Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

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

(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Bot incorrectly claims no info provided

I posted an image an clearly stated that it had a {{cc|by the Estate of the Subject of the image}} but Canildo's bot doesn't seem to think that's enough! To me, the "by" is quite clear on the status of the image. Some assistance, please! -- Oldpoet 01:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you link the image, please? Powers ^T 17:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Image owned by the subject of the Wikipedia entry

I'm finding reading this page a bit like wading through the infamous "fine print" of an insurance policy!!

I've looked at the various copyright tags and frankly can't decide which is the most appropriate to use for an image of an author provided to me by the author for their Wikepedia entry.

Let's assume two different scenarios:
1. the author holds the rights to the photo
2. the photo was taken by someone else willing to have the photo used. "Someone else" here does NOT mean a professional photographer but a friend/family member taking a snapshot.

What are the syntaxes to use?

Related to this, what is the difference between the GDFL "license" and the Creative Commons license. For the time being, I'm using {{cc-by author name}}, but I notice that there's CC1, CC2, etc!!

Thanks in advance.

--CanalPoet 20:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The biggest difference between cc-by and GFDL is that the GFDL would require anyone makeing a derivative to release that derivative under the GFDL. cc-by mearly requires that you credit the author.Geni 00:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "GFDL would require anyone making a derivative to release that derivative." By derivative I assume you're speaking of a new work that incorporates all or part of an image/song, etc. So when you say the person making the derivative would "release that derivative," do you mean the creator of the derivative work would release all rights to their "derivative work" to the photographer/composer/musicians of the original work(s)? -- CanalPoet 21:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No, to "release" a work means to publish it under a particular license, not to relinquish rights to it. GFDL is considered a "copyleft" license (the name is a tongue-in-cheek antonym of "copyright"): any work released (published) under the GFDL can (legally) be used freely in other works, so long as those other works also are released under the GFDL. The Creative Commons license known as CC-by-sa (or any other CC with "SA" in it, where "SA" stands for "ShareAlike") is similar in that it requires any derivative works to also have a similar license. A CC license without "sa" in it doesn't have this "copyleft" provision. Powers ^T 17:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

An image for my Userpage

I had uploaded an image I made, Image:ChrisDHDR.jpg, on which I specified that it was still in my copyright and I allowed it to only be used on my Userpage. It has since then been speedy deleted. Is there a tag I could use if I re-uploaded this image, or would I be forced to release it under a different licence? I do remember seeing an Image with a "Userpage only" tag, does it still exist? --ChrisDHDR ^{( • contrib's)} 06:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I would be extremely surprised if such a template existed (and would nominate it for deletion). The non-free content policy (#9) specifically bars copyright content with no free license from appearing on user pages. nadav (talk) 03:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible for me to give permission only for use on Wikipedia??? --ChrisDHDR ^{( • contrib's)} 10:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No, because Wikipedia itself is distributed under the GFDL. See WP:NONFREE#Downstream use for an explanation. --Clubjuggle 10:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, last question, could I licence it as Fair-use, and under that fair-use, use it on my userpage??? ChrisDHDR ( C @) 13:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"Fair use" is not a license in itself; it is a term of art used to refer to specific allowable exceptions to copyright law. The upshot is this: we allow only free images on user pages. If you do not license or release your image in some way that qualifies it as "free" under our guidelines (namely: public domain, any Creative Commons license that doesn't include "non-commercial", or GFDL), then you can't use it on your user page. I would personally suggest CC-BY-SA, which keeps the image under your own copyright, albeit allowing its use anywhere so long as the author is attributed and the license maintained. Powers ^T 18:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

PDF's of whole books from the EEBO collection

No response in 8 days at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use..., so I'm going to repost my question here in hopes that someone can answer it.

EEBO consists of books published before 1700. The books themselves are obviously all in the public domain. A user at a subscribing library can call up PDF images of each individual page from a book in the collection (a PDF of the whole book is not offered, which makes the site tedious for scholars to use). EEBO's terms and conditions, predictably, insist that ProQuest holds the copyright to the reproductions and denies users the right to publish them outside of internal, educational, and fair-use uses. The page images are clearly "slavish copies," so Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. would seem to hold straightforwardly that the page scans are in the public domain, and that no amount of "you may use this public domain image only as follows" is binding on the user.

To get to the practical scenario, then. If I make a PDF of an entire book, consisting of EEBO's slavishly copied photographs of each page as published in the 17th century, is there any copyvio issue with publishing the PDF to the internet. What legal right does Chadwyck or ProQuest have to keep these images from circulating outside their subscription-access wall? (I realize that large PDF's are not normal Wikipedia content and play only a supporting role even by Wikisource norms, but I'd rather ignore the "we don't like PDF's" issue to get directly into the "is this goldmine of encyclopedically relevant material freely usable?")

