Wikipedia:Media copyright questions
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions".

If you have a question about a specific image, please be sure to link to it like this: [[:Image:Example.jpg]]. Thanks!

How to add a copyright tag to an existing image

1. On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts Image:), click Edit this page.
2. From the page Wikipedia:Image copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag. For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators".
3. Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{GFDL-self}}), 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 Save page.
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 ask your question" 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.

This page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive. Sections with fewer than two timestamps (no replies) are not archived.

Uploading an image of a live person

I just had an image removed, although the person himself sent me the picture and gave me permission to upload it here to Wikipedia. His name is Graeham Goble, and I work with him here in the U.S. (he lives in Australia). I'm confused on what to: (1) Select for WHAT KIND of image it is; and (2) what is meant by saying "GFDL-self" or "PD-self". Are these latter terms supposed to be placed in the code on the edit side, or is it supposed to be placed in the tags section?

It was frustrating to have this image removed as it took me over two hours last weekend to figure out how to successfully upload the image to begin with.

Thanks, Tami (GAPeach64) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GAPeach64 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest reading WP:COPYREQ first. If the people reviewing permissions have an e-mail to work from, they can update the copyright tags for you. If you have any questions after that, just let us know. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 02:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Painting stonecave.png

Can someone take a look at Image:Painting stonecave.png? It is a photo of a painting by Ching Hai, and is used on that article, but was uploaded with a GFDL license. Unless User:Truthexplorer is Ching Hai herself, I don't think TE can do that. Aleta ^Sing 15:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite right. Just because I can take a video camera into a movie theatre - doesn't make the resulting video footage entirely mine. I'd list it as a {{speedy}} Megapixie (talk) 01:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

DVD screenshot of a promotional photograph

I'm planning to upload this image for use in the article Davros (per discussion at Talk:Davros, it will replace one of the existing images on that page). I got the image from a screenshot I took from the Genesis of the Daleks DVD, but it was not from the television episode itself. The DVD contained a selection of publicity photographs taken during the making of that story. Should I use {{Non-free television screenshot}} or {{non-free promotional}}? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I would go with non-free promotional. Make sure to include a fair use rationale. Megapixie (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

All uploads of a user are suspect

I beleive most or all of the uploads of User:Sirius86. He now just tags everything {{PD-self}}. His image descriptions are typically just a file path on his hard disk. He could, in theory, have taken some of the pics, but he surely didn't take the picture Image:Mirza Mahmood Ahmad1924.jpg. Now, that picture may be public-domain due to its age, but the fact he tagged it as self-made, makes me doubt the identical tagging of more recent uploads. Some old, now deleted images, did have a url, but the site indicated the image was copyrighted, with all rights reserved (hence, they were deleted). I think an admin should get involved, and the user shouldn't be able to keep uploading images, without a better explanation. But, I'm not sure the procedure for reporting the problem. --Rob (talk) 02:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Attempt to make contact with the user on his user talk page, explaining that he needs to provide a source for the image (i.e. a webpage or book where the image came from). Give him a couple of days, and then if he hasn't taken action, tag anything without a proper source as {{nsd}}. Point him at a good example of an image with sourcing information - say (randomly) Image:Nuremberg_chronicles_-_NISSA.png. Megapixie (talk) 05:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Posibility of Fair Use?

Is there any way to use this image (from this page) as fair-use non-free image on 120 Days of Sodom? A previous version of a photograph has been deleted on commons due to copyright violation tough i do feel a photograph of the original manuscript is valueable to the article. FruitcakeNL (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Only when it passes all the criteria of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Garion96 (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Would it be in principle possible for somebody to go to the museum/library where it is kept, and make a free photograph of it? If yes, it's out, for being replaceable. Note that it might be the case, depending on the local rules, that the library doesn't allow the publication of photographs without their consent; in that case a free photograph is probably not possible (we could just as well ask them to release one they have themselves; we're at their mercy either way.) In that case, I'd say fair use is legitimate, as the article contains a discussion of the physical form of the scroll, which profits significantly from the photograph. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur that this use appears to satisfy all points of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. The source of the image would need to be attributed as noted at Wikipedia:Citing sources#When uploading an image and the image page would require a fair use rationale template as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I use this license for a picture?

