Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 06:39, 5 June 2008 (Archiving 8 thread(s) (older than 7d) to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2008/May.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Skip to the bottom
      Media copyright questions
      Shortcuts

      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
      1. On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page.
      2. 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.
      3. 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.
      4. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}})
      5. Hit Publish changes.
      6. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below.
      How to ask a question
      1. To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below.
      2. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end.
      3. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page.
      4. 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

      Click here to purge this page
      (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

      Image:Donboscotech_logo.PNG has a fair use rationale. Is it okay for it to be used?


      Old Latvian newspapers

      Would publications at [1], printed 1920 and earlier in Latvia be PD? --09:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

      In the US, they would be considered public domain, as in {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. As Latvia is in the European Union, it probably follows the usual "public domain 70 years after death of author" rule. If you know this to be the case, the tag is {{PD-old-70}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      But who is considered as the 'author' in this case? the newspaper editor, the typograph or all individual article authors? --Soman (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Logos of schools in Germany

      Hello! Yesterday I have written to articles (Kaiserin-Friedrich-Gymnasium and Humboldtschule (Bad Homburg)) about schools in Germany. In the German articles of them there are the logos (KFG, HUS) of the schools but they are uploaded in German Wikipedia only. It is possible (regarding/concerning the rights) to upload the logos also at the English Wikipedia? (Because my English is not so good, I request that your answers are not to difficult to understand. Thanks. :-)) — Despairing, 00:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Yes, it is possible to upload logos here if they meet the criteria. Each one needs a copyright tag, probably {{Non-free logo}} and a rationale for each article it is used in, which can be added with {{Logo fur}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Do this two logos (and also this one (→ new article: Gymnasium der Stadt Kerpen)) meet the criteria? Are not there maybe any problems with the copyrights? Can I upload the logos without any problems? I do not understand the page WP:NFCC. I have not understand the thing with the templates {{Non-free logo}} and {{Logo fur}}. Which one I have to use for the two respective three logos? — Despairing, 12:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Why is this image public domain the author has not been dead for 70 years ?
      Image:Tomtebobarnen.jpg--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 09:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      One possible explanation is that the photograph was published in 1910 and WP:PD says "In the U.S., any work published before 1923-01-01 anywhere in the world is in the public domain." --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      My gamercard

      I want to add a image of my XBOX Live gamercard, made on this website, to my userpage. What license should I use?

      If each of the images in the card are public domain or under a free license, then you can use it, otherwise no, since fair use images aren't allowed on user pages. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      RSAF Black Knights

      The RSAF Black Knights article has seven non-free images which I think is a bit excesive. I started to look at the images which have a fair-use rationale for this article. I started to remove them from other articles without a fair-use rationale. The uploader has reverted my changes and added in some cases fair-use rationale. Some of the images of aircraft are used to illustrate features in the background (for example an island). Can somebody else have a look at this collection of images please particularly when it claims they are not replacable when they are a public aerobatic display team and the Black Knights article has other free images taken by the same uploader!. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Please provide me with a MINDEF authorisation letter to take a photo of the island and I would gladly let my images be removed from those pages. I am a former member of Republic of Singapore Air Force and I am still bound by my signature on the Official Secrets Act to not use my own images of the said island for use here, otherwise I would have very gladly provided them and risked getting prosecuted by my own works. Is that what you want? Btw, you did read my reasoning and rationale on them image page or haven't you? FYI, I had taken very careful considerations before adding them for use on other pages on top of the original page. As for those other images, which does not have any features of landmarks... they were aerobatic stunts performed during the Singapore Airshow 2008 and was taken by me. Take a look at U.S. Air Force Thunderbirds#Image gallery, I based my article format on this page. Thank you. --Dave1185 (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I dont have a problem with images taken by the uploader but that proves that the non-free images used on the same page are replaceable despite the rationale given that they are not replaceable. The page has a gallery that included both free (taken by the uploader) and non-free images of the same subject. Certainly a large number of non-free images of the same subject is probably outside the guidelines. Not an expert on the use of backgrounds on non-free images so I will wait for others to comment. MilborneOne (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Come on, if you are no expert then why not ask my opinion first? You claimed, in your own page, to be an ex-member of RAF but you are not aware of your legal binding by the Official Secrets Act of UK? In Singapore, we adhere to this even more strictly than you do, thus I wouldn't upload any image(s) that might be construed as a security breach without the proper clearance (I was a part-time official photographer for RSAF) unless it was taken by someone else such as Peter Steinmann - a professional photographer who had been commissioned by MINDEF on several occasions for photo shoot of RSAF's aircraft flight formations. And as far I can see, there are no problem on the above-mentioned page unless you deemed so but by what reason(s), might I ask? Using too much images? Is that it? I had merely consolidated them into one single image gallery for better presentation and viewing, is that necessarily a bad format? If so, I'm open to any better idea by you. Thank you. The below is what I had added under the fairuse column, take your time to read through slowly.