Wikimedia Commons has at least a few images from EEBO: Image:Londoners-Lamentation.gif, Image:Relapse_characters.png, Image:Love'sLastShift title.png. The question is, why hasn't anyone had the chutzpah to print out a whole book, scan an electronic facsimile, and make it available to the world. (There are plenty of books in EEBO, notable enough to have Wikipedia articles, whose texts are not freely available in any form on the internet, for example the Old Testament of the original 17th century Douay-Rheims Bible.) Wareh 19:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Maybe it will help if I pose a more specific form. Suppose that I complement Image:Relapse_characters.png by adding Image:Relapse_pg_01_of_57.png to Image:Relapse_pg_57_of_57.png. If the single image is public domain, as stated, then surely I haven't done anything wrong to complete the series with other public domain images? Wareh 19:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wareh. I don't have an answer for you, but was thinking of asking a very similar question myself. In general terms, there are clearly a vast number of digital images in online databases of two-dimensional, pre-1922 works (or whatever year is relevant). Predictably, as you say, online databases claim full rights. Are the public domain and "Bridgeman" factors enough to allow enterprising Wikipedians to re-use all this content? It doesn't seem that it could be that simple. –Outriggr ₪ 04:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

See the discussion on Wikiquote. Tyrenius 01:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Work done by a state agency

I have public hearing maps of a proposed interstate highway connector created by the North Carolina Department of Transportation. Are these in the public domain?--Cowboy wilhelm 19:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably not, unless there is some statute of North Carolina law that stipulates creations of the state to be in the public domain. Powers ^T 18:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Is different licensing of high and low resolution versions feasible?

My wife and I have taken a number of photographs that we hope to sell, but commercial value depends on resolution - that of a 4+ Mpx version is (we hope) significant, while that of a 0.1Mpx one is trivial.

The immediate case in point is that we have pictures of the bridges at Wycoller, East Lancs, UK to which reference is made in the relevant Wikipedia article - and which could be used to illustrate that article.

We'd be glad to release, say, 400x300px versions (adequate for the web page) under the Creative Commons: Attribution + ShareAlike license, but want to retain all rights over the original, ~8Mpx versions.

Is this feasible and is it useful/desireable?

Roger.beaumont 01:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is feasible and a common approach for photographers wanting to contribute, practiced by some of the photographers over at Featured Picture Candidates. That said, a 400-pixel image is rather small. I believe that others in your situation are uploading 1000- to 2000-pixel-wide images. –Outriggr ₪ 03:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Outriggr. I'll go up a tad. Roger.beaumont 20:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Liam Tobin in 1922.jpg

I have scanned this picture [Image:Liam Tobin in 1922.jpg]] from a 10 year old book published in UK. The book states the photo was taken in 1922. It gives no further detail (presumably because the Photographers's copyright has expired. I want a hint of the next step I should Take. (Even if he needs to be deleted..Tell me how so I can try and do this myself) Aatomic1 08:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The question would be when the work was first published in the US?Geni 18:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Aatomic1 18:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

How do I update an image tag? I'm very confused. PeskyAtheist 21:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

On which image?Geni 18:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

biotech

§can u give the knowledge abuot its futher&scope§ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.177.170.221 (talk) 13:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What? Guroadrunner 12:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Small piece of text plus signature

I've uploaded Image:Asimov signature in Beyond Sep 1953.jpg, which is an image of part of a magazine page. It contains no images, just a few words of a story and then a facsimile of Asimov's signature. Of course the words are copyright, but the fair use that applies here is not an image tag. And I assume the signature can't be copyright? If it is, it would be a fair use claim, as the article in question (Beyond Fantasy Fiction) comments on the signature. Anyway, I'd be glad to have an opinion on how this should be tagged -- and if it is unusable for some reason, please let me know, though I'd be very surprised to hear that. Mike Christie (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

signatures can be copyrighted so you need a fair use rational.Geni 21:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have one in text but I'll use a template if I need to.

What copyright tag should I use? Mike Christie (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably {{Non-free fair use in}}.Geni 22:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I've updated it. Thanks for the help! Mike Christie (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Can signatures be copyrighted?