CC Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported? [1] This is the picture [2] If so, how to mark it/upload it? Please respond on my user talk page, thank you. Brainmachine (talk) 22:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia does not accept images with the Non-Commercial or Non-Derivative licenses. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Medical images

If a patient obtains a copy of his or her own medical images (X-Ray, surgical photos, etc.), who owns the copyright? Is it the facility where the images were obtained, or do patients have the right to release medical images of themselves to the public domain or under the GFDL? --Ginkgo100^talk 00:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a work-for-hire -- When someone hires a photographer to take a photo, as a work-for-hire, the customer owns the copyright, not the photographer. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No no no. Copyright can only be transferred in writing or operation of law (e.g, inheritance). Just because you paid for a photo doesn't make the copyright yours. howcheng {chat} 18:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

With respect, no, that's not what the copyright code states. Quoting SC § 201 (b):

(b) Works Made for Hire. — In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright.

When it is a work made for hire, no written transfer is needed, because the person who was paid to do the work never owned the copyright. The owner is the author of the work; with a work made for hire the author is defined as "the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared". There is no transfer, the person who hired the photographer owned it from the moment of creation. That's fundamentally different than if someone takes a photo by their own initiative and then sells it to someone else; in that case it is not a work made for hire and the copyright could only be transferred with a written agreement. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC

I will trump you with the definition of "work for hire" from 17 USC § 101, wherein a work for hire situation is created only when an written agreement states that it is. howcheng {chat} 22:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

When you pay for a medical exam, there is no contract giving anyone copyrights to images the doctors produce, which would be needed for any work for hire argument. Mere paying of someone for some work does not become full work for hire unless that is stated upfront and agreed to. Inherent to the definition of a work for hire is the idea that someone is the employer of the other, not merely paying for services. When you see a doctor, the hospital is his or her employer, not you. You are the customer. You are purchasing medical services, not image rights. By Jack-A-Roe's tortured argument you automatically own all rights to anyone you pay for anything... if that were true then there'd be no class specifying other kinds of rights because there only would be all rights. This is pretty basic copyright law information. Anyone with any confusion should pick up an introductory title on communication law, as that should be sufficient in most cases to clear this right up. DreamGuy (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Photo tag

Is the license tag and fair use rationale for this object from a king's tomb correct: Image:Golden shell from Sekhemkhet's tomb.jpg Or is an additional license tag required? It has no free equivalent as all tourist photography has been banned in the Cairo Museum. Thank You Leoboudv (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added a license tag covering other non-free content. That should be enough I think. Kevin (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your prompt response Kevin. You are an angel. Regards, Fabian from Canada Leoboudv (talk) 03:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Joey Jordison

Hey I'm currently working on completely rehauling and refining the Joey Jordison article as part of the Slipknot Project and I wandering if I could use this image under a FUR. Similarly to the Dave Lombardo article I would like to use it to demonstrate his involvement in this one off event in which they played a show with Metallica. The image used on Lombardo's article attributes this as the source and there is an image on there with Jordison in however I feel the one from his myspace is better. There isn't any free images available of this event and my main concern about using the one from Joey Jordison's myspace is what would be specified as the source because you cannot reach the photo gallery without logging in to myspace. Would it be possible to still upload this image or should I just use the oen from the Metallica website? REZTER ^TALK ø 07:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

First see if you can get the image you want using WP:COPYREQ. Then see WP:NFCC to see if it would fall under fair use. Citing something that requires a login as a source is not a concern in itself. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

A police officer may try to establish a friendly atmosphere.

or

A polite officer may try to establish a friendly atmosphere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.75.114.114 (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I uploaded an image (URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TiranaOld.jpg) but do not know what the copyright license is. Please visit the URL and get back to me.

Thank You.Shikuesi3 (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mirza Mahmood Ahmad1924.jpg

How should Image:Mirza Mahmood Ahmad1924.jpg be tagged? The uploaded used {{PD-self}}. That seemed unlikely, since its claimed to be made in 1924 in India. Looking at {{PD-India}} it seems images published then would be public domain. But the uploader says it wasn't previously published. This is what they said in response to my last query: --Rob (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The Photograph has no copyright and is in my ownership. It has not been published anywhere or printed in a book, neither is it available anywhere online (not taken from any website). Sirius86 (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I beleive this image is public domain due to its age, but do not know. As mentioned in a prior section, I ask for other editors to review the other uploads of the same user (many of which are more recent, and have more questionable copyright status). --Rob (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

chemistry

why silicon has a lower melting point than diamond —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.92.48.234 (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reference desk. howcheng {chat} 18:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing for PD images