      Fair Use For RSAF Black Knights & Pulau Sudong

      This image linked here is claimed to be used under fair use as:

      1. No free equivalent. All Singapore Armed Forces camps and bases impose physical security measures, just like any other military camps and bases in the world. These measures include:
        • No entrance possible for persons without official reasons;
        • No image-capturing devices allowed, regardless of military status, unless special approval has been granted.
          As such, it is not possible for the uploader to obtain a free equivalent to this image. An exception would be when RSN ships participate in foreign exercises and images of the ships are taken by, for example, a United States Navy personnel. It is also noteworthy that unlike in the United States, works of a Singaporean civil servant produced during his/her course of work (for e.g. photographs) is not public domain. Perhaps the interested person objecting to the fair use status could find out when will the next foreign exercise be and request for permission to be onboard the foreign warship.
      2. This image is produced here in a non-commercial nature with the illustrational and informational purposes.
      3. Details of the copyright has been properly attributed to the copyright holder, the Ministry of Defence (Singapore) (MINDEF). As a government agency, it is also not known to sell copyrights for works such as images. As such, it does not limit the rights or undermine the copyright status of MINDEF in any way.
      4. This low-resolution image serves its purpose of illustration adequately.
      5. This image has been published previously by MINDEF in their official publications. A simple search online will yield these images; 95% of them are works of MINDEF.
      6. This image meets general Wikipedia content requirements.
      7. This image is used in at least one article.
      The uploader would appreciate any good free alternatives to this image, and would also like to urge the person objecting to the fair use claim to channel his/her efforts into helping Wikipedia obtaining free alternatives rather than simpy tagging them for deletion. It is believed this would be a more enriching and fufilling experience for the Wikipedian; after all, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort.

      --Dave1185 (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Your rationale explains why the non-free images cannot be replaced by a free replacement showing the same thing. But it does not explain why the free images which are already in the article do not serve the same encyclopedic purpose. By WP:NFCC#1, if a free image serves the same encylopedic purpose as a non-free image, the non-free image is replaceable. In particular, I submit that the non-free image in the infobox could be replaced with one of the free images in the galery.
      Your rationale does not address WP:NFCC#3 at all. “Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.” Why does the article need multiple items of non-free content? Couldn’t one item convey equivalent significant information?
      Your rationale does not address WP:NFCC#8 at all. “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.” Why are any of the non-free images in the galery essential to the article? I submit that the free images in the galery are more than adequate to illustrate the article. I submit that the last image of the galery serves no encyclopedic purpose. —teb728 t c 06:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I acknowledged the last two issues but might I ask you a question here? Have you read up on the page with those two images in question? Besides, if I was really that adamant about doing things my way, I would have put those two images to use for the other two nearby islands as well but I didn't since I use it on one to illustrate my whole point of the "Restricted Area" & "Southern Islands Live-Firing Zone" which encompasses all the three islands with those two images. --Dave1185 (talk) 06:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Now that you add Pulau Sudong to the rationale, I would say that the use of the two non-free images on that page fails WP:NFCC#8. They are not necessary to the article. The images do not illustrate the "restricted area" and even if they did, that text needs no illustration. The panorama and the map (both free) provide any illustration that the article needs. —teb728 t c 08:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry but I don't see it your way, you say that both image fails WP:NFCC#8. On the basis that the panoramic image, which in my opinion offers such poor 2D plan view of a group of islands from approx 5km away, and the map you point out illustrated to the point fully, which I think is ridiculous given an analogy that a blind person being led to an Elephant and be told that it is an Elephant? What I offered is a 3D view of where and how it is exactly, to the fullest point without any shred of doubt, it is that simple and clear. Moreover, the RSAF Black Knights were indeed training over them islands and was photographed on a PR mission by a renowned professional photographer - Peter Steinmann, which he doesn't has copyright over those images since MINDEF commissioned him to do the job. What is there more to say about that now? Besides, if you think it is that easy to get clearance to take a photo in them Live firing zone, I ask you to produce one for me now. I've served in RSAF before and am bound by the Official Secrets Act of Singapore, my own works are considered government property and hence no such possibility of me releasing them here or I risk getting prosecuted. --Dave1185 (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Not sure why you seem to think we want to replace your non-free image with some highly classified photo from the your past. All that is being said is that the non-free image may not be suitable under the NFCC guidelines. If an image is needed apart from the panoramic view already in the article then a non-free substitute is possible which could have been taken any time in the last sixty or seventy years. MilborneOne (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      This page is asking questions about copyright and about Wikipedia image policy; it is not a forum for debate. Since Dave1185 seems to want the latter, I have nominated the images for fair use review. —teb728 t c 19:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for that TEB728 MilborneOne (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Image:Pele HVO.JPG

      I'm trying to determine whether Image:Pele_HVO.JPG is a copyright violation. It is a photograph of a painting hanging in the Hawai'i Volcano National Park Visitor's Center. The uploader is the photographer and has given permission to use the photograph, but the copyright on the painting is unclear to me. The uploader said "copyright is (in)eligible since it is government property" but I don't think "government property" is sufficient. I think it needs to be a work produced by or for the US government. The talk page has the discussion thus far. I want to avoid copyright paranoia so I won't push the issue, but I wouldn't mind some independent voices. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      The US Government public domain only applies to works created by a federal government employee in their official duties. Even a work created by a contractor of the federal government is not automatically public domain, so I have no reason to think that being "government property" is sufficient reason in itself. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I found the artist's web site where he clearly asserts copyright. I have marked the image for speedy deletion. Thanks! --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 02:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Recreated image