No they can't. Signature#Copyright. 17Drew 03:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Except that the word Signature doesn't appear on the page cited for that claim.Geni 15:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No, but signatures fall under the category of "variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring". Asimov's signature is not a creative work by any means. 17Drew 16:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a question on my FUJIFILM camera

I am useing a one-time-use camera by Fujifilm for pictures that i'm taking my self. Is this kind of camera ok for use for a Wikipedia Project or WikiProject, such as a image of a place that I have taken my self.---OHWiki 23:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

For the most part, yes it is. The only big thing is you need to be fine with others reusing the content, by allowing your content to be put in the GNU or Creative Commons licenses. -- Guroadrunner 04:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Would a digital camera be better for image use on Wikipedia?---OHWiki 14:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

TV show theme song sample

Hello. Is a sample of the theme song of a television program allowed under Wikipedia non-free content guidelines? Here is the article section. I am sure the sample would be all right in an article about the artist where I also linked this and in an article about the album or the song but I couldn't find either work on Wikipedia. Thank you in advance. -Susanlesch 02:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a section of a real song, so I personally am not sure. Don't know why no-one else has answered yet. Guroadrunner 12:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Guroadrunner, thank you for trying. -Susanlesch 07:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Does anyone else have a thought? Yes, it is a real song but I think that is true of a lot of songs. -Susanlesch 10:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Picture

I don't understand to give the picture a "tag". Can you please tell me how to do it and even better, give me an example.

Thanks, from Yuen, stephen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuen, stephen (talk • contribs) 07:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

See "How to add a copyright tag to an existing image" at the top of the page and if you still have questions ask again. Calliopejen1 00:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Images with plants and animals from old books ?

I have a Botanical Atlas and another atlas about animals which contain a lot of very realistic drawings of various animals and plants. The books were published in 1985 and the typography no longer exists (because of the 1989 Romanian revolution lots of companies were destroyed, I'm from Romania), the authors are probably all dead, I'm not sure if anybody could be contacted for copyright. I'd be willing to scan pages from these books in high quality resolutions (at least 300dpi) and crop plants or animals from the pages but I'd like to know if they would be accepted in Wikipedia, if there would be copyright issues. In theory,I believe in Romania the copyright stands for 75 years, but I'm not sure it's still in place if the publisher no longer exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.136.49.90 (talk) 08:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Since copyright lasts for 75 years, I do not believe they can legally be posted even if the publisher is no longer existant. Guroadrunner 12:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

use of image from Dutch wikipedia

I found an image on the Dutch Wikipedia that I would like to use on the English W. Link: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afbeelding:Hephaistion.jpg

The image appears to be in public domain, but is licenced under the deprecated tag: {{PD}} Is there any way to use the image directly, or do I need to download it and upload it on English Wikipedia (or perhaps Wikimedia Commons)? Can I actually use it? And in that case, which PD tag should I use?

I would like to be notified on my talk page, if possible. TIA.

EaCalendula 17:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Answered by Lambian on EaCalendula's talk page. --Iamunknown 00:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with "Image JBernal 078.jpg."

Labs1950 17:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Concerning the copyright status of the "Image JBernal 078.jpg.," I would like to know how to remove it altogheter. Please, let me know how to proceed because I no longer wish to make use of that image.

Also, I uploaded another image: "José Bernal, Court of the Lions, Granada, Spain, 1974," but I do not see it on the most recent edited page. When or how will I be able to view it?

Your response will be most appreciated.

Sincerely,

LucreciaLabs1950 17:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Lucrecia. The image Image:JBernal 078.jpg is tagged such that it will be deleted within a week, so there is no need to worry. The image, "José Bernal, Court of the Lions, Granada, Spain, 1974", is located at Image:JOSE BERNAL, COURT OF THE LIONS, GRANADA, SPAIN, 1974.jpg. --Iamunknown 00:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

How do I to add an image tag?

How do I add an image tag to "Branford and Ray.jpg"? --Allenstone 11:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Alenstone

It looks like you've already figured it out! Sorry for the slow response. If you have more questions, ask away. Calliopejen1 00:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Use of the Image:Larry Craig mugshot.jpg photo

The subject of this discussion is the Image:Larry Craig mugshot.jpg image for the Larry Craig article.

As mentioned in the rationale for the image, the image identifies and documents the subject in question in a controversial case, particularly since the subject decided to conceal this information from everyone around him. Also, this mugshot depicts the subject at the time of the arrest during a time when the subject, who is dressed in a business suit wearing a U.S. flag pin that's worn by other colleagues in the U.S. Congress, at a time that was on layover at a airport on the way to work to vote on the floor of the Senate. The additional rationale for including the photo is that the inclusion in the article also significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic under WP:NFCC #8 since the photo shows the context of the event (without using endless prose to describe what the user is looking wearing is and why, among other things and the reasons), based on the rationale described in the previous sentence.