I'm asking this question in reference to recent mass tagging by User:OsamaK. I understand images require sources. However, if an image is clearly PD (say a 19th century photograph, which will be PD almost 100% of the time), and was uploaded without a source a few years ago, when the rules were less strict, must we get rid of it? Can't we use some common sense and presume PD status for all 19th century images? Some concrete examples: 1 (d. 1807), 2 (d. 1894), 3 (d. 1890), 4 (d. 1893). Biruitorul ^Talk 19:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Same discussions opened in the same way, about same username in Wikimedia Commons more than once. People didn't agree that PD-olds are out of source policy. Anyways, such this action must not be done in a simple question. After deep discussion we have to open a poll for canceling PDs sources. Generaly, I think that simply, source for old images is important as much as importance of modern images. --OsamaK 20:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources are important, no question. And for images uploaded today, it's good that we demand them. But common-sense exceptions can be carved out, I think. PD can for instance be presumed for images of people who died before 1923, certainly 1900, right? What's the worry here? Biruitorul ^Talk 20:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

In my option, I cannot trust any image here with no source. We are in a wiki, that edited by many and many people (We're the biggest wiki ever, no?). To solve the problems of forgery, deception and lack of confidence we have to ask the uploader (No caring when uploaded, when taken, when died) about a trust source.--OsamaK 21:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but you see, that's a fairly singular opinion (and also breaches WP:AGF). Plus, a determined forger could just lie about the source, no? Let's be realistic: this is Anton Rubinstein, who died in 1894, and is a PD image - if nothing else, per Occam's razor. At some point, the burden of proof has to shift from presuming copyright to presuming PD. I'm not sure where precisely that is, but I'm quite confident an image taken sometime in the 1860s fits the PD bill. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, Is there are any inconsistent points between WP:AGF and WP:CITE? I don't think. and I'm really trusting in people who wants to build Wikipedia, but in the other hand, Wikipedia has two useful policies in this case: WP:CITE and WP:NOTMIRROR. So images must includes citing a source and they cannot be kept here forever, because we will move them to Wikimedia Commons (Betacommand has a great work with this) which (After all) deletes unsourced images.--OsamaK 11:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This is being discussed in multiple places, but the upshot is many people oppose OsamaK's interpretation as needlessly destroying countless images that would require countless hours of work to find again, assuming people even know what's missing, because they won't if they are deleted. Considering the strong opposition, and the very common sense concept that certain old images are automatically public domain no matter what the source is ultimately, I would hope that OsamaK would immediately stop trying to get these images deleted until he can show a strong consensus that Wikipedia community wants them deleted... which won't happen.

Public domain is public domain. Source is completely irrelevant. Sourcing is vitally important for OTHER kinds of images, but not for PD images. DreamGuy (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think this is an nonconstructive discussion. I'll stop it there, save your time for more useful things.--OsamaK 21:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Remove an image

Are copyright free images with a statement of no-commercial use permitted on Wikipedia if the subject matter has no equivalent here? ie: there is no image on the article on Commons. All objects from Cairo Museum like this Image:Golden shell from Sekhemkhet's tomb.jpg are now unavailable since all picture taking has been banned. Any tourist who tries to take any picture in the Cairo Museum of Tut's treasures, etc since 2005 will be expelled. I don't know if my fair use rationale here is OK. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the source you cite, the museum does allow photos by special arrangement. —teb728 t c 21:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, these people would be scholars and none of them has placed any free images on Commons. That is why the images are almost impossible to get free. Leoboudv (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

By WP:NFCC#1, “Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.” The fact that no one has uploaded it yet does not negate the fact that a free equivalent could be created. —teb728 t c 02:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Self-created image based on a published source

I created Image:Toastmasters curriculum.png back on the 17th. I created it myself, but the content of it is based on information and a somewhat similar (although incomplete) graph provided by Toastmasters International in 2006. Nothing of the actual TI supplied graph is in my image, plus mine is oriented vertically whereas the TI one is horizontal. So is my work owned by TI and usable under fair use, owned by me and released under CC-BY-3.0, or what? (Whoever answers, please ping me on my talk page in addition to here, so I know for next time.) --coldacid (talk|contrib) 21:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Bare facts are not copyrightable. You should be in the clear with that one. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Use of a Photo hanging in a Govt building.