      Maybe I'm going crazy. I thought Image:Cheproducts2.jpg had been deleted per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_May_8#Image:CGproducts2.jpg. Yet the image is back. What are the rules on this? Thanks, –Mattisse (Talk) 22:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      It's on WikiMedia Commons so I nominated it for deletion there. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Fair use image Orville Gibson

      Hi. Would it be OK to use this image [2] on the Orville Gibson article with Template:Non-free historic image? Ha! (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Two comments:
      (1) That template says "the image is low resolution and of no larger and of no higher quality than is necessary for the illustration of an article". The image is 2094x2891 which I would not consider low resolution. I don't know if that means you should make a low resolution copy of it to upload.
      (2) I'm not sure I understand that template. The photograph was taken before 1923 (since Gibson died in 1918), so its copyright has expired. I wouldn't think that a scanned copy of a public domain photograph could be covered by copyright. I added a question for clarification on the talk page of that template.
      Bottom line is, I guess, that I don't know. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you. Ha! (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      A copy of a two dimensional work with no original input does not create a new copyright and it inherits the copyright or lack thereof of the original. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Hmm.. so this might be public domain anyway and might be better on commons, depending on when it was published, if it still has a copyright on it or not and who owns it. I mailed Gibson who say they're OK with it being used on Wikipedia so I might ask them what it's precise origin/status is. Ha! (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      InterlockingPentagons

      Concerning: Image:InterlockingPentagons.svg and its use on mini-mental state examination.

      Cross-posting from WP:ANI. Two anons (155.41.160.31 (talk · contribs) and 24.60.18.243 (talk · contribs)) have raised the concern that a simple image (drawn by myself) of two interlocking pentagons is somehow "plagiarism" or a copyright violation. The image is part of a larger test of mental capability. This test was initially released in 1975 without copyright restrictions, but in 2001 a company based in Florida acquired the rights and started enforcing copyright on it. We used to list all the questions from the test, which were removed after we were made aware of the fact that the test was copyrighted.[3]

      The anons now claim that:

      Comments invited with regards to the status of the image, as well as the claim that we might be breaking the law. JFW | T@lk 06:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      If by "released in 1975 without copyright restrictions", you mean it was first published without a copyright notice, it is now irrevocably in the public domain; see {{PD-pre1978}}. Second, a very simple shape like two pentagons is likely ineligible for copyright as in {{PD-ineligible}}. I'm not a lawyer but I think the uploader would win for those reasons if if ever came to a legal battle, but it's up to the uploader if they want to take that risk. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Thanks RaWF. The problem is that a medical journal is not public domain. But your second point is well taken and I will wait for my friends to return and argue their point. JFW | T@lk 09:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      C.H. Moore House photo

      Is it possible to use the image at this url: C.H. Moore House photo in the C.H. Moore House article? Oli (talk) 07:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Does the house still exist? If so, the ideal would be for someone to take a picture and put it under a free license. The other option would be to find a picture and ask permission per WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Not seeing anything to the contrary, I have to assume the image has a copyright. Given that, the rules at WP:NONFREE apply. Of the "10 criteria" that must be met, in my opinion this fails two of them:
      • (1) No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. ....
      • (8) Significance. 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.
      (It fails (1) because, as Rat at WikiFur said above, someone could take their own photo and release it under a free license.) --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Ok,I understand thanks
      Oli (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Forgive me if this has already been discussed (I couldn't find it, if it was), but I was thinking of uploading a particular pictures of Peter Paul Rubens, c. 1615, to illustrate some classical mythology articles. The image, "Daughters of Cecrops Finding the Infant Erichthonius", depicts, well, just that. Unfortunately, the only instance of the image I've been able to find was a postage stamp from Liechtenstein. I'm guessing this makes the image unusable, but I was wondering if there was any way to find out with certainty. Is there a place on the internet (or better, on Wikipedia) that might help me out with this question? Please drop any answer on my talk page, if possible. Thanks. Ford MF (talk) 05:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      According to Wikipedia:Copyright_situations_by_country, copyright in Liechtenstein expires after Life+70. I didn't see anything that would make an exception for postage stamps. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for pointing the way. I wasn't quite clear on if postage stamps and currency weren't some kind of weird exception. Ford MF (talk) 18:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      I have a question regarding linking to videos on YouTube from an the Demos from the Basement article. The videos are unnofficial, and consist of a music track over a still image [6]. I understand that linking to an unnofficial video is not allowed due to copyright, however the question here is whether these songs are indeed copyrighted. They are from a demo album of which only a limited number (200 I think) were made and distributed for free, which has led some to believe that they are not copyrighted. Personally, I still believe that there would be a copyright associated with these songs even though they were given away. Thus, my query is basically are these songs copyrighted and can we link to these videos or not? Cheers Nouse4aname (talk) 09:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      I tend to agree with you on this one. The fact they were given away for free doesn't mean anything. My guess is they are still copyrighted. Just my opinion though. Landon1980 (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Would this Copyright Notice forbid the content it covers being displayed on Wikipedia?

      I want to use photographs found at www.dfat.gov.au. On www.dfat.gov.au/copyright is this copyright notice

      This work is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in unaltered form only (retaining this notice) for your personal, non-commercial use or use within your organisation. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are reserved.

