - one from the paper, the other from (I suppose) the hospital? --JaGatalk 20:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
If you trimmed off the other ads then newspaper copyright would not apply, but that may not prove the point! The ad could be considered to ahve been published without a copyright notice, whtever that means. I think you could make a case for fair use though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, the image from the article (near the bottom) is already trimmed, so good news there. I hate to ask for hand-holding, but I really want to get this right - and I'm sure it will be scrutinized. Could someone recommend an image I should follow to set up the fair use arguments properly? --JaGatalk 07:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll work that part out. Now according to this, those adverts were sent to two Hawaii newspapers by the Hawaii Department of Health - standard procedure at the time. Would that be public domain? Thanks, --JaGatalk 06:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

re-publishing photos from Wikipedia (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license)

This may sound like a simple question, but the answer is not at all clear from reading the information on the wikipedia website. We would like to use images from wikipedia for an e-learning website that we are developing. Images which are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license require us to "attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor". Since there is apparently no way to contact the photographer directly, what does this mean in practice? A simple link to the uploader's wikipedia page (e.g. Photo by "Gnsin")? Naklingua (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

  • The text of the creative commons licenses tells what is required. You will need to state somewhere what the license is with a link to the creative commons web site, the attribution will have to be somewhere, naming them, with a link to the original Wikipedia page of the image should be good enough. There is no need to contact the author, unless you want to do something different, such as publish without attribution. The idea of creative commons is to make it easy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have read this text but without a sample credit line it is not clear how I should word the attribution. Would something like this be sufficient then: "Photo from <wikipedia page> reproduced under a Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license"? We do not have much space for a lengthly attribution text. Naklingua (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Great, that would be more convenient. By the way, I have noticed that many websites credit wikipedia when republishing public domain images taken from wikipedia pages. Is this necessary or can such images simply be used without any tag? Naklingua (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Public domain images can be used without any tag. However, just because there is a tag of public domain doesn't necessarily make it so - images on the commons should give the original source for determing if it truly is in the public domain (e.g., a book published before 1923). If the image is tagged as in the public domain erroneously, by referencing the source you can somewhat indemnify yourself from claims that you were irresponsible in case of litigation. Also, giving the appropriate credit is a courtesy and is encouraged since this might lead more people to things like the wikimedia commons where they can use images, and contribute as well. --Quartermaster (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Image use question

Need a photo of Red Ingle (deceased) for his WP page. Is the one at these Internet Archive links suitable, and if so, since I see no license information there, how should it be licensed here?

Archive Red Ingle Media Page

Archive Photo Link

Thanks, We hope (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't see any license info either. However, if you go to this Internet Archive xml link (save it and open with a text editor if you have problems) you can find the email address of the original uploader. --Quartermaster (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
After a little further research it looks like the photo in question appears in a number of blogs and other locations, none of which have any attribution, so I'm not sure the original uploader to the Archive can give much info. --Quartermaster (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Think I've seen the photo at his Find A Grave page and am leaning to the Archive uploader not being the original source of the image. Is it able to be used "as is" from the Archive for an infobox? We hope (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Use of maps from Brazilian organization

I cannot locate any information about copyright or licensing of the maps on this website. http://www.centrodametropole.org.br/index.php?section=content&subsection_id=4&content_id=74&language=en_us

They are very useful for articles about São Paulo on Wikipedia. Can someone take a look and see if there is a way to upload these? Thanks!! jsfouche ☽☾Talk 00:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a logo for Waukesha South High School, in Waukesha Wisconsin (USA) that I'd like to add to the Waukesha South High School wiki page. This logo is not copyright protected, and is obtained from their school web site. Their school is a public school, and dores not copyright their content and the logo is not copywrite protected. The logo is over 70 years old. How do I upload this file?

The page containing the logo is: http://www.waukeshasouth.com/departments/library/otherlibraries.shtml

The file on that page is: http://www.waukeshasouth.com/departments/library/blackie.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHillmer (talk • contribs) 04:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the logo is copyright protected unless the school has officially released their copyright (possible, but unlikely). Active Banana (bananaphone 04:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
And the fact that the bird fails to appear anywhere on the actual school website leads me to question the claim of "official" logo. Active Banana (bananaphone 05:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Image from the Library of Congress - PD or not?

Hi, I wonder whether or not this image of Judge Julian Mack (c1912) is in public domain. It's stated under 'Rights Advisory' that "No copyright restriction known for government issued photographs for for images copyrighted more than 75 years ago" - but on the other hand, under 'Notes' they mention "Copyright by Harris & Ewing, Washington, D.C.". What's the bottom line then? Thanks, Aviados (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Well if it was published before 1923 in the US it is public domain, and this looks to be so. You should be able to examine the copyright record number listed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, so it probably IS public domain. But if I want to make sure - where and how can I examine its copyright record number? (which is what, J168549?) Aviados (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
See http://books.google.com.au/books?id=xg8DAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA230&lpg=PA230&dq=J168549&source=bl&ots=mNLQYXEtoX&sig=dvmGlKgSkAv8m7qCRn1g7turVZM&hl=en&ei=ig4sTbGRG5GevQOatrG_CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false your picture is registerd March 18 1912, definately expired. Found in Catalog of copyright entries: Works of art. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I see.. Thank you very much! Aviados (talk) 10:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Public Domain and User question

Hi, File:Mary Seacole Drawing.jpg this picture remains in Public Domain, the User is Liftarn. I need to use it in a book, which is gonna appear as e-book version, print version on demand. In terms of commercial usage of downloaded picture of Mary Seacole from Wilkipedia, what do I need to know ab license conditions ab this specific image. Is the fact that the drawing is in PDomein enough, what user means in here - does he hold copyright of the drawing. What other clearences would I have to make, if any to use downloaded copy of drawing in book.

Same with File:Joseph Karl Stieler-Lola Montez1847.jpg Can I use downloaded copy from Wilkipedia in my commercial book or do I have to obtain permission from "Gallery of Beauties" in Munich, where the original is?

File:FrenchBattleOfTheAlma.JPG In case of this drawing, do I have to obtain permission from Encyclopedie Larousse or anybody else?

File:Black Sea map.png This map is created by its user for example and is GFDL licensed - which states that reusers are free to make copy,distribute, even commercially..how does it apply with regards to my book?

Many thanks for your help, Paulina —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.231.142.106 (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The idea of the material at commons or on Wikipedia is that no permission needs to be requested as it is already given or not needed. For those public domain items if you believe the statements you can use them freely. For the GFDL items you can read the GFDL license document, which will tell you that you can reproduce the item, and that you have to include the license and credit the author, which you could do in small print at the back of your book. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Public Domain and User question

Hi, File:Mary Seacole Drawing.jpg this picture remains in Public Domain, the User is Liftarn. I need to use it in a book, which is gonna appear as e-book version, print version on demand. In terms of commercial usage of downloaded picture of Mary Seacole from Wilkipedia, what do I need to know ab license conditions ab this specific image. Is the fact that the drawing is in PDomein enough, what user means in here - does he hold copyright of the drawing. What other clearences would I have to make, if any to use downloaded copy of drawing in book.

Same with File:Joseph Karl Stieler-Lola Montez1847.jpg Can I use downloaded copy from Wilkipedia in my commercial book or do I have to obtain permission from "Gallery of Beauties" in Munich, where the original is?

File:FrenchBattleOfTheAlma.JPG In case of this drawing, do I have to obtain permission from Encyclopedie Larousse or anybody else?

File:Black Sea map.png This map is created by its user for example and is GFDL licensed - which states that reusers are free to make copy,distribute, even commercially..how does it apply with regards to my book?

Many thanks for your help, 62.231.142.106 (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

According to the tags the first three are in the public domain because their copyrights have expired. If those tags are correct, nobody owns rights for which you need permission. The map is licensed under both GFDL and Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported. You choose one of the two licenses and then fulfill the terms of that license. —teb728 t c 00:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

What sort of language should I put down to indicate I received permission from the copyright holder? I've uploaded a picture of a painting by a deceased artist. The copyright is held by his family, who have extended permission to reproduce it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bverter (talk • contribs) 17:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You will have to state the nature of the license granted, and if it is permission to use on Wikipedia then the item will be deleted, as it has to be free for everyone, such as CC-BY-SA-3.0 license. You will have to explain who the original creator was, and who now owns the copyright and why, and then prove that the copyright holder has granted the license, since that person is not you. This can be done using the WP:PERMIT procedure. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

http://photogallery.indiatimes.com/parties/mumbai/zee-rishtey-awards-bash/Sharad-Kelkar/photo/5576168/Sharad-Kelkar.jpg

Hello There,

I would like to upload the subject image. Please assist me in the same as I do not know how to go about it.