The discussion at one point moved from the section about the mugshot to the "Public records" section of the Public Domain talk page (this discussion was started after someone had placed a PD tag on the photo, which was since change to one for a non-free mugshot). I've had a chance to look up the conditions of the release and use of the booking photo, which was also the subject of a significant discussion. That conversation thread can be found on the Public domain talk page here. An additional tag was added for non-educational use of the mugshot based on U.S. copyright laws. The debate was about whether the state holds the copyright to the photo or whether the photo was indeed released to the public domain. See the discussion thread that I posted about what I found in the state statute. Even a user identifying him/herself as an intellectual attorney weighed in on the conversation by saying the mugshots in general are considered "public domain." The original image was uploaded that shows attribution to the source (original image found here), although the image was later replaced by one that leaves off the image source.

Can someone else weigh in here so that we can settle this issue? Another editor placed a tag on the mugshot to have it speedy deleted based on WP:NFCC #8, although all others (including me) disagree that this editor about the rationale for deleting the image, and at best, the mugshot should be permitted under fair use because the photo meets the conditions for use of non-free content if the mugshot falls under these provisions.

I came to this board for guidance, but found that the questions about other mugshots have related issues that have yet to be answered. →Lwalt ^♦ talk 12:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Python screenshot

Hi. I took a simple screenshot of the import this command and it's results on Python 2.5.1 to use in the Python Philosophy article.

Since Python license is GPL compatible, I wonder if it should be under a free license category or under the screenshot category.

Related:

• Python philosophy
• Python Software Foundation License

--Dolcecars 14:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a little-known template called {{free screenshot}} (also available on Commons) which should be appropriate in this case. Please make sure that your screenshot contains no non-free elements such as window decorations (although GPLed window decorations would of course be OK). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ilmari Karonen is correct. I would add that the correct text would be {{Free screenshot|template=GPL}}. Upload the image and add that text to the image description page (by clicking "edit this page" when you are viewing the image, its description, and the upload details). --Iamunknown 00:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Ilmari Karonen and Iamunknown!

I used the {{Free screenshot|template=GPL}} templete → commons:Image:Import_this_command.png

--Dolcecars 00:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

About adding Crank Dat to Hip Hop Music Section

As of July 19th, 2007 according to www.myspace.com/souljaboy, Crank Dat has evolved into a subgenre of hip hop and is not in the same category as snap hip hop. Crank Dat also has many dances and differs differently than snap hip hop. As with that, I believe you should write an article about Crank Dat hip hop music because it has evolved into over eight hundred dances and songs. --152.8.232.34 01:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

CD covers in article about a series?

What's the current thinking about the use of CD covers in an article about a series of CDs, like a discography article? BetacommandBot just tagged an image that's used in Bernice Summerfield, an article which is about both a fictional character and the series of books and audio plays in which she appears. The audio plays are currently listed in a table at Bernice Summerfield#Bernice Summerfield audio plays, which contains cover images for each CD. Is this acceptable under current guidelines, or should these images all be removed from the article? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Betacommandbot seems to have gone on the rampage today marking images with fair use rationales as deletable. I noticed it with Image:New_Zealand_Coat_of_Arms_old.gif, but by the look of the bot talk page, I wasn't the only one to notice. Grutness...wha? 06:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing an Image

I recently uploaded an image, and the OrphanBot informed me that I didnt specify the source and creator of the image, I continued to edit the image to include this, but I was unable, even with looking at the pages it provided, figure out how to specify the image source and creator...

I am the creator of the image, its a screenshot I took while in-game The images are for this article...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Revolution The image in question is this image...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Relic00391.jpg

How do I add a source and creator title so that they arnt deleted...

Thanks

--Sgt. D. Pilla 06:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Just "edit" the image page as you would any other Wikipedia page, and include, above your copyright tag, the information you gave here: That you are the creator of the image and that it's a screenshot of Combat Revolution. Powers ^T 18:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ill give that ago

--Sgt. D. Pilla 00:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Numbers.png

I am the uploader of this image. It is a screenshot that I took and I've provided a FU template, yet still it's being considered for deletion. What did I do wrong, and how can it be fixed? Cheers. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

how do i upload my image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Horashe (talk • contribs) 11:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

two questions

question one:

adding a company logo. how do i go about doing that? the company owns the logo, but there is no paperwork or anything of that nature. i want to upload the logo but i don't want it to be deleted.

any help is greatly appreciated.

question two:

i'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this question or not, but i don't know where else to ask. if this is not the right place, please direct me to the correct resource.

ok, i want to add a page but when i do search, there is already a page there (not for what i wanted to add). there used to be a link so that you could create a different page w/ that same topic name. is this still possible?? if so, how do i do it??

if you have any questions, please feel free to email me. at chnacat@sbcglobal.net

thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mouse1836 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Universe at war Earth Assault.jpg

Hey, I have a question here. Hopefully i will get a correct answer.