      On the basis of what the notice says, am I permitted to upload and use such photographs? Kransky (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      No. The restriction in that statement for unaltered, non-commercial use is problematic, since Wikipedia requires images can be altered and reused for any purpose, including commercial ventures.Dcmacnut (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Dcmacnut is correct - see WP:CFAQ#Non-commercial licenses. Kelly hi! 16:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Could I have a image of Gordon Brown

      To Wikipedia 

                 I've got website and i wondered if you have a image of Gordon Brown i could use hope you do!

      From David aged 12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.145.189 (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Yes, go to Gordon Brown, click any of the images, and it will tell you under what conditions you can use the image. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Australian Government images

      What would images from Australian Government websites be classed under? I've always thought they have been in public domain.

      Hothguard11 (talk) 06:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      I believe that works of the Australian government typically are copyrighted and restricted to non-commercial non-derivative use. See the post a couple of sections up from here. With such restrictions they are non-free and may be used only in accordance with Wikipedia’s restrictive non-free content criteria. —teb728 t c 07:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Non-exist organization's images

      Hello, I'm a sysop from Vietnamese Wikipedia, a user there uploaded some photos which he said that it is from some booklets published by Ministries of Republic of Vietnam in 1960s. I'm very confused what license tags should be used and hope that experienced users here can help me. The issues are:

      1. As international practice, if a country is eliminated, all the copyright will follow the successive state (like Empire of Russia, USSR will be Russia, so Republic of Vietnam will be Socialist Republic of Vietnam).
      2. In Vietnam, the copyright law protects right for 50+ of author's life and everything will be in public domain (or as it says "not protected by law") if they are "official documents, legal documents of government, political organization; technical specifications,...". So, if a ministry published a booklet about news and photos, currently it is copyrighted in Vietnam.
      3. But the problem is, Republic Socialist of Vietnam doesn't recognize Republic of Vietnam's publications as they say "they were propaganda of older regime, and against the current communist regime".

      So, what should I do with those images, I thought about fair-use, but I hope it will be the last solution. Vinhtantran (talk) 07:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Can you provide a reference to your last point about non-recognition? Since vi.wikipedia is hosted in the USA this is governed mostly by whether or not the work is protected in the US which is a distinct question from how they are treated by the SRV. There is the possibility the work is protected in the US and is not in Vietnam (or vice versa). See Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights There was a question about the same topic last month here (Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2008/May#copyright regarding an extinct entity). Without clear evidence that the work really has no protection (see the various tests at the guideline page), the safe assumption is that it is protected in the USA and fair-use applies. – Zedla (talk) 05:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      In addition to the above, point #2 appears to contradict itself. If I'm reading it correctly, all creative works produced by the Vietnamese government are in the public domain by default, therefore they are not currently copyrighted, nor will they ever be unless Vietnam changes the law. Meanwhile, non-governmental works are copyright for the life of the author plus 50 years. -- Hux (talk) 06:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      You read incorrectly, Hux, I have read Copyright Law (Luật Sở hữu trí tuệ) and there is obviously no mention about what so-called "Government works", just government official documents (laws, guidelines,...). I have proposed to delete {{PD-VNGov}} in Vietnamese Wikipedia, and haven't received any objections. As Zedla said, I think I will choose the safe solution, use it with fair, and propose for deleting if it is not too necessary to article. Thank you. Vinhtantran (talk) 10:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Plymouth Blitz

      {{helpme}}Can I upload this image onto Wikipedia (I'd prefer onto commons, though). If so what license should I give it? http://www.bbc.co.uk/devon/content/image_galleries/it_came_to_our_door_book_gallery.shtml?6 }}

      But it's used as the front cover of the book It Came To Our Door and on the gallery on BBC, which put together a collabaration of World War Two photos that were "lost" for a long time. I doubt that the authoer of the book or the BBC have the author's direct permission. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Under the other info section for buying this book it says "Illustrations & Other Content Notes: 400 b&w photographs, many previously unseen". http://www.whsmith.co.uk/CatalogAndSearch/ProductDetails-It+Came+to+Our+Door+-9780954348038.html#
      You would need to see the book to see what they say about ownership of copyright. The BBC can claim fair use where we cannot. They are also quite likely to have explicit permission. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      It seems a little odd that these images from World War Two were put into a book and sold for money and now Wikipedia, a non profit organisation, cannot use the images to display the Plymouth Bliz. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I believe you were actually reviewing the wrong image here. Try try the link at the top of the section again. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I saw that. Unfortunately no one can comment on selling the book for money until you know more about the ownership of copyright. Perhaps the author of the book paid the author of the photo a shedload of cash and now you're proposing to give it away for free. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      How about these bad boys? Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Creator: Devon Library and Information Services

      Title: World War 2 : German military intelligence documents

      Imprint: : Devon Library Services

      Date: 2003

      Format: Web page : HTML

      Series: Devon's heritage ; D941

      Ref. no.: WEB NAZI

      Coverage: Westcountry . World War 2 . Military intelligence . 1939-1945

      Last Updated: 06/05/2005

      I see no evidence that these are in the public domain (the works are credited so you may be able to check further). Also see Wikipedia:Public_domain#German_World_War_II_images and possibly ask at WP:MCQ. You should try looking for photos by US service personnel as they are usually in the public domain, or perhaps ask at one of the WikiProjects. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Eugh, EU proving as useful as ever in intergrating europe there! Anyway at the bottom of the section it says "However, fair use cases can be made in many cases". I need some help on how to upload a fair use image though... Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Use of images from Press information Bureau