Regards,

Tinasinster (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You have been told several times now. The answer is: don't upload it at all. There simply is no way "how to go about it." Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

this is a free image from an Advertising Leaflet with no limited problem from exact source diomil.ir but the source recently is unavailable & for this i need a bit help please!! (talk), 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The source you provided for File:Ababil 01.jpg shows a clear copyright notice and as you have not linked to the page the image is on, we cannot check your claim that the image is free. Also, most images found on websites and on advertising material are copyright to someone even if there is no copyright notice, so unless you can show evidence that the image is freely licenced I am sorry to tell you that we cannot use it here. ww2censor (talk) 04:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Copy Right - General knowledge found in "101" College Courses

There are quite a few graphs in Economics, including but not limited to, Cost Structure in a "Competitive"/"Monopolistic" Firm, Consumer Behavior with Budget Constraints, that are taught in the very first economics class (Economics "101" so to speak) that ars thought of as "General Knowledge" in the community of economics and financial professionals. Many of these items date back to Alfred Marshal, Adam Smith (the 'father' of modern economic thought). It is for this reason the professional financial community now treat such graphs (and even some statements) as "General Knowledge" that no longer need 'foot noting' in modern day college papers or classroom discussions. It is treated much like a graphical picture of a "Quadratic Function" in a College Algebra class; just common knowledge the origins of which do not matter in our modern day math discussions/writing (unless the class or book focused only on "the History of Mathdmatics" (in which we might discuss some people as Descarte or Euclid). In these cases college professors find it use less to "foot note" such "General Knowledge".

Yet I have been told that one of my graphs for economics, which only shows the "General Knowledge" associated with the "Cost Structure" of a firm, found in the basic "Theory of the Firm", dating back even to Alfred Marshal, needs a foot note. Yet, I did provide Foot notes of several "E phonics 101" text books that directly refer to these graphs!!

My question ismore of a statement; why is there a threat ofremoving these items on the basis of a lack of foot notes (see 'Monopoly profit' graphs)?? Especially when the bask graphs can befound in the college texts that are already foot noted in the articles?? This just does not make sense.


Please che k the quoted references in the articles. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgmwki (talk • contribs) 22:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia readers are not all economists and something that may be "common knowledge" among economists does not equate to common knowledge to the average person on the street. Our verification policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be properly footnoted. The content you wish to add has been challenged and thus needs a footnote no matter how "common knowledge" it is. But if it is, as you say, such common knowledge in every Econ 101 textbook, providing a reference shouldnt be very difficult. Try books.google.com. Active Banana (bananaphone 15:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Katrina Hodgkinson.jpg

I have just uploaded a photograph of Katrina Hodgkinson MP, (Katrina Hodgkinson.jpg) and I have been told it does not have the appropriate copyright notification and may be removed.

I work in Katrina's office and the photograph is a standard publicity shot which has been sent widely to many newspapers and published by them, and is also available from our website.

As the owners of the copyright in this office is happy to make this photograph freely available so I would appreciate your advice as to the correct code I should use to allow this photograph to be retained on her page?

Regards David white (user ID: burrinjuck) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrinjuck (talk • contribs) 01:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC) — Burrinjuck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hi David, we don't accept publicity photos just because they have been widely available for press purposes, we need such images to be freely licenced which most publicity images are not. While the image is on this webpage at a low resolution, the page carries a clear copyright notice which is why we must have the copyright holder of the image verify their permission to our OTRS team by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT after reading donating copyrighted materials. The image you mention above (that you uploaded) is called File:Hodgkinson portrait formal.jpg but the image Katrina Hodgkinson.jpg is already freely licenced commons image; it was perfectly good before you removed it from the article without any explanation as to why you replaced it. If you can get The Nationals NSW to send their us permission you can tell us here or tag the image with the {{OTRS pending}} template yourself. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 04:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
It should be noted that David has been editing his boss' article quite a bit. He's been given the standard conflict of interest warning, and I've tagged the article for COI concerns. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Jared Lee Loughner

What are the thoughts regarding the upload of File:Photograph of Jared Lee Loughner by Pima County Sheriff's Office.jpg? I have one source stating that it was handed out by the U.S. Marshals Service and another cited by the uploader that it was taken by the Pima County Sheriff's Office. Would the historic argument apply for non-free rationale in this case? KimChee (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Another discussion (now archived) was started about its fair use in more than one article. KimChee (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC) / 22:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated it for deletion. Active Banana (bananaphone 21:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Here is the deletion discussion for anyone who is interested. KimChee (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Trying to put a logo on the Waukesha South High School article

I requested the school logo for the Waukesha South High School, in Waukesha Wisconsin. My request was to the principal of the school, and he did provide a copy of the image to me via email. I posted a question last night to Wikipedia about how to upload this, and I was told that the school "probably didn't have a logo" because it was not prominent on their web site. I attended that school, and I knew that they used their mascot (Blackie, a red Cardinal with a blackshirt on it) as the school's logo. The email I have from him is listed below. This should suffice that it is their logo, and he is granting my permission to post it on Wikipedia. Right? The picture was in a PDF from Rachel Geiger.

From: Geiger, Rachel [<email removed>] Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 10:18 AM To: <email removed> Subject: FW: Waukesha South "logo"

Here's Blackie!

Rachel Geiger Principal's Secretary Waukesha South High School (P) 262-970-3705 (F) 262-970-3720

Original Message-----

From: Nowak, Mike Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 7:15 AM To: Geiger, Rachel Subject: FW: Waukesha South "logo"

Rachel, Can we forward a PDF of the Blackie logo?

Mike

Original Message-----

From: <email removed> <email removed> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 1:25 AM To: Nowak, Mike Subject: Waukesha South "logo"

I maintain the Waukesha South High School Band's web site for Mr Kammerer, so I get into how the internet works, and how social sites are referring to schools, and such. (I'm the one who does the Band's photography and video work, so you've seen me around)

Facebook is starting to make it easier to indicate which schools we all went to, and today I was told that I needed to update my Facebook account. The information was all optional, but it was easy to select that I attended Waukesha South, graduated in '76. Facebook pulls information about South from Wikipedia, which did not have too much information about South, compared to other schools. I started updating Wikipedia (yes, I'm into all of that too) but when it came time to providing a "logo" for South, I ran into problems. The Wiki people say we don't have a logo at South. I suggested our Blackie logo was the School logo, but because it's not on the School's pages, they disagreed with me, and would not let me make that association.

I'm sure you have other things that need more attention, but if you wanted to ask around, or delegate the question to anyone, I'd be happy to help establish the logo, or a logo, and/or help with the web pages too.

John Hillmer, Class of Waukesha South '76 Parent of Kimberlie(Senior) and Melissa(Freshman) Hillmer's at South

JHillmer (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Unless the school (or district) explicitly releases the image under a free license, and provides evidence of same to m:OTRS, then the logo of the school needs to used under terms of fair use, and must comply with all aspects of WP:NFCC. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

youtube

Hello! I added a youtube link in a page I edited. Found out Italianwiki does not permit it. What about Englishwiki? If necessary I'll take it out. Thank you. GreetingsQuiiiz (talk) 06:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

YouTube links are rarely reliable sources, and are often links to violations of copyright. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

wrong i thought this would work differently

Goodnight again. Sorry, but didn´t understand last sentence...Quiiiz (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to include a photograph of a living person in a biographical article. The photographer who is the sole owner of the photo seems willing to give up all rights except (possibly) attribution. I have sent him the Declaration of consent form found at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries. He now wants to know which of the Common free licenses at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Choosing_a_license#Common_free_licenses he should fill in. In fact, he said for me to fill in the appropriate license acronym myself and resend the form to him. Which acronym should I use? Do I also delete all the text beginning with "[choose at least one from this page", and ending with "UNLESS YOU FILL SOMETHING IN HERE ].", and just replace it all with the acronym. (And should the acronym be a link to a template like it is at Common free licenses.) Damn this stuff is complicated!--Foobarnix (talk) 06:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