I have uploded this image to wikipedia Image:Universe at war Earth Assault.jpg after 1 month MrStalker removed the license from the image and said this image ic copyrighted and has to be deleted. While getting this image i have contacted petroglyph i have spoke to Ted Morris about the license as he deals with license. So he said iam free to use this image. He had not give me what sort of license is needed. So i gave it has a temporary license until i get an answer from Chris who is very busy with upcoming beta and game for Universe at war: Earth Assault. I can give only a permantent license when chris is free. Till then i want this image to be here in wikipedia aswell in the article.

Anyhelp would be grateful. Thank you. --SkyWalker 03:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is a correct answer:

You can't have the image in the article under the present license, but there's no deadline. So if it gets deleted, it gets deleted. When you get an appropriate license from this Chris (who hopefully is authorized to grant it) then you can upload it again and tag it appropriately.

Make sure Chris explicitly specifies one of the licenses associated with one of these tags. Restrictions on commercial use or limits to educational use aren't acceptable, so if he wants that we can't have the image. Then make sure he sends an email granting the specific license to permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org so Wikipedia knows about it and the image doesn't get deleted as mistagged. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

how do i put a tag

i dont know how to what do I do and how and where? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georocksomg (talk • contribs) 03:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Photo deletion for 1313 Mockingbird Lane

Hello, I recent became aware of a deleted photo due to no specifics listed on the fair use description page.It is a promotional photo used for news articles, club advertisements,etc. Evidently, it appears that the fair use image page gave no specifics as to why the image was a fair use image. I was unaware of this and apologize for not correcting the error. Unfortunately,due to recent difficulties with my (Hamilton Styden) password, it appears that I may have to abandon the original account used to create the article. I would appreciate any direction as to how to cure the error that I have made and get the image back up. Thank you. --Kendall869 05:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The name of the account under which you upload an image is immaterial, nor does it make a difference who uploaded it for the purposes of undeletion. It can be undeleted if you can convince an admin that you have an adequate rationale for it this time. (Re-upload of deleted images is discouraged since it most often means that inappropriate images are repeatedly replaced.)

For guidelines about how to write a rationale showing how an image's use is covered under the non-free media policy, see WP:FURG. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops! I just realized this probably pertained to the band, not The Munsters. In that case the situation is less in your favor. If this band is still together and performing, and the photo is of its current members, then we cannot use the photo under policy since it's possible to make a free image. You might be able to make a case for a non-free image of a performance if the band is no longer together, or of it when now-former members belonged, but you should expect there to be considerable discussion. The place to go to hash this out is WP:FUR. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Image-UN_Swords_into_Plowshares_Statue.JPG

Hello there. I just want to know why User:Polarlys deleted this image which is my own work. I photographed it myself, therefore I am the copyrightholder and contributor of this image. I would like you to undelete it. If you can't, kindly let me know so I could upload it from my camera again. I was even requested by an editor at Wikipedia to move this image to commons. It was originally uploaded as Image here at Wikipedia before moving to commons. I believe deletion was unnecessary. Thank you. - Dragonbite 07:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

And please note that this image is definitely NOT A DERIVATIVE WORK. I took the image myself! User:Polarlys is mistaken in this matter! - Dragonbite 07:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted; it was renamed and moved back to the English Wikipedia as a fair use image. Look for Image:UN_Swords_into_Plowshares_Statue.JPG.

The problem is, I think, that the statue appears to still be under copyright. In that case, your photo and all others of it are indeed derivative works -- although you of course own the copyright to the original elements in the photo. (This means that the photo of it on [[United Nations Art Collection] is mistagged, since it also is derivative of a work copyrighted to someone else and cannot be GFDL.)

The statue was made by a Soviet sculptor working in the USSR. Under Soviet law at the time it was made, copyright protection extended to the life of the author plus 15 years. Since the sculptor died in 1974, it would have fallen into the public domain in 1989. However, in 1973 the USSR became party to the UCC and in consequence extended copyright to 25 years after the death of the author. All right; another 10 years and it becomes PD in 1999. However, the USSR fell in 1991, and in 1993 the new Russian copyright law extended it to 50 years after the death of the author.