      Can the images published by the Government of India in the Press informatin Bureau website can be uploaded into Wikipedia. The website claims its free and meant for the press/media/public. Source:[7]. The copyright holder is obviously the PIB. But they are stating that those images published can be used free can these images be used in Wikipedia.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Please come to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. As the banner at the top says, this page is closed. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 09:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Similarly I would like to know about uploading the images from this site.[8] which give permission to use it for free "This photo is free for news media use." Chanakyathegreat (talk) 02:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      No, that's not considered free content on Wikipedia. It has to be usable by anyone. You could try WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 07:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      What about the PIB website, it's said that anyone can use it for free.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Image:Blair_Witch_Project.jpg

      why was this image removed, and where is the notification that it was up for deletion in the first place? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      The image was deleted for not having a fair use rationale. See deletion log following the above redlink. Megapixie (talk) 07:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay. Now, how to go about seeing the image, so as to be able to verify that a user utilizing a bot did not make an error (Maxim was apparently using the bot to remove images beginning with the letter 'B') - in other words, how to see the deleted image? The image was apparently removed w/out discussion (ie, I couldn't find a note of it). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      It indeed had no rationale (admins can see it, other users unfortunately can't), so the deletion was formally correct. However, since it's a movie poster of a notable film, I don't see why there should be a problem once a standard rationale is added. If you want to provide one, I can undelete it for you, I don't think anybody would object. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      (e/c)Images are tagged as questionable by bots, but they are deleted only by admins. And once deleted they can be viewed only by admins.
      The bot posted a warning on the uploader’s talk page, User talk:Brandon.Weight. —teb728 t c 17:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, FutPerf, please undelete it, and I will provide a rationale. Clearly, the wisdom of watchlisting all the images of an article I am working on is apparent. Is there a reason why notice wasn't given in the article? It would seem (to me, at least) to be a no-brainer to post a notice int he article discussion page, since the uploader might be long gone, and the people working the article would have more interest in the deletion of an image being used in the article. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Done, undeleted. About notifications, there is a notification template that can be added to the article page itself, and I'd guess the bots are configured to do that routinely, but perhaps they have technical difficulties pasting the template if the image is being used in an infobox. You're right, it would be a good idea in such cases to post something on the talk page instead. Perhaps you could make that suggestion to the bot owners? It's not really for this page here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for the undelete and the info. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      hello sir,

      how can i link my images to other page. if i want to put my image to other pages is it possible..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratikppf (talk • contribs) 07:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      NFCC#8

      Can anyone confirm that images used for purely decorative purposes in galleries fail this criterion? Thanks. 81.110.106.169 (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Images used for purely decorative purposes fail this criterion, galleries or no. WilyD 20:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • ...and galleries fail, decorative or not. "Decorative" isn't a very useful concept, though. It's a counterexample to an image that has a suitably significant encyclopedic purpose and is not an over-use of non-free images per NFCC #3 and #8. In copyright law, decorative means exactly what it says - used for purposes of ornamentation. An image used solely to show what something looks like or to identify something (e.g. for a section heading or to use as a symbol) is not decorative, and most galleries are just that - a collection of images to show what things look like. Decorative might mean using an image as a border, or a background, to make everything look pretty. But our standard is much higher than that. Anyway, non-free images in galleries, decorative or not, are generally prohibited as failing #3 and #8. That's been a rather firm rule for at least the past year or so - no non-free images in galleries. Wikidemo (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Err, this is not really true. There are extremely exceptional cases where valid galleries use nonfree media. Better to worry about whether its decorative or instructional. WilyD 21:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      It might be better to note the article where the possible issue is occurring, instead of asking folk to issue a blanket statemetn on matters that are often resolved on a case-by-case basis. I am guessing that this might be related to the London Overground article, where the anon presenting the issue here has been involved in an unresolved edit-war (noting the anon's usertalk space and contributions). Don't know about you folks, but I kinda hate being used. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Images copied from provincial ministry web-site

      How do you indicate the copyright for an image copied from the province of British Columbia's Ministry of Advanced Education's web-site? I uploaded the picture I wanted to use, then got that notification about possible copyright violation even thought I provided the necessary source information. (Dawnalee8 (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

      I presume you are talking about Image:Org07 internet.gif which is copied from [9], the website states that all rights reserved so it is not free image than we can use on wikipedia. It might meet one of the criteria for use of Non-free images but I suspect it is not allowed as it can be replaced by either text or a similar (but not exact) self created image. MilborneOne (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed, this is going to be covered by Crown Copyright, which expires on January 1, 50 years after it was first published (Probably Jan 1 2059). In the meantime, create a free alternative presenting the same information without copyright that chart. Cheers, WilyD 21:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Ah pooh, okay I won't bother uploading that image to the Wiki article. Thanks anyway. (Dawnalee8 (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

      Template:New South Wales Police Force use of image

      A little bot problem with {{New South Wales Police Force}} and Image:NSWPF logosmall.jpg.

      I refer to Wikipedia:Help desk#Non free use image in template problem..

      I am aware of the template exclusion for fair use images but thought there was an exemption for when the image was explicitly and solely depicting the legal personality which held the rights to the image.