  • It is complicated. Also, this is really a Commons question, and should be asked there. But, a good one to use is CC-BY-SA 3.0. That would allow for attribution, and the photographer retains copyrights, though anyone can use it for commercial and non-commercial purposes and create derivative works of it if they desire. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

User created montages and The Chronicles of Narnia

User:Walter Görlitz opposed the deletion of File:Narnia books.jpg, and has since claimed that we can revert back to the first version of that image that was uploaded. The image, at the time that it was deleted, was a user created montage of 7 covers in the Narnia series. This is of course discouraged by WP:NFC. Walter Görlitz continues to maintain that the first image that was uploaded, which was a photograph of the seven books together, constituted a reasonable image to use, and continues to maintain that we should be using that image. He has become insulting at the talk page of the article (Talk:The Chronicles of Narnia), calling me "confused" in one posting, and "delusional" in another. Further, he's added text to the infobox saying "no image is available of the entire collection because of copyright reasons", and including File:No image.png in place of the now deleted image [2]. I removed this verbiage because that is not the reason the image was deleted, and having such text in the infobox is inappropriate [3]. I was shortly reverted by him [4], after which I attempted to discuss the issue with him on his talk page User_talk:Walter_Görlitz#The_Chronicles_of_Narnia. However, he refuses to reverse the edit, and the article remains in that state. User:Walter Görlitz seems to feel that a user created photograph of a set of books somehow makes it more acceptable. More discussion at Talk:The_Chronicles_of_Narnia#File:Narnia_books.jpg. Some assistance, please. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Should images tagged with PD-font be recreated as SVG?

Recently I noticed that 128.107.239.233 added an {{SVG}} tag to the image description page for File:Softpedialogo.png. This image is tagged with {{PD-font}}, which says in part, "This does not apply to vector format images of fonts, such as SVG." So I removed the SVG tag, because we should not be requesting a non-free version of an image to replace a public-domain version. Later 128.107.239.233 restored it. I removed it a second time, but then thought better of it and decided I should ask whether my interpretation of the situation is correct.

As I understand it (see Patent and copyright protection of fonts#Copyright), the actual design of the glyphs in a font is uncopyrightable under United States law, but computer font files are copyrightable. This (I suppose) is the reason for saying that vector-format images of fonts are not automatically in the public domain. But perhaps I am carrying things a little too far—would an SVG version of the Softpedia logo be a "vector-format image of a font"? Maybe nine letters out of a typeface is not enough, so an SVG version of File:Softpedialogo.png would still fall under, say, {{PD-textlogo}}? Is the "vector format images of fonts" phrase meant to refer to things like File:FreeSerifDemonstration.svg, in which a substantial portion of the typeface is presented? (And where is the dividing line—why is File:ArialMTsp.svg okay, even though Arial is a proprietary typeface?) —Bkell (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Stade de la Mosson.JPG

File:Stade de la Mosson.JPG - I came across this image which is tagged with both a CC and fair use license, I don't know which one applies. Elfalem (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The website, http://mfe11.free.fr/, has a copyright notice on every page. Just because you can link to the photos directly does not mean they are public domain. QuentinUK (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I have uploaded an image that is free for use but it keeps telling me it has no copyright tag. Can you tell me what i am doing wrong? It's a picture on the Edinburgh Napier University page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amal1984 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The image in question is File:Sighthill-wiki.gif. Are you sure it's free to use? It looks like it was taken from conferenceguideuk.com, which says "© All Rights Reserved" at the bottom. —Bkell (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • You haven't provided any source for the image for one. It appears you took the image from this source. Everything's identical except the brightness has changed. Even the clouds are the same. You can't just take something you find on the Internet and upload it here. You don't have rights to that image. Edinburgh Napier University retains rights to the image. I've marked the image as a copyright violation. It should be deleted shortly. Please don't upload work that is not actually yours again, unless you fully intend on using it under terms of fair use and complying with all aspects of WP:NFCC in that use. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I've tagged both images as copyright violations and speedy deletable under WP:CSD#F9. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Both images were pathetically small and GIFs to boot. I have advised the Amal1984 to go to geograph for usable alternatives. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

File: Susanna Roxman in London.jpg

Hi,

It has been questioned whether Wikipedia can use a picture I have added to the article "Susanna Roxman". The picture is File: Susanna Roxman in London.jpg. The picture is uncopyrighted. The photographer has waived his copyright, for this particular purpose and for ever. It has been suggested that I may need a copyright tag. Please let me know how I can obtain one.

Also, I do hope the picture won't be removed. It took me literally hours to figure out how to add it at all. Also, it makes the page look much nicer and more professional.

Best wishes,

smilesofasummernight — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smilesofasummernight (talk • contribs) 14:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

PS I have just seen, from a previous discussion on the same topic/picture, that a copyright licence was, in fact, obtained on 28 October 2010. smilesofasummernight Smilesofasummernight (talk) 14:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect to the fine people who provide assistance here, I find that the response to Smilesofasummernight is not clear at all. I myself followed the links suggested and still have no idea exactly how to use the codes provided and/or suggested. The page after page of instructions are not fun to pore through at all. Oh, well, Smilesofasummernight, be of good cheer: You are not alone in your confusion; just take a deep breath and have at it!. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry you find the instructions to this to be less than clear. Wikipedia is always improving. I do note that copyright and licensing issues aren't simple. But, if there's a way to simplify things, then I'm all for the instructions being updated. The user uploaded the work, and apparently found the (what I think are) very thorough instructions unhelpful. So, I pointed to another set of instructions. If you can improve them, please do. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Making it simple, to achieve the waiver of all rights to your own picture, you add the {{PD-self|date=January 2012}} template to the image description page. There are more complications if it is not your picture or it was published somewhere else first, but this is the simplest case. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

File:SF Transamerica full CA.jpg

A photo of the Transamerica Pyramid does violate copyright, but does violate trademark rules. As the building is integral to the Transamerica trademark, it is protected by trademark rules. Transamerica itself has this page about the building expressing its trademark rights.

The Transamerica building is a common example of a place where architecture does not fall under rules of the public domain. DavidDouthitt  (Talk) 18:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Something can be ineligible for copyright and still be trademarked. Their building is a strong identifier for them, but images of that building can not be copyrighted. Such images might be subject to trademark regulations depending on how and where they are used, but they are able to be free licensed, regardless of what Transamerica wants. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Foreign photographs published by the US Navy

Hi, all. I need some help identifying the copyright status of a photo at the US Navy website (www.navy.mil). Now, I know that photographs taken by USN personnel while on duty and published are released into the public domain (per US copyright law and {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}). However, what about images produced by foreign personnel then published by the US Navy (online or otherwise)? The image I have in mind is http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=88829, (reference number 100710-O-XXXXX-127.jpg if the link doesn't work) which is credited as "(Australian Defense Forces photo/Released)", as opposed to the "(U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Jason Swink/Released)" of http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=88360.

This question was originally asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Foreign photos at Navy.mil...copyright status?, where the view is that the image is most likely still under Australian copyright, but its been suggested that I ask here as well to make sure. Thanks in advance. -- saberwyn 11:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Several US government websites display images provided to them by non-US government sources that may be under copyright. Clearly this image is attributed to the Australian Defense Forces so Australian copyright applies and US government public domain work does not apply. Australian government works are copyright for 50-years per commons:COM:L#Australia. The word "released" does not confer any indication of copyright status. In this case, without any indication to the contrary, it simply means the image was provided to the US Navy for their use. ww2censor (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Getting a license to upload images of screenshots from movie clips on Youtube to Wikipedia articles.