However, the US has long been party to the UCC, which specifically mandates that all work "published" by the UN be protected under US copyright law. (The UCC was promulgated by UNESCO, so that's a valid provision binding on the UN.) Displaying a statue in public constitutes "publishing" it. That provision was put into effect in 1971, at which time it would have acquired the registration US law required at the time. The original term would have been 28 years from that date with an optional 28 year renewal period. Subsequent changes to the law extended the renewal period and made renewal automatic for pre-1978 works. So even if it was PD under Russian law, it's still protected under US law. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Confused

I have pictures which I want to upload. I am presented with all these licences I can choose from, what do I choose and where can I get a explanation of these? Thanks and would you be able to reply on my talk page? Oh I uploaded one picture already http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ABunchofPretzels.JPG and I just choose any licence. Note these are all self made and taken by me. Phgao 11:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

answered on user's talk page.Geni 14:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyright tag

The image in question is a photo taken with my Pentax on August 25, 2006. There are no copyright issues associated with the photo. I give up all rights on this issue and ask that you, please, do the necessary copyright tag or labeling because I've looked at the necessary requirements contained in pages and pages of material and, not being familiar with any of this after vieweing the pages a couple of times, I still don't know how to properly tag it. Therefore I herein give up all rights to this photo, a photo that I have on my desk top, and you may use it as you see fit. Please respond to this note as I thank you --Mig 13:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

answered on user talk page.Geni 02:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I got Permission though.

on the page for the band dead poetic, I put pictures on there, an dI got permission from one of the band memebers to do that. Then today I saw they were deleted. Why? thanks.

--Playjex 14:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

because they were released for non-commercial only which is not considered free enough for use on wikipedia.Geni 02:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Copying text (not image) and citing website source

You don't have an entry for Gros Mondain and I wanted to add the description from the South African Fancy Pigeon Association quoting them as source. How best should one do this on Wikipedia in future? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fionatorr (talk • contribs) 15:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Image Problems

I know bots (OrphanBot in this case) can be a bit stupid, but this is my first problem with uploading images:

Image:StonehengeThumb.jpg - This is a thumbnail of the image already on the Stonehenge page, and licensed by the photgrapher including "adaptations". I have put this in the box along with for use only in a Userbox.

Image:Barclay1974.jpg - Again, reduced size of an image from a website, URL of which I have left in the box, I did email the website prorietor for permission, which he has granted.

Can you tell me where I've gone wrong here?--Rodhullandemu 19:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

used with permission of the website proprietor is a problematical tag since we don't know the wording of the permission and if it adds up to something being free.Geni 02:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Help With Image Licencing

Hello,

I would like to respectfully ask someone who is experienced enough to help me out on this. I'm a professional photographer with large database of pictures which I have taken and hold copyright to each of them. I did a brief search through wiki and found that I have images to accompany many articles which do not have images at all. I have already added several pictures to articles; however I seem to be having troubles clearly understanding how the licensing works.

Once again, I am the person who took the pictures. I am the only one who has them. Granted, I provide my images for use on few websites (such as www.AlbertaStars.com) and I also have my own personal site with my images, but they are all watermarked to prevent theft. I would like to enrich wikipedia with my pictures (and I already have) but I'm not sure how to handle licensing properly.

So far i have done what I thought was the best thing to do, but I don't want anyone to get after me saying it's not done as per wikipedia requirements, hence I thought I'd ask someone to check out the pictures I have added and give me advice how to do it properly. I have the full right to publish my own pictures on here but I don't have any legal background to understand how the image licensing works.

Somebody, please help,

Thanks a lot,

Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unclefecker (talk • contribs) 22:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

A potential problem is the "I release it for use on Wikipedia.org". If you want images to be on wikipedia they need to be under a free license that allows reuse and alturation by anyone even for profit as long as they stay within the terms if the licsense.Geni 02:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Geni, don't mean to be a pain, but how do I make pictures under "free license"? Can you provide more info (remember, I'm a newb to this...). Also, can you fill me up how to respond to people? I'm just using Edit This Page tab, but I'm not sure if this is the right way to do it. MarkMarek 12:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Short answer to that question is you remove that bit of text. Images will then be under the GFDL which allows use and alteration by anyone even for profit as long as they stay within the terms if the license (basicaly crediting the author and reproduceing the license.Geni 14:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean they can also use it outside of wikipedia? --MarkMarek 19:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

yes that is what "reuse and alturation by anyone even for profit as long as they stay within the terms if the licsense" means.Geni 19:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You should also be aware of wiki commons; see the link towards the bottom of the main wikipage. Snowman 10:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm checking up on wiki commons :) --MarkMarek 20:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ownership of a image