      The image in question could be used on each page the template is being used on. So why cannot the image appear in a template which provides the common information to the pages. This is what templates are for.

      Please note that there are other templates like this one, see Category:Snapshotinfoboxes.

      What needs to be done so that that an exemption can be made for templates like this, that is, templates which contain tangible encycyclopedic content, for use encyclopedically, they are not navigation boxes, etc.?

      I could work around the problem by putting the relevant material into a main space "article" and transcluding it using : prefixes, but this is likely to be inelegant and produce a clunky looking article. However, I should not have to do this from a fair use aspect, because the material is being used identically, whether it is in a template in template space, in a "template" in main space, or repeated in each article in main space.

      Perhaps the whole template could be managed as fair use content once it has a fair use image content in it ?


      In short, how can you put encylcopedic content containing a fair use image into a template so that it can be used on multiple pages, where the image in the page DOES comply with fair use requirements?

      Peet Ern (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


      These are just my thoughts on the matter... Per WP:LOGO, "Copyrighted logos, like all non-free media, require a separate use rationale in the image description each time they are used in an article. The template {{logo fur}} may help editors construct a rationale." If a logo were used in a template, it wouldn't really be possible to list the separate use rational for each article it was used in. In addition, it could be argued, since the image is part of the template, that no one has studied each article and verified that the use of the logo on that page is covered by fair use.
      In fact, with a quick look, I'd say the logo really should not be used on Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service.
      So, for me, I'd say it has to do with the lack of control over which articles it gets included in and the lack of fair use rational on a page-by-page basis. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 04:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The logo would need a rationale for each article the template is used in I would think though the use of the logo in a template could be considered as decoration which is not allowed. MilborneOne (talk) 11:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Photos of copyrighted material

      I'm having a conundrum with this photo (Image:NIN Tour posters.jpg being used in List of Nine Inch Nails tours). The photo itself is GFDL, so we're cool there, but it's a picture of posters that are probably copyrighted. In a way, it's somewhat similar to photos such as Image:CocaColaBottle.jpg being used in the Cola article. Both seem alright to me, but there's a shred of doubt in my mind. How should one handle something like this? Drewcifer (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      The first question to answer, I think, is: is the use of the tour poster (which as you say is probably copyrighted) in this article considered "fair use"? In WP:NONFREE#Acceptable use it indicates that, for example, cover art and promotional posters in the right context can be considered fair use. However a little further down it in WP:NONFREE#Unacceptable use it says "The use of non-free media in galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements generally fails the test for significance (criterion #8). Given below are further examples of images that, if non-free, may fail to satisfy the policy: 1. An album cover as part of a discography, as per the above." I'd say that a list of tours is enough like a discography to be covered by the same rule. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed. But I guess my question is does the photo fall under GFDL or fair-use? Drewcifer (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Simple typography and geometric shapes are not copyrightable, so there's probably nothing in the poster that's copyrighted. The uploader of Image:Nine Inch Nails logo.svg has also tagged the logo as not eligible for copyright. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      So to summarize (Rat at WikiFur, please correct me if I have it wrong): If the poster is copyrighted, then the image should be tagged as fair-use. If the poster is not copyrighted, then the image can be tagged with the photograph's license (GFDL). I would have thought the poster would be copyrightable, but Rat at WikiFur has suggested that it is not. I'd go with his advice since he's been answering copyright questions here for quite a while now and still learning all the intricacies. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      We have per previous precedent, Image:Nine Inch Nails logo.svg, that the NIN logo is not copyrightable. The rest of the poster is facts in bare form in simple typography. While it will have to be {{trademark}} tagged because of the logo, the photographer can choose the license, and if he chooses a Wikipedia-compatible license, it doesn't require a fair use rationale. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 04:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      That definately clears it up for me. Thanks. Drewcifer (talk) 05:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Adding Pictures

      How do I add a picture to a page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darbyji (talk • contribs) 08:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      See this page for a full explanation of how to upload and use images. J Milburn (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Aozora Bunko

      Re: Image:Aozora Bunko how-to-make illustration.png? Image talk:Aozora Bunko how-to-make illustration.png#Fair use?
      I recently uploaded what I considered to be "fair use" images for use only in Aozora Bunko -- an article about a Japanese digital library and public-policy advocacy group. Sdrtirs examined the support information for both of them, finding one to be adequate and the other not.