I have a pic of a screenshot from a video clip from a movie on Youtube I want to add to a Wikipedia article. I highlighted part of the pic to verify something for a Wikipedia article. What type of license do I need to upload it to a Wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavericker (talk • contribs) 11:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It depends on the copyright/licensing status of the YouTube clip of which your screenshot is a derivative work. (Since you say it is a “video clip from a movie,” I wouldn’t be surprised if the clip was itself a copyright violation.) But then it probably doesn’t matter because Wikipedia doesn’t publish original sources; that isn’t how we verify things on Wikipedia. Instead verification is based on references to reliable published sources. —teb728 t c 11:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Holocaust images

I have reverted several attempts to delete Holocaust images from articles, the latest ones being from the Auschwitz article. They appear to be orphan images from the War, and the people involved are long dead. Some have been taken from dead German soldiers belongings for example. They represent a critical part of the history and development of the Holocaust, and thus of very great historical importance. Since most if not all of the participants have long gone, they should surely be treated as copyright free and available for general use. I simply copied them from existing articles, so why is one editor attempting to block their wider usage? Peterlewis (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Just because the subjects are "long gone" does not make the images necessarily free. For example, in the US, if the photographer is known, the copyright on the work is 70 years after the photographer's death; so its unlikely a photo taken in 1940 has fallen into the public domain. Such images must meet WP:NFCC requirements for non-free content which includes minimal use and significant context to the reader. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Also note there is a technical requirement that when a non-free image is used on a page, it must have a valid rationale for each use, with the rationale specifically naming the page in question. The images that were removed appear to fail this. While this will not necessarily make the images 100% appropriate to use (as rationales can be challenged in efforts to maintain minimal non-free content), it will prevent their automatic removal from pages. See WP:RAT for how to write such things. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
My rational for their inclusion is quite clear: they illustrate key individuals in Holocaust history or events of the Holocaust. The images removed do not therefore fail the test of relevance. Their use is of very great importrance in showing how the Holocaust grew, and if we are to prevent further Holcuasts, it is vital that they be included. Peterlewis (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not going make any judgments on why you think the images are vital, but they are very likely still copyrighted (their licenses say they are) and thus we to follow non-free content policy and need you to include that rationale on the image page. That is, if you are talking about the images removed in this diff [5], and, for example, a specific image File:Glucks.jpg, you can see there's two rationales on that image's page, but neither of them are for the article Auschwitz concentration camp. For each image that is being removed, you need to create a new rationale on the image page that justifies the use on this article. This will prevent the images from being automatically removed under WP:NFCC#10c. This is required - we don't care exactly what that rationale is to prevent future automatic removals, just that the rationale for each use is at least present.
My caution to you, however, is that a poor rationale can be challenged. Rationales are meant to show why we should allow the use of non-free content, and if you don't justify this well, someone can determine the image use inappropriate and remove it manually. Historically, I've found the type of approach you've stated to be insufficient, but others may find it ok. The stronger case you can make in the rationale as to why to keep the image on the page, the better off you are. --MASEM (t) 14:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Image File:Acoustic-Nights-1-poster.jpg

I'm sorry but I truly don't understand how an image (File:Acoustic-Nights-1-poster.jpg) which is representative of the event and series of events described in the article http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Acoustic_Nights_Montreal , an image which comes from the website of that series of events (and which, as webmaster and pricipal contributor to the content I have built and maintain regularly) can be considered unrelated to the article and orphaned. Well, it surely became orphaned as a file when its inclusion on the wiki page was deleted, again something I simply do not understand the reasoning behind.

Maybe it's something to do with allowed use of the image as I defined it when I uploaded it. I don't see what that information is now since it's been deleted, but my concern is to avoid anybody defacing that image, using it for any nefarious purpose. So I most certainly don't undersand those settings or indeed the very place to which I was suppsoed to uplaod the image so that it may be used in the article. Why is it so complicated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webado (talk • contribs) 15:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see the above section about the Holocust images - your poster image is lacking a rationale to be used on that article and one needs to be added. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The image information from the edit summary has been added to display properly but the source webpage (that I added) clearly shows the content to be non-free as evidenced by the copyright notice at the bottom of the page. So because it is copyright image it must have a non-free copyright tag as well as a non-free rationale, but, if you are the copyright holder we need to know what copyright you are releasing it under and to do that you must comply with the procedure found at WP:PERMISSION or have the copyright holder to it. Either way, if you don't anything the poster will be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Arnold Weiss Photo

I am trying to obtain a photo of Arnold Weiss for his wikipedia page Arnold Weiss. I have talked to "TheCavalry" on #wikipedia-en channel on Freenode and he says it's in the public domain since the guy is deceased and if it's taken by the US Military (which I am unsure about), it still can be used on Wikipedia. The link to the photo is:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/02/world/02weiss.html?_r=2&hpw

I do not know when, where or by who the picture is taken. Any feedback would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 11:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone going answer my question/query? It would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 12:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
If we don't know who took the photo, or when it was published and where, then we cannot use it here as these will be undertainty if it is free. If someone can show it was taken by US military then PD claim is jsutified, so persue this option. Else you can claim a fair use since he is no longer living. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Kingdom of Loango article map + flag

Hello, could anyone instruct me on precisely how to determine the copyright status of the images in the Kingdom of Loango article? I provided links to the authors when I uploaded them, and the Wikipedia article about determining copyright status is very, very confusing.--Jonesy1289 (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Matt LeBlanc

File:MattLeBlancSummerTCATour.jpg

Matt LeBlanc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor uploaded the above image today. As far as I can tell, the image does not yet have licensing information and is being investigated. The same editor added the image to the LeBlanc article. I reverted it with an explanation in the edit summary about the image's problems. He reverted back. What now?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The page claims that OTRS is coming, so if it proven, the page can stay, otherwise the picture will be deleted as a copyvio. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Someone else removed the picture and so far the editor/uploader hasn't done anything. But if I understand you properly, the proper procedure is to allow the picture, even without licensing information, while the copyright is being researched? Wouldn't it make more sense to keep the picture out until it's been confirmed as legal? Also, if you look at the "source" of the picture, I think it said it was zimbio.com. However, when I looked at that website, it was hard to figure out whether the picture in fact came from there or whether they owned the copyright to the picture, but it made me believe there was less likelihood that the copyright was owned by the uploader. Finally, it now looks like the picture has been deleted, but I can't find the history of the deletion on Wikipedia or on Commons. Sigh, nothing is easy.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
If the OTRS is confirmed then the picture will be undeleted, or reloaded onto commons. It will be upto the emailler to notice and add the picture to the article, but if it is deleted, as for now it is no use in the article! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Facebook

User:Vinie007 has uploaded a number of footballer images (example File:Mario Morina.jpg, File:Rezart Dabulla.jpg) from facebook as publicity photographs with no terms. As living people I am sure they all fail NFCC#1 just wanted to check, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Even free media is not properly tagged in this geographical region for lack of proper copyright-legislation, thus it is hard to identify them. With this picture being made public by the Footballers, no copyright restriction is implied. If this manner will be forbidden, hardely no picture could be uploaded. Not many people in Albania has the luxory of a photo-camara that is good enough for picturing sport events --Vinie007 16:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • - I removed four or five of the non free pics that Vinnie had added to the infoboxes of living people as they are footballers and clearly a commons comparable pic could be found but he has replaced them. Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Albanian law provides for a copyright term of 70 years pma per commons:COM:L#Albania so Vinie007's claim that there is a lack of copyright legislation is inaccurate and if people don't tag free media properly is unfortunately a problem. You will need to research each image fully to find out its copyright status. These images are copyright to someone unless it can be proven, with verifiable evidence, they are freely licenced, besides which we don't accept fair-use images of living people because they fail WP:NFCC#1. Whether few people in Albania have cameras to take such images or not is an irrelevant argument. Someone can attend football matches and take image of these footballers while they are still alive. ww2censor (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
yeah sure. Than not, if you just can't stand 4 pictures of Albanian fotballers ok. Won't upload any more, thanks a lot Off2riorob and ww2censor --Vinie007 19:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
We are very happy to have freely licenced images of Albanian footballers uploaded but not ones whose copyright is unclear or clearly unfree. ww2censor (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah for sure --Vinie007 15:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Picture

File:http://www.robertmccammon.com/images/bl_20_pb.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradwing52 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

What about http://www.robertmccammon.com/images/bl_20_pb.jpg ? —teb728 t c 01:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I uploaded a thumbnail of the cover to File:Boy's Life novel cover.jpg and added it to the infobox of Boy's Life (novel) —teb728 t c 02:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Question?

respected sir, i want to say that..just upload the logo of IIIT -hyderabad,...infact it is present. we people really feel dificulty to locate it on facebook ,or other social networking sites.realated with wikipedia.

thank you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.211.84.11 (talk) 11:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Image upload

How can i upload an image in my own uploded article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drkak7 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you figured it out, but general information on images may help--SPhilbrickT 17:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Photo Tag

Hello, I work for Castleton Lyons Farm who owns the horse GIO PONTI. I am trying to add a photo to his page (Gio Ponti (horse)) and I'm not sure which copyright tag to use. The photographer, Nancy Rokos has given us full permission to post the photo to his Wiki page. Which tag should I use?