Hi! I was just wondering, if I upload a fair-use game cover from a 3rd party website, does the copyright belong to the 3rd party or the publisher/developer? Example MobyGames or IGN, all their images are waterstamped and their pages copyrighted to themselves. --MrStalker ^talk 02:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest finding images without watermarks however in the case you mention I suspect the answer would bw both.Geni 02:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyright remains with the publisher / developer. Also, watermarked images are not permitted at Wikipedia. -- But|seriously|folks  02:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Aren't they? According to..? --MrStalker ^talk 09:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Bump --MrStalker ^talk 15:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

See the end of Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#User-created_images.Geni 19:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User-created images aren't allowed to be watermarked, yes, but I'm talking about fair-use images. --MrStalker ^talk 12:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly. By putting a watermark on a work you are creating a derivative which would give you some level of claim over anyone else useing the watermarked image.Geni 02:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point, although the mobygames watermarks do not qualify for copyright protection. The IGN watermarks would because their logo is included. -- But|seriously|folks  02:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

question about logos

Image:PrimroseCrest.gif, is tagged as an unfree logo. The website its been taken from says [1] "The clan crest artwork is copyright of ScotClans and may not be reproduced without our permission. We grant free permission for the use of this crest for non commercial purposes only," Can these images even be used? Pretty much all of the clan pages on Wikipedia use them from this one website. The website says they aren't logos, they're artwork made by the them not to be used for commercial purposes.--Celtus 07:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Help with image copyright tag

I have uploaded an image and linked it to the entry on John Mearsheimer. The image is a picture of him taken by Greg Martin. John Mearsheimer holds the copyright and gave me permission to post the image on wikipedia. Could someone please help me create a copyright tag for the image so that it is not deleted after 7 days? Many thanks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mearsheimer thumb|Professor John J. Mearsheimer

Npmonteiro 12:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem is that permission for use on wikipedia only isn't considered free enough for wikipedia. Needs to allow reuse and modification by anyone.Geni 13:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have contacted John Mearsheimer, the copyright owner, and he replied: "I bought the picture and I own the copyright. I have no problem with the picture being used and modified by others." Would this solve the problem? What should I do? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Npmonteiro (talk • contribs) 14:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Does that include for profit? If that is a case an email needs to be sent to permissions@wikimedia.org confirming this.Geni 15:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I want to upload an image

I have never uploaded an image before.

This is what I want to upload-

• [2]

I want to put it on this page -

• 2007 Walker Cup

I know how to upload an image but I am not sure of all the copyright stuff. Any help would be appreciated.

michfan2123 21:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you can't upload that image. It is copyrighted, and it doesn't fall into wikipedia's nonfree content rules because it doesn't significantly contribute to the reader's understanding in a way that words cannot. For now, you'll just have to hope that someone who went to the event and took a picture comes online and uploads one of the photos that they have taken. Calliopejen1 17:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Question About Images On Another Site

I wanted to add a screen shot to the Small Foot page but I'm unsure if the site owner had an actual copyright on the screen shot? Should I still get permission from the site owner to use the picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CELKEE (talk • contribs) 23:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

State-issued warning sticker, not copyright.

I would like to post a scan of a warning sticker, issued by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. There is no notice of copyright on the sticker. Can I do that, and, if so, what license is appropriate? --Tim Ross 13:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't need a notice of copyright for something to be protected by copyright any more. So you probaly can't.Geni 19:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Images from other wiki pages

I uploaded an image from

http://wikidocumentary.wikia.com/wiki/Image:Wikidocumentary-logo2.jpg

Wikidocumentary-logo2.jpg the licensing there says:

"This file is copyrighted. The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that {{{1}}}."

what does this mean?

tnx

U5K0

--U5K0 15:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspect it means that they have't got a full template phaser installed. What it means in copyright terms? Hard to say.Geni 19:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

We all have our suspicions. But what it really means is that whomever attached the tag -- {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} -- failed to include the parameter describing the license conditions. Nudge the uploader and ask him what he wants them to be. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Image from an anonymous whistleblower

I was in contact with someone a few weeks ago about an image [3], but I mentioned that he would have to upload it with some sort of copyright permission and that might mean actually stating the legal name of who was giving the permission. (I said that I didn't know.) Since the organization involved is well-known for revenge against apostates, that seems to have had a discouraging effect. Before opening the subject with this person again, I thought I might as well get some opinions.

So. Does the GFDL require that the copyright owner give their actual name? What about pen names? AndroidCat 16:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If the photographer registers for a wikipedia account, he can upload it himself under a pseudonymous username. He also could forward his permission to permissions@wikimedia.org and only reveal his true name to the volunteers there. Perhaps implausible and totally uneducated/speculative worst-case scenario: this might be problematic if his release or taking of the photograph violated his contractual obligations or any laws. If wikimedia were subpoenaed in discovery for a related lawsuit, they might have to release the IP address of the uploader or the original permission email. These could be concerns if they revealed his identity. Calliopejen1 17:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not at all certain the "worst-case" is that unlikely[4], so I'll suggest precautions. AndroidCat 03:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe the "worst-case" is considerably worse than that, should the photographer somehow come back into their physical custody. [5] He should absolutely not reveal his name under any circumstances if he has good reason to fear reprisals.