      While I regret my errors in properly documenting the modest argument for fair use, I don't quite know how this happened nor do I understand how to correct my mistakes. Using the format of the one image which seems to have been successfully uploaded, I tried to create a full and detailed explanation at Talk:Aozora Bunko#Fair use. Doubtless there is something more I should do now, but what must seem obvious to you remains opaque to me. I'm simply asking for direction? --Tenmei (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Ok, first, Image:Aozora Bunko how-to-make illustration.png doesn't seem to be a logo, so I replaced it with a generic fair use template. Check to make sure it looks okay to you now. Second, Image:N0-70.png is simple enough that it may not be copyrighted at all and you can use it as {{PD-textlogo}} without needing a rationale. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for your help. Initially, I would have thought that this particular paper-folding image was altogether too insignificant; but I was moved to upload it because the article inspired what I took do be a good faith complaint. As it happens, Aozora Bunko was merely a digitial library up until 2006; and I found myself facing a persistent critic who seemed to believe that additional information about copyright law was a kind of corrupting irrelevancy. He simply could not understand any explanations --- and all efforts to explain were unavailing, despite the linked in-line citations and references. These two graphics -- simple though they may be -- seemed to represent some kind of tipping point which helped clarify whatever unresolved issues there were. In this instance, a graphic "picture" really did seem to be more powerful than words ...; but then I somehow managed to mishandle the uploading protocols. As you can imagine, I was beginning to feel quite frustrated -- all of which is to say that your input was truly appreciated far beyond what would have seemed normal. --Tenmei (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      This was a pointless effort. I paid attention to the urgent threat from a robot that I must deal with questions immediately. I did seek advice, and I followed it -- only to have another robotic message bothering me with a new complaint, this one no more understandable than the first. This wasn't worth the effort. I'm sorry I invested any time in this exercise. --Tenmei (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      It's okay, I'm taking care of it. I've watchlisted the images. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Chisel at Maxwell's image

      I own the negatives and the prints of these images—the image was also properly credited to the photographer. They are property of the band of which I was a member. Why have they been removed—twice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonialboy (talk • contribs) 16:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Image copyright is held by the photographer, unless specifically transferred in writing(except in the narrow case of a work for hire). The ownership of the physical photograph is irrelevant. If it is the case that you are the copyright holder, explain how you came to hold the copyright on the image description page. Otherwise, see WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Autographs

      What do you think about copyright for autographs? Something like this: [10]. Do the heirs of these persons hold copyright for this? May I upload this scan to national section or to Commons? Andrei Romanenko (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Signatures are not eligible for copyright, according to Signature#Copyright. In Wikipedia, you can tag them {{PD-ineligible}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Image deletion

      Hello,

      I am trying to upload a free image File:Eliteweb.jpg but I am being told it has been deleted. I am not sure how to get it un-deleted, or rather get the permission to upload it again. the image is located at http://www.eliteanswers.com/img/media/logos/EliteAnswers_High_Resolution.jpg

      Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yitzhaac Pesach (talk • contribs) 01:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      That seems to be very much not a free image. It would likely be usable under fair use in an Elite Answers article, but no such article seems to exist. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      How do I add a tag a photo that I have uploaded ?

      Hello .. have warning message from robot .. How do I add a tag a photo that I have uploaded ? below are 3 such file .. can you show me example of how I add the Public tag.

      Image:COA doc.jpg Image:Coat of Arms 1615.jpg Image:Conti de Wlassm.jpg

      Thanks Vlasime (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm assuming that you've tagged them {{GFDL-self}} because you took the pictures, correct? --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 03:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Hello .. Yes I have photos of all the documents ( in fact I have many of the original documents ) .. the ones from 1593 and Daun Arch. are in Museum in Bruno( Czech Republic )but photos of them were sent to me for my use ... all are listed in Buro under family name / title Jankovsky z Vlasimi since they were created for us .. thanks for your review !Vlasime (talk) 04:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Image_copyright_tags for a centralized discussion on bringing our copyright tag names into compliance. MBisanz talk 03:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      permission to use articles

      Hi I want to use your articles in one of the textbooks i'm writing. can i down load the articles and acknowledge it in the acknowledgements page or is there any other procedure for obtaining permission to use the articles in my textbooks.

      Thanks Revathi 59.94.247.214 (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      WP:REUSE should answer your questions on this front. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Festspiele Balver Höhle

      Hi, i guess these images are Public Domain. Do you agree? --Weissmann (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      First, I'm not familiar with German copyright law, so everything I say would be based on my understanding of the US laws. The creator of the work automatically holds the copyright. ("Under the Berne Convention, copyrights for creative works do not have to be asserted or declared, as they are automatically in force at creation." (see Copyright#History). In the US that is true from 1978 on (see Template:PD-Pre1978).) What makes you think it might be in the public domain?
      I think the {{Non-free newspaper image}} is the correct one and I think fair use can easily be claimed.
      However, I think the images are of too high resolution since the writing can easily be read. Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text 2 lists the following as unacceptable use: "3. An image of a newspaper article or other publication that contains long legible sections of copyrighted text. If the text is important as a source or quotation, it should be worked into the article in text form with the article cited as a source."
      Do you have a scan of the cover of the flyer to use instead? --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Dear Ishi, first let me say "thank you" for your help. Let me add a cover of the flyer so we can decide later which is the best way to expand this article on a proper way. All the best --Weissmann (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Apropos the message received by me, I have added the copyright details for image MVD1.jpg, for which Im the copyright holder. But Im not sure who holds the copyright for the following nine images:

      Agamben 1.jpg
      Agamben 2.jpg
      Agamben 3.jpg
      Zizek 1.jpg
      Zizek 6.jpg
      Zizek 8.jpg
      SP 2.jpg
      SP 3.jpg
      Shelley Pollock.jpg

      As a new user, these images were uploaded by me without ascertaining the copyright particulars. I request contributors and editors to ascertain copyright of these nine images. If this is not possible, I recommend the deletion of these nine images.

      Nikhilesh. 10.25, 4th June, 2008 (UTC)

      Can you give us any clues about where these images came from, who might have taken them, where you found them? Without more information, there isn't much we can do. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Question about licensing

      I am the author of a Wikipedia entry on the Israeli engineer and business executive Dov Frohman. I have access to a quality photo of Frohman used on the book jacket of his recent book and also online at: [11].