Thank you, Anna Studenny Castleton Lyons Farm — Preceding unsigned comment added by CastletonLyons (talk • contribs) 21:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

If Nancy Rokos is the copyright holder, as you suggest, then you need to get her verify her permission to use the image under a free licence by having her send us her WP:CONSENT. Make sure the copyright holder understands that we require the image to be freely licenced which means anyone can use it for anything. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Screen-shot of free software

Under which license (or with which tags) do I upload a screen-shot from a free software? — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.fac (talk • contribs) 14:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

If the software itself is truly free, like under GNU or similar licenses, then you can use the {{free screenshot}} template. If the software is free as in no cost but not released under the GNU or similar, you need to use the {{non-free screenshot}} template and treat it as a non-free image per the WP:NFC. --MASEM (t) 14:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
There are actually two copyright owners to be concerned with. One is the owner of the copyright to the free software; to the extent that copyright applies to the screenshot, it should be tagged as described by Masem. There also the copyright of the person who created the screenshot. If that person is the uploader, that person should apply an appropriate license tag. For example, if the free software includes a license for clip art that was especially created for the free software, and the uploader embelishes the clip art, then both the free software copyright holder and the uploader have rights in the screenshot and a license from each of them is necessary.Jc3s5h (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
However, that's only necessary if the image shows something that's not a direct result of the program; as long as you're just showing something that is dependent entirely on the program itself, the only concern is the copyright of the program. For example, if Microsoft's Age of Empires series were available under a free license (which it definitely isn't), you could properly take screenshots of anyone's armies or cities or countryside without worrying about anyone's copyright except for that of Microsoft. Nyttend (talk) 05:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Tetsuya Nomura

Can I ask for a picture of Tetsuya Nomura for his page? I'm afraid to do it myself, since I may do it wrong and get it deleted quickly. He's a real person, and his picture is not on his game site, but is around on other sites like IGN. 76.31.96.99 (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Most images that you will find on websites are copyright and we cannot use them. If you can find a freely licenced image, then you can submit a request at Files for upload. I can't find one on Flickr, so you may be out of luck. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate images found

I want to make sure I'm understanding how {{pd-us}} works. I came across the same image that I uploaded as "fair use" in a publication from the same publisher in 1915. see page 773 (pd-image) and later publication. The only difference is the quality of the images and the PD image is cropped round. The "fair use" image looks much better since it wasn't published later (around 1960). If it's the same image, except for quality, dose it matter regarding the copyright? Isn’t the newer image also PD since it was first published in 1920?--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 19:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I wonder if giving citation (by linking to partial video footage of an interview) for an interview made by a public (government-owned) Iranian TV is copyvio or not. Please see the case here and comment: Aravane_Rezaï#Political_support_for_Ahmadinejad One user thinks this linking to the partial video footage of an interview from a public (government-owned) Iranian TV is copyvio and I wonder if it really is. Farmanesh (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Image of James Thomas Lynn

I just want to upload the image of my father James Thomas Lynn to his already existing page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margiebeach (talk • contribs) 19:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It depends on who own the copyright on the image. If you took the photo yourself, you can upload it to Commons, licensing it under a free license like {{CC-BY-3.0}}. —teb728 t c 23:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I uploaded a file that I took: File:Injector.jpg When I first uploaded it, I didn't put a tag on it. I got a notice in my Talk page saying it needed a tag. I thought I followed the instructions to edit the image and add a tag, and when I go back and check, the PD tag seems to be there, but the tag-needed warning is still there on my talk page. Does that warning go away by itself at some point? Did I not get the image tagged properly? Thanks Jayrabe (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Jayrabe. Warning tags on user talk pages don't go away automatically. They are technically just page content like any other. However, you are free to remove them yourself if you like. The image seems to be just fine now, thank you for uploading it. An administrator actually moved it to commons, so they evidently checked it and found everything okay. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Image has disappeared

I uploaded image File:WUD-KenH.jpg File:WUD-KenH.jpg I tagged it as my having permission from the owner to post it. But a couple days later the image disappeared. After reading deeper into the documentation, I realized the image had probably been deleted because I needed to document the copyright release from the owner. So I'm proceeding to do that. Once I get his permission/release and forward it as instructed, do I need to re-upload the image, and can I use the same image filename? Thanks Please reply to my talk page. Jayrabe (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:IOWN for the process for communicating the permission. When it has been reviewed, the image will be undeleted and tagged accordingly. – ukexpat (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

deleted image - what to do?

I uploaded an image I was given by Prof. ALbery Goldbeter, of my father, that he took: thumb|Lee Segel What exactly do I have to do to use the image in my article? (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Danielse) I stated in the comments upon uploading that Prof. Goldbeter explicitly gave me permission to use the image; as he said in his email:

Dear Daniel,

I was glad to receive your message. It is a great idea to write a piece about Lee for Wikipedia. Just a few days ago I wrote a brief account of my journey in mathematical biology for the SMB newsletter, at the request of Michael Mackey. In it I wrote about Lee, how I felt close to him, and how much I miss him.

The picture Leah is mentioning (I am happy she likes it so much) was indeed used for the special issue of the Bulletin of Mathematical Biology that she edited with Philip Maini. Here is the link to their editorial and to the picture which I provided at the time:

http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=j00j107q55655463&size=largest

Of course I would be happy if you could use this picture, which I took (perhaps in 1997) in front of the building of Applied Math at WIS. Can you extract the picture from the above link? If not, I would have to find a paper copy (it was before the time of numerical images), and this might take some time and effort because I do not remember where I put the picture which I had sent to Philip Maini, when he returned it to me...

...

Let me know if the picture from the above mentioned web site is usable for you,; or whether I should try to locate the paper version, or even the original.

With best regards, to you and the whole Segel family,

Albert


> Dear Albert, > As you can see from what I have written I am looking for a public-domain picture of > Dad. > How are you? What are the kids up to? All I can remember is your "Israeli" oldest girl. > Yrs., > Daniel Segel > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Leah Keshet <email removed> > Date: 2010/12/14 > Subject: Re: pic of dad > To: daniel segel & ruti feuchtwanger <email removed> > > > > Hi Daniel, > > WOnderful idea. > > The BEST picture of your dad that I have EVER seen was taken > by Albert Goldbeter. <email removed> > In fact I believe this was the picture I used in the > special issue of BMB. > > I bet he'd be happy to get this to you. > > I have a nice picture that I took of your dad hiking, > (in a group with about 4-8 other folks) > but it is not exactly a "formal" picture. I'm planning > to use it in the frontmatter of the book that he > started and that I polished up. > > I have it at home .. I am away at the moment in Philly. > > Please remind me in about 1 week if you'd like me to > send you a copy. > > Best, > leah > > > On Sun, 12 Dec 2010, daniel segel & ruti feuchtwanger wrote: > > Hello Leah, > I am working on a Wikipedia article on Dad - I fgiure that's legitmate if > done right. > http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Danielse > I wanted to put in a picture of him, but Wikipedia is very strict on rights > - do you have something, > preferably official looking, that you took yourself? > Thank you, hope you and Shuka are well, > Daniel Segel >


--

Albert Goldbeter Faculté des Sciences Université Libre de Bruxelles Campus Plaine, CP 231 B-1050 Brussels, Belgium

Phone: +32-2-650 5772 Fax: +32-2-650 5767 e-mail: <email removed> http://www.ulb.ac.be/sciences/utc/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielse (talk • contribs) 09:35, 14 January 2011