The answer is no, the GFDL does not require use of the author's true name any more than any other published work does. Pseudonymous works are eligible for copyright, and its ownership of the copyright under whatever name that gives the authority to attach licenses. It should be sufficient to label himself in a manner of his choosing, and describe the place and circumstances under with the photo was taken -- in the permission email to Wikimedia, not publicly in the image description if he doesn't feel that's safe.

Since the photo is hosted currently at Chuck Beatty's website, if the photographer is already known to Mr. Beatty it would be sufficient to create a web page on the site in which to embed it (it doesn't seem to appear in any now) and include a GFDL notice on the page. With the license grant present at the image source, there's no reason to send a permission email at all, and it can simply be tagged {{GFDL}}. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm embarrassed and annoyed

I'm a long-standing user and I cannot make head or tail of the instructions on how to fix the licensing for Image:Roberts celebrates.jpg. The talk page message I received is no help whatsoever, neither is the tag on the image itself. I followed the upload instructions implicitly and when it came to the dropdown menu regarding licensing, there was no help available for the few options - I chose the one that I thought meant there were no licensing problems (and didn't automatically generate a speedy delete tag). Please can someone a) help me sort out this image and b) do something to improve the shocking communications surrounding uploads. --Dweller 22:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed -- it's overly complicated. This is primarily due to the inclusion of non-free images under certain circumstances. Anyway, problem 1 is that you need a machine-readable license tag. There are a bunch listed here. It's up to the owner whether to license it under the GFDL, Creative Commons or some other license. Problem 2 is that you are not the owner of the image. You should have your friend send you an email indicating that s/he owns the image and is licensing it under XYZ license, then forward the email to OTRS as specified at WP:DCP and WP:COPYREQ. Then, the OTRS staff will leave a template indicating that permission has been confirmed. I wouldn't wait for that to add the license tag though, as the image will likely be deleted in the meantime. You should also identify your friend. I don't think "a friend" qualifies as sufficient identification of the source of the image. Good luck! -- But|seriously|folks  23:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The systems we have in place are poor; anyone who can help sort them out deserves a lot of credit. --Dweller 12:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:AHSLogo1.gif

I uploaded Image:AHSLogo1.gif on May 27, 2007 with the fair use tag "K12-logo" and a fair use rationale using the template "Non-free media rationale". I was sent a message on my talk page on September 6 saying that the rationale was invalid. [6] What is the problem with my fair use rationale? --Albany NY 02:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lew_Wentz.jpg

Re: Image:Lew_Wentz.jpg. Someone from Germany deleted it!!

It is in the public domain.

Enough Said??

jcmcapital —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcmcapital (talk • contribs) 03:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

on what basis do you say it is in the public domain?Geni 15:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No, not enough said. We need to know where it came from and how old it (or the original) is. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

picture of sports player

Hi, I uploaded a picture of a rugby player I went to school with. I do have pictures of him but not in a sportive situations. The picture was taken from a rugby related web-page. I am writing to them so that they can give me permission to use it. In the webpage there is no information as to who the owner of the copyright is, or who took the picture in fact. The webpage is the official one for the Pumas squad. Could this be considered fair use? What could I do? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonelrosario (talk • contribs) 03:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It may or may not be fair use by law, but either way it cannot be used under Wikipedia's non-free policy since it's an image of a living person used merely to show what he looks like. The picture is copyrighted by law whether or not it's marked, and the webmaster of the site should be able to help you. Please ensure you're asking for the appropriate permission, as Wikipedia cannot use images licensed "for Wikipedia only" or restricted to educational or non-commercial use; nor is a response of "go ahead and use it" sufficiently specific. See the guide to asking permission for copyrighted material for what you need to ask for. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced question

what is elizabeth l full name —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.70.168 (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This page is for questions related to media hosted on Wikipedia's servers, not for general information. Please direct your question to the appropriate reference desk. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Letters

I have records of correspondence between a standing committee and an individual . . . what kind of copyright is that under? And would it be appropriate to upload to wikipedia? darthsuo 22:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

A standing committee of what body? TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was a committee created to carry out *another* committee's recommendation that Williams College provide room and board for its student body. The correspondence in question is basically the standing committee soliciting help from an alumni of the college. darthsuo 23:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)