      Frohman is happy with using this photo on Wikipedia, but it's unclear to me who owns the rights (Frohman, the photographer). At any rate, I think it's likely we can use the image. My question: what do I (or Frohman or the photographer) need to do create a GFDL-compatible license? I'm a real neophyte about this so basic help would be greatly appreciated.

      Rash21954 (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Unless there is a written agreement otherwise, or it falls under the narrow definition of a work for hire, the photographer owns the copyright. Also, whoever the copyright holder is, they have to choose a license that allows anyone to use the photo, not just Wikipedia. See WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      I have, via e-mail, been granted to use an image on an article, which the contact person in question holds the copyright to. How can i reflect this permission properly on the image description page? Will mentioning that i was in contact with the owner and a date be enough? Am i supposed to post contents of the back-and-forth e-mails? Or what else? Thanks. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 21:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Just to be sure you understand, permission to use an image only on Wikipedia is not acceptable; the permission must allow reuse by anyone for any thing. See WP:COPYREQ for what permission is required and how to submit it. —teb728 t c 21:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I was not aware, thanks for pointing that out. That voids my question. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 21:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Hiram Burnett

      I have encountered a situation that is new to me with respect to the above-noted page, and think I need someone more knowledgeable to step in. The material is plainly an exact duplicate of material on another web page (I've cited the web page in the "db copyvio" notice I placed on the page) but the material is fairly clearly copied from a source that is asserted to be in the public domain, and is said to be part of something called the "Washington Biography project", or words to that effect. It's that last bit that worries me; the public domain material has apparently been published by an official source (Washington State, USA) as part of a larger project of accumulating biographic material. Can someone have a look at this page and remove the copyvio tag if it seems appropriate? Thanks in advance to whomever considers this. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      According to the credit at the top of [12], it was transcribed from "An Illustrated History of the State of Washington, by Rev. H.K. Hines, D.D., The Lewis Publishing Co., Chicago, IL. 1893". Any work published before 1923 in the US is public domain. If it was simply transcribed into electronic format, no new copyright was created, and it is still public domain. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for your prompt assistance with this: I'll go and remove the copyvio tag. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Removing LOGO Onda

      Hi, I just added a logo to the site of ONDA after I had received permission from the/a webmaster of that company to use that logo as long as it was not changed in any way and as long as the source/owner was mentioned. Nevertheless I saw a bot had removed it seconds later. Can you explain me what I did wrong? Many thanks, --JanT (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC) (page was about ONDA (Morocco)[reply]

      When we get an image that we aren't allowed to modify or has other restrictions, we look only at whether it meets the Non-free content criteria. If it does, then we write a fair use rationale. I'm not sure about the details of the problem, since ONDA (Morocco) hasn't been edited since November 2007, but if you need help, you can ask back here. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Works by the government of Afghanistan

      Hi, I just came across a newly-created article at Amirzai Sangin, which is a direct copy'n'paste of http://www.president.gov.af/english/cabinet/bios/amirzai_sangin.mspx. Most pages on that site (e.g. http://www.president.gov.af/english/cabinet.mspx) assert "© 2006 Office of the President", however list of countries' copyright length suggests that Afghanistan has no copyright law (it's probably not at the top of the Afghan government's list of priorities) which would imply that the text is in the public domain. What's the best approach in this situation - delete as a copyvio on the basis of the asserted copyright, or treat it a PD source based on the apparent lack of any copyright law? -- AJR | Talk 23:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Agreed, it appears there are no copyright relations with Afghanistan. Opinion follows: Since it is probable that eventually there will be copyright relations with Afghanistan, it is better to get permission or delete it as a copyvio. Since writing a new article in Wikipedia's own license is straightforward and avoids possible future problems, the choice seems clear. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Rules for using Fair Use images in sandbox

      I use sandbox at bottom of my user page to prep articles before uploading them to thier final home. Sometimes article includes Fair Use imgage. Just had Oregon State Parks logo deleted from sandbox page even though it was image for article on Collier Memorial State Park--a legitimate Fair Use article for Oregon State Park logo. In this case, I already finished/uploaded article so nothing was lost. However, want to be sure I understand rules for using Fair Use images in sandboxes?--Orygun (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm pretty sure it's official policy that non-free images are not allowed on user pages: in general, such usage is inconsistent with US copyright law and although there are some situations in which it's not, the Trustees have decided to err on the side of caution. One major factor as to why they're not allowed is that user pages are wide open to public browsing. What might be acceptable is if you moved the sandbox from your user page to a sub-page (e.g. just edit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Orygun/sandbox). The only way that page can be seen by others is if someone searches for it using Special:PrefixIndex (unlikely) or they just randomly type the address in (really, really, unlikely). Does that help?-- Hux (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Image from a PD TV Broadcast

      I have an image I'd like to use on the article for Let's Join Joanie. I've checked various websites and I've confirmed the broadcast is PD. I'd like to upload the image, But I don't know what license to use. Retro Agnostic (talk) 05:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      "Fair rationale use"?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KennedyBaird


      The message at the bottom of the page, could someone explain it in more detail for me?

      Thanks, Kennedy (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions&oldid=217253216"