Surely you must have a photo of your father which you took yourself. The simplest way to have a photo of him for Wikipedia would be for you to upload your photo to Commons, tagging it with a free license tag like {{CC-BY-3.0}}. If you want the Goldbeter photo, there is a little more to it: He needs to send an email to OTRS, licensing the photo under a free license; see WP:COPYREQ for how to request that from him. —teb728 t c 11:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I hope the situation is being resolved. I must say, though, that Special:Contributions/TEB728's cavelier statement that Danielse "must" have a photo of her father that she took herself is highly subjective. There are any number of reasons why the user may NOT have such a photo. A partial list: father died while user was still very young, family was estranged and possibly separated by distance, father allowed few photos to be taken of himself, the user was a particularly poor photographer so the resulting images aren't clear enough, possesions were destroyed by fire-flood-tornado-etc. In my case, my father died when I was 5. Since my mother was happy about it, she didn't retain any photos. As a result, I didn't have a photo of my father until 2 years ago when I discovered that I had a cousin in the Philippines who had a photo of him. Go figure. Assumptions are fool-hardy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordreader (talk • contribs) 05:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry you took offense at my post. I could have stated my intent better as "Perhaps you have a photo.... If so the simplest way...." It wasn't so much an assumption as a way to begin saying that it is substantially less trouble to upload one's own photos than someone else's, as the OP was trying to do. —teb728 t c 09:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Splashmt.jpg

I believe that this image may not meet threshold of originality as it was created by a "pre-positioned recording device" (in this case, a motion activated camera). Could this be replaced with a free license? The logo is probably copyrighted, but it could be also be de minimis or cropped out. --WillMcC (talk)

massive legal grey area that so far wikipedia has steered clear of. I don't think we can honestly claim with any certainty that the image does not meet the threshold of originality (nor that it doesn't) so for the benifit of reusers we shouldn't claim that it is under a free license or in the public domain for the time being (basicaly untill we get some more caselaw).©Geni 15:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Historic image

This historic photograph was taken in 1910. It is from the Fields Museum collection, and source says "no known copyright restrictions". Can this be uploaded as a Public Domain image or is there another more appropriate category that would allow it to be uploaded to Wiki-Commons?--Orygun (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

If it was published before 1923, it is {{PD-US}} —teb728 t c 10:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I uploaded the image here. P. S. Burton (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks!--Orygun (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Actorhorsewash.jpg

Added description for the image file Actorhorsewash.jpg. Unable to find or remove the unsource, delete tags. Please remove the unsource tag, if convinced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srikanthdileep (talk • contribs) 05:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy requires also requires a non-free use rationale for a non-free screenshot. I added the start of one, but I cannot imagine what to put in the Purpose and Replacability fields. The Purpose field explains why showing the screenshot significantly increases readers' understanding of the article, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. The Replaceability field explains why something free (like plain text to the effect one of the most famous scenes from the actor's career shows him washing a horse, flexing his muscles) would not serve the same encyclopedic purpose. —teb728 t c 10:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Really it seems that you people doesn't bother wheather it is correct or wrong. There is no use to load such photos with wiki..... very disappointing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pramodjain3 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Susanna Roxman

Hi,

Please let me know why the picture adorning the page on Susanna Roxman -- the pic is called File:Susanna Roxman in London.jpg -- has been removed. There is no explanation, and no trace of the operation (the removal) that I can see, on the Edit page or the Discussion page. Please note that the picture had obtained a copyright licence, so there was no need at all to get rid of it.

Could you perhaps reply on the Edit page or the Discussion page?

smilesofasummernight

Oh, I didn't add the tildes, sorry. Smilesofasummernight (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, just in case it didn't work -- my asking a question just now, because I didn't add any tildes -- here is my question again.

Why was the photo in the article on Susanna Roxman removed? It had got a copyright licence. It's odd, too, that I don't find any traces of this operation (the removal), though that is perhaps normal, I don't know.

Please answer on the Discussion page or Edit page belonging to the article on Susanna Roxman.

Best wishes

smilesofasummernight

Smilesofasummernight (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I've answered on your talk page.©Geni 15:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Facebook images

Would I be able to use images from there? Do we have to ask them what the license is? Please help myself. I've had images deleted before, but they haven't been from Facebook. Thanks. --Nascar1996 18:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

In copyright terms, Facebook is just like any other site. Yes, you will need to trace the copyright owner(s) (not necessarily the uploader) and ask them to license the image(s). - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 19:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Request it by email? Once you do request it, how do make proof that I did ask them? Nascar1996 19:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
You cannot just take images from websites, even if there is no copyright notice. We need to know the copyright status, author, date and source of every image and to that end you, as the uploader, have the burden of proof to find out who is the copyright owner of any image. If you can do that then you must have them send our OTRS team their permission directly by having them follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. If you can't find out who holds the copyright, then, generally, you are out of luck unless it is an image for which fair-use might be claimed but photos of living people are not allowed. Any copyright image would have to comply with all 10 non-free content criteria for it to be used here. You may also find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the information. --Nascar1996 21:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Monochrome_BBS.png

Really struggling to find an appropriate category to satisfy Wikipedia's us of http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Monochrome_BBS.png in this article User:Quaestor23/Monochrome BBS. The image is a screenshot of the main menu, used to demonstrate the unique interface of that BBS. The software itself is not publicly released, but runs on NetBSD. Content is Copyright Monochrome BBS and therefore is fair use to illustrate that? Permission for use of this screenshot has been given by the system administrator. So what's the best way to stop this getting botified? Thanks for your help.Davoloid (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

probably something like the rational on File:AutoCAD_Interface.png.©Geni 15:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Much obliged, that looks reasonable. Davoloid (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

A few files left without a license

Hi! Some of you may have noticed that I arranged a cleanup of files without a license and if not it is not importaint :-) There was more than 2.600 to start with and now there is 13 files left at User:MGA73/No license. If anyone as some time to have a look it would be nice. Most of the last few files are probably ok - we just need a source and a license. --MGA73 (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I added tags for some of the images. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Company Logo Update

The logo used here is the old Aristocrat logo. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Aristocrat_Leisure

I wish to get in contact with an approved image uploader to have our new logo placed here.

Please advise. Craeam (talk) 10:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craeam (talk • contribs) 11:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have an interest in Wikipedia other than the logo? If so, when you have made ten edits (you have two so far) you will be “autoconfirmed,” which means among other things you would be able to upload files yourself at Wikipedia:Upload. (But note that you should not edit the article on your company because of your conflict of interest.) Otherwise, if you post the URL of the new logo here, any autoconfirmed user could upload it. —teb728 t c 21:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

As suggested the url of the new logo is here: http://www.aristocrat.com.au/Pages/default.aspx To any autoconfirmed user if they could upload and update the logo here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Aristocrat_Leisure that would be great. I also have the logo in a separate file if it is suitable to email to a autoconfirmed user. Craeam (talk) 10:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I uploaded http://www.aristocrat.com.au/SiteCollectionImages/images/logo.gif to File:Aristocrat corp logo.gif and replaced the usage at Aristocrat Leisure. —teb728 t c 12:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

File: huomo 2.jpg:

This is an image copied from a dissertation written by me It is from a book in public domain. where do I indicate that? I need help with the copyright tag you require — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregorywoods90 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Plowden 1660.jpg:

This is a titlepage in poblic domain. Please delete the file in English Wiki and I will take it from Wikipedia commons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.27.106 (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Images given by a friend

Hi there, I have uploaded some pictures to some articles I've been working on, and although I put a share and share alike tag on the images, there is a note that I have to put the license tag too. I'm not quite sure what this means - the basic gist is that the photos were given to me by someone who took them, but they don't want to be named or accredited for personal reasons. However, they are perfectly happy for me to use them and for them then to be free to use by others - how do I reflect this in a way that the images will be able to stay? Thanks, P. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peppermint1209 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid that we need evidence of permission from the copyright owner. Please see WP:IOWN for details. Only a few people (the OTRS volunteers) will see the information. – ukexpat (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Image use questions

Would like to use the following ones:

Barbara Randolph

This is clearly a publicity photo without copyright marks. Comparing this with her Ebony cover October 1962, it looks to be from the same time frame. Subject died in 2002-can it be used and if so, what license is right?

Lavoris 1 Lavoris 2 Lavoris 3

Date is 1932 without copyright marks. A promotion for the radio show from sponsor Lavoris. Would like to use both sides with the watermark removed from front. Subjects are deceased-can they be used and if so, what license for them?

Thanks, We hope (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Music album art Fair Use rationale bot notices

They are silly and and a waste of bandwidth. I posted a comment here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Fly_%28Dixie_Chicks_album%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.57.26.87 (talk) 06:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

PD-ineligible?

File:Trucchis.gif is currently tagged as non-free; is this really complex enough for copyright? Nyttend (talk) 06:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

From the New contributor's help page

Could someone check the licensing/copyright tags on the image named at Wikipedia:NCHP/Q#Problems_with_Image_Uploads_and_Setting_File_Links.2Fcategories? I think this new contributor could do with some encouragement. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible mis-tagged

I may be barking up the wrong tree here, but it seems to me that File:Loretto.jpg has an issue, as it claims both to be from 1908 and therefore out of copyright and created in 2010 and therefore copyrightable. I know very little (read nothing) about images, so i merely bring the question here for others to resolve. Cheers, LindsayHello 09:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks like someone uploaded a 2010 color photograph of unknown copyright status on top of a 1908 b/w pd photo of a totally different subject. I don’t know what to do about it; so I’ll cross post at HD in hopes there may be someone who has seen such a situation. —teb728 t c 10:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

CalcioPadovaLogo2010

File:CalcioPadovaLogo2010.png Calcio Padova logo 2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinky hijacker (talk • contribs) 10:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I restored the logo Image:Calcio Padova Logo.png at Calcio Padova, reverting a test edit by an anon. Was that your concern? —teb728 t c 21:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Olthof_bij_het_Atomium.jpg

Can the File:Olthof_bij_het_Atomium.jpg be used on en.wiki.x.io? --84.62.207.235 (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Not as free content, the subject would qualify as a copyrighted sculpture - looking at the image it appears that it might be a fixed sculpture, which means it could fall under freedom of panorama in some jurisdictions - but there is no such exception within the United States copyright law, so the image would only be usable under the narrow terms of WP:NFCC if at all. Note the ongoing commons deletion discussion, which I would imagine will lead to the deletion of the image from the commons.Ajbpearce (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Petra Christian University

why there's NO LOGO in petra christian university article.... pleasee...give that one with its Logo......thanxx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferdyceplok (talk • contribs) 23:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. The article was created by volunteer editors. It has no logo because none of those editors has got around to uploading the logo and inserting it in the article. When your account is four days older, and you have nine more edits, you will be autoconfirmed, and you will be able to upload and insert the logo yourself as described at Wikipedia:Images. A couple things you will need to know then is that you will use the copyright tag {{non-free logo}} and the non-free use rationale {{logo fur}}. If you don’t remember that when you are autoconfirmed, ask here again, and we will remind you. —teb728 t c 05:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
You can also submit a request at Files for upload. ww2censor (talk) 06:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

CSD G7 for image in use?

I have a question about image policy. While not technically a copyright question, I assume the right people to ask are the image policy experts, so I think I'm in the right place.

We have a CSD rationale, CSD G7, which is often used by an editor either starting an article and deciding to abandon it, or working on material in user space, and no longer needing it. I've seen it used less often with images, for example, an editor trying to use a non-free image, and after realizing the licensing problem, decides it would be better to delete the image. I don't recall, before today, seeing the request used for an image that is used in an article.

File:MonopulseDoppler.jpg is used in Radar engineering details. In short, I would think we should decline the request to delete. I don't believe we are ever required to honor an CSD G7, once an editor creates material in WP, it becomes the property of WP, and we allow the CSD G7 for housekeeping reasons. That wouldn't seem appropriate in the case of an image in use. Am I missing something?--SPhilbrickT 17:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll often come across this situation when deleting images from CAT:CSD. Unless the image is recently uploaded, I'll generally decline it (especially if it be in use, like this one), because most such situations involve the uploader trying to revoke the free license or PD release. In almost all such situations, the image can properly be moved to Commons. Nyttend (talk) 05:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Happy to see I made the right call (or at least one with some support ) :)--SPhilbrickT 17:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Sky Sports

There are a whole bunch of non-free logos/screenshots on this page and I cannot really think that they all meet the NFCC. Maybe one logo in the infobox might be OK but I don't buy the rest of them. I'm not too experienced with image issues so would appreciate a second opinion. Quantpole (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Many of them are public domain (the plain text ones), but most of the others grossly fail WP:NFCC#3a. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Les Twins SW shoot.jpg

Hello,

I have several pictures that I am unsure how to tag for the copyright. For instance, File:Les Twins SW shoot.jpg. I have contacted the copyright holder for permission to use his photographs for the wikipedia article, and he has agreed via email to release the images. However, I have read countless help topics on wikipedia regarding copyrighted material and media and how to put the appropriate tag for the images, but I am still uncertain as to which tag I am to put. For now, I wrote "Creative Commons" in the Permissions category under each appropriate image. Is this correct?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImDaBoss3000 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

If the photographer has agreed to release the images under a creative commons license the easiest way to confirm this licensing is to follow the procedure on wikicommons. Briefly, the photographer needs to confirm that he has agreed to release the images under a Creative Commons license by filing a release with the OTRS system. To do this you should follow the instructions at commons:OTRS which can be summarized as 1). Transfering the images to wikimedia commons. 2) add an {{OTRS pending}} tag to each 3). Make sure that the photographer understands the license that he is releasing these images under. 4) Follow the instructions that are found at commons:OTRS to get him to forward a release to wikimedia. Ajbpearce (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, it seems you still need help so I thought I would try again. The best explanation is probably found at WP:COPYREQ - In order for these images to be uploaded and used on wikipedia you need to read and follow that page. (Though it is unnecessarily confusing in part - I strongly recommend you use the CC-BY-SA license). If following that page there is any part of that process you don't understand please reply here and I will try and explain it further. Ajbpearce (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

File:King Peii.jpg

This is an image of a king, thus a public person. It is from a private newsletter, and I have authorization to use it. There is no copyright reserved for the newsletter. The country is not on your list of countries. Please advise about what copyright tag is appropriate. Camdoc2001 (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Whether the newsletter has a copyright notice or not on it, those I found online don't show a copyright notice, the material is copyright to someone. To use any image you need to get permission from the copyright holder of the image and they must send us their verification by following the procedure found at WP:PERMISSION. If the king is such a public person, then a verifiable freely licenced image can be found or someone can take one. ww2censor (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • (ec) Him being a public person does not make photographs of him automatically in the public domain, or under a free license. "Authorization to use" isn't a license at all. In fact, if you mean it as they gave you permission to use the image on Wikipedia, then it's a candidate for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#F3. Can you provide evidence that the newsletter has waived their copyrights? Not just being unable to find them claiming rights, but that they have specifically waived them? As to how to license the image; we don't have enough information here yet. I suggest you contact the rights holder of the image using the instructions located at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission in order to obtain release of the image under a free license. Otherwise, the image will have to be deleted. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Gregg's various.JPG

I'd appreciate opinions on whether this image violates the copyright of the company whose products are pictured. Nyttend (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Uniroyal Tire Image

Hi, I'd like to get this image approved: http://info.detnews.com/dn/history/stove/images/ferris.gif on this page: Uniroyal Giant Tire Invictadante (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This one is a little complex but the first thing you need to do is find out when and where the picture was taken, who owns the copyright and who the author is. Only then can we give you some better advise but, based on the information on this webpage, it was likely taken during the 1964 World Fair in New York, so any image of it will still be under copyright. The structure itself might be considered exempt from the US freedom of panorama restriction which I think it fails because it is more like an artistic piece rather then a building. Copyright of artworks retain a separate copyright for the artwork and are usually copyright of the artist and in addition any photo of it will have its own and separate copyright. I hardly think the ferris wheel can be considered a utilitarian object to which no copyright attaches though any image of it would still be copyright even if the object itself is not copyright. Come back when you have more info, but for now we cannot determine the copyright status of the photo itself for starters. ww2censor (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding a Press Photo

I am interested in uploading a photo of Brandon Flowers (musician). The photo was taken by photographer Lucy Hamblin. She has a website where it can be seen -- http://lucyhamblin.com Lucy took the photo for promotional purposes and the management team of Brandon Flowers (Robert Reynolds Management) who I work for would like to upload it to Brandon's page. Is there some way that I can do this? How can I best go about it?

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. --Waytagojoe (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Ray Charles

hello im courtney i have questions about ray charles

  • does ray charles has a son named charles allan causing from leana causing?

im hoping for answers to my questions!!thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.200.5.110 (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

This forum is only for media copyright questions. If you ask at WP:Reference desk/Humanities someone may be able to give you answers. —teb728 t c 12:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

acn with water

 Question;
         in acetonitrile with water mixture they are missible how can you seperated
that per cantage is 20;45ratio please explain me sir  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.240.198 (talk) 12:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
This forum is only for media copyright questions. If you ask at WP:Reference desk/Science someone may be able to give you an answer. —teb728 t c 22:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Photo From 1930s Question

Dear Experts,

I am interested in adding a photo of Jackie Bethards to his Wiki-article. Bethards has been dead for decades. The only photos available of him are from US newspapers of the 1930s. These photos were studio shots supplied by the team(s) he played for, all of which are naturally defunct today. Can I go ahead and put such a photo on the Wiki commons? Thanks for any guidance/reply! Keith Ellis (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hoe far have you looked to find a freely licenced image of him? If you really can fulfill all 10 non-free content criteria then you can likely use a copyright image under the fair-use claim because he is dead, but you must add a fully completed {{Non-free use rationale}} to the image page to avoid deletion. You may not upload it to the commons. Perhaps you may also find it useful to read my image copyright information page. BTW you have neither a birth or death date in the article. Can you find that information? Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"Le Petit Journal" image that illustrates WP "Cholera" article

I read quite a few pages here on WP about copyright and have to say that I'm more confused than ever. I apologise. In the article on Cholera [[6]], a cover of a supplement of the French publication Le Petit Journal File:Cholera.jpg is included. Given the horror of the disease, the numbers of people it killed, and the rapidity of death, it's an excellent portrayal of the terror cholera excited. The statement attached to the image says "Uploaded from [1]. More than 100 years, public domain." There are no citations on that linked webpage for the images used and no identifying information for the date or number of the issue for this image in particular.

After a lot of searching, I found a much higher resolution image of the same journal page in a digital collection of the Bibliothèque nationale de France. The issue is No. 1,150, 1 December 1912, so it's not 100 years old yet, if that matters.

Translated through Babelfish, the site's conditions of use for the images states:

Their re-use lies within the scope of the law n°78-753 of July 17, 1978:
The noncommercial re-use of these contents is free and free in the respect of the legislation in force and in particular of the maintenance of the mention of source.
The commercial re-use of these contents is paying and is the licence object. Is heard by commercial re-use the resale of contents in the form of elaborate products or supply of service.

SO...The image that currently exists on WP - okay for it to be there or not? The newly found, higher resolution image - off limits or not? Thanks for helping me understand this issue. Wordreader (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Since the magazine was published before 1923, at the very least (any version of) the cover is {{PD-US}}; so the use is OK on English Wikipedia. Perhaps the tag indicates that the artwork is more than 100 years old. (The rest of the cover would not be subject to copyright.) —teb728 t c 04:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. You really think the art work was published 100 years ago? How would one check? I just thought that since the uploader couldn't read the low-resolution image, they just made that part up. :^) Wordreader (talk) 05:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Try not to focus on the "100 years ago" aspect (at least for US copyright law). The fact that it was published before 1923 puts the image in the public domain in the United States. Going to the link you supplied for the higher definition image, if you click on the text "Le Petit Journal. Supplement du dimanche" at the left side of the gray bar next to the little page icon, the copyright status pops up and is listed as "domaine public" so you should be able to freely reuse that image. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

How to find out what went wrong?

Four images were deleted without warning from Krrish, which is a GA, so presumably the images were okayed at one time. The image pages do not exist anymore, so how must I know why they were deleted? Can't the image itself be removed but some evidence be left behind? Also, is there not a warning system of some kind? BollyJeff || talk 02:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

According to the deletion log all four were deleted because "F6: Non-free media file with no non-free use rationale". —teb728 t c 04:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The person who tagged the images with {{db-f6}} should have added {{deletable image-caption}} to the captions but apparently did not. (S)he also should have left {{di-no fair use rationale-notice}} on the uploader's talk page. —teb728 t c 04:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The images have been made invisible by the ImageRemovalBot but their code can clearly be seen in this article history page. There used to be a bot that automatically tagged images for deletion at their use point but it is no longer working. The uploader was notified on his user talk page, which is a normal procedure. One way or another the images were all missing a fair-use rationale and in such an article it is unlikely that five non-free images would be acceptable. Having read it I don't see any critical commentary that would justify them being kept even with a rationale as they were likely decorative rather than essential to the reader's understanding of the topic. Their non-free status may have been missed, or ignored, during the GA but I don't see any comments about image use in the GA which was undertaken by three editors who may perhaps not be as familiar with non-free content criteria as they should be and have concentrated only on the prose. We jsut don't know but you are always welcome to have a deletion review or a non-free content review if you feel you have a case. ww2censor (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I am not the uploader, so I did not get any notice, I was only following the whole article, and did not see any warnings, which would have been nice, since maybe the original uploader is gone now. I saw the article history and tried to go to the image pages, ie. File:Krrish stunt.jpg to see why it was deleted, to see if there was any fair use at all, but there is nothing to see there. Can you show me how to see the deletion log, at least? But, based on what you said above, maybe it had too many pictures anyway? It seems really stupid to me that these pictures cannot be used for this purpose. How could this possibly be costing the owners any money? If anything it is raising interest in the film, which could help them to sell more DVDs. Also are all these picture police paid by WP, or are they volunteers? What is the incentive to make WP articles less interesting? BollyJeff || talk 23:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
You can see the deletion log for File:Krrish stunt here. See Wikipedia’s policies on non-free content. (A major part of the reason for these restrictive policies is to make Wikipedia content reusable; using non-free content makes it more difficult to reuse articles.) Note that file was deleted for violation of item 10, which requires a non-free use rationale for each use of a non-free file—not for violation of item 2, which requires respect for commercial opportunities. (As ww2censor pointed out, no valid rationale could have been created because the use did not significantly increase reader understanding as required by item 8.) —teb728 t c 03:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
When you say reuse, do you mean like when I search the web for valid references to try and improve articles and I mainly find multiple other websites that just parrot WP articles back again? That doesn't seem very useful. They are often using various different old versions of the current WP article. Why do we need dozens of websites out there copying WP content? Does WP make money doing this? BollyJeff || talk 11:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Under the terms of GFDL or WP:CC-BY-SA people may copy Wikipedia content (one, some, or all articles, or just a few paragraphs) to another website, a CD, a book, etc. Wikipedia wants to make it easy to do that. And no, Wikipedia doesn't make money on it. —teb728 t c 12:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The images lacked any fair use explanation, and thus were deleted validly. If you check this revision, you can more or less figure out what kind of content they were. If you can make a plausible case that any of them was in fact necessary for the article and justified under WP:NFC, they can of course be undeleted. I'm not seeing such a justification, at least not at first sight. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Not even for the soundtrack? It's pretty standard throughout WP to have pictures of soundtrack covers isn't it? I will try to ask this one more time: When I click on File:Krrish.jpg, I get a copy of the picture, plus fair use, links, can view history, etc. I was hoping to be able to see what information was there on the files that were deleted. Is this not possible? BollyJeff || talk
It is pretty standard to allow one identifying image in the infobox of an article (provided that it could not be replaced by a free equivalent). That way readers can see that they are on the right article. For Krrish the identifying image is the poster. For a separate article on a soundtrack it might be the cover art. There is no need for identifying the soundtrack section in Krrish, for the poster identifies the article. In any case the image had no use rationale; so the image was not permitted.
To see the deletion log: In the “Toolbox” in the left sidebar click “Special pages”; then under “Recent changes and logs” click “Logs”; then select “Deletion log” in the dropdown, enter File:Krrish stunt.jpg in “Title” textbox and press Go. The log tells you who deleted it, when, and what edit summary (s)he gave. That is the only information available except to admins. —teb728 t c 12:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Wow, what you are saying just does not jibe with what's out there. I could name many GAs and FAs even that have pictures for soundtracks that do not have their own articles (in addition to other pictures as well). Anyway, thanks to all who replied for your help. BollyJeff || talk 13:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

forgot to add copyright info to an image i've just uploaded; how do i go back and add in the necassary info? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenslade32 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Just check your contribution history and then go to its page. I assume File:Trevor Lucas 1985.jpg is the file in question? - X201 (talk) 12:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
(e/c) Select the appropriate tag from WP:TAG and it's subpages. Then edit File:Trevor Lucas 1985.jpg and add the tag. If the file is not licensed under a free license, you will also have to add a non-free use rationale. —teb728 t c 12:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2011/January&oldid=1258708472"