I want to place a photo of an individual on a page that I placed on Wikipedia. This is an unsigned photo which hangs in the local City Hall. The photo itself contains no copyright information. I believe it could be used under Fair Use with a comment that it hangs in the Lyndon, Ky City Hall. This person lived from 1830 to 1891 so it is an old image. Am I correctSTONE8HENGE (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC) STONE8HENGE

Anything published before 1923 in the United States is public domain, unconditionally. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If you take the photo of the pre-1923 photo yourself you should be fine (it'd be PD-old for the tag). Photos/scans of the two dimensional object (the photo) that do not have any artistic changes made to it would also be fine, because mere reproduction of a two dimensional work does not grant a new copyright. The only potential problem you might have is for someone else's photo of a three dimensional object, which, based upon angle and lighting, can be a new artistic work with a new copyright. So don't steal your friend's photo of a fancy picture frame. ;-) DreamGuy (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Image from Library of Congress website, but is in collection of Library that recommends Fair Use

It is unclear to me what the license for this image is. Is it public domain (i.e. pre-1923)? The canal in the picture was drained in 1920. The website recommends using "Fair Use" because it does not know who created the images or even if it's still copyrighted. Also, the website recommends contacting the library that houses it if you plan to use it for commercial purposes. So can I use this image? It's located at the American Memory from the Library of Congress, and the "rights and reproduction" information is located here.J.H (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If it was published before 1923 it's in the public domain for sure {{PD-US}}. Published before 1968 and copyright not renewed, again public domain {{PD-Pre1964}}. First published before 1978 without a copyright notice, again public domain {{PD-Pre1978}}. But it's still possible it escaped all of those; more information is needed. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 03:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lonnie Frisbee.jpg

Hi, I've added a template but unsure if i also need a fair-use rationale or other details? Apologize as images is not my forte. Banjeboi 22:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Currently the tag says it is public domain. Do you know of any information to support this? When was it created/published? Was the copyright registered? --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 02:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Images from automobile brochure literature

I recently uploaded pictures from commercially available automobile brochures which were deleted by "Asher(something)". I have seen images from automobile brochures on Wiki before (currently) and am wondering why certain ones are allowed but others aren't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MJEH (talk • contribs) 01:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Automobile brochures are like everything else; automatically copyrighted when they are created. However, they may be usable if they meet the fair use criteria. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Is my image free?

Is my image, Image:Two All Grown Up books.jpg, free? - I ask because a user who I've had a past dispute with, and who has a history of uncivilty has listed it here, Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 July 22. This user could be a troll and I don't really want to get into anymore major disputes with them unless I'm 100% right! All Grown Up Whovian 07:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not free since it's derived from an unfree image. It's not possible to make free images out of unfree ones just by taking a picture. --Rob (talk) 08:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Then would a fair-use tag be in order? All Grown Up Whovian 08:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The photo is used to illustrate the cover, so it's fair use. Guy0307 (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, I've changed the licence to {{non-free book cover}}. I hope this sorts the problem. If so, could a sysop or anyone for that matter confirm it here? Thanks All Grown Up Whovian 12:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You need to add a fair use rationale for each article it's used in. See Template:Book_cover_fur. Guy0307 (talk) 04:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

mk:Слика:Firemk.png

A user asked me to upload this file (to mk.wiki) and to determine its copyright status. However, I'm not sure what to do myself. The image is to be used in this article. It's a translation of an image taken from here (website), originally from this website: [3]. I read the copyright section, but even though they approve of the fair use for educational purposes, I'm not sure whether I should claim fair use for such an easily replaceable image. And what's the appropriate tag? Thanks in advance. --iNkubusse^? 15:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you already named the crucial argument here: it's replaceable. One of the conditions imposed on non-free content by the Foundation is that we can't claim fair use for material that's replaceable with free content. And as you certainly know, a non-commercial-use-only license just means nothing to us. Sorry about that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but what about creating another scheme based on the information from the image? Can I (or the other user) just draw a house and write 'if this, do that', still based on the info from the image? I mean, it's common knowledge and I don't think that it can ever be copyrighted, but what do you think? --iNkubusse^? 16:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Facts aren't copyrightable. If someone redraws it from scratch, using only the facts but not the wording, it's fine. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 01:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, thanks. --iNkubusse^? 04:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

City Flag

Hi, I have a city flag image of Rochester, New York. This image has been converted to SVG, whereas the old image was JPG, and had incorrect licensing information. However, I do not know if I should treat it as if it were any other flag, and tag the image with {{Pd-ineligible}}, or if not, what license it should be. Help me out, please! Hamako 15:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

How old is the flag and how complex?Geni 15:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe the flag was made around the 90s. It is only 2 colors. Here's a copy of the image: [4]. Hamako 16:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

McNab image

Hi. I was hoping to get assistance in determining the copyright status of Image:Alec McNab.jpg. It has already been deleted from the page I posted it to. I have listed the source on the image page itself. Libro0 (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a couple possibilities: If it was published in the US before 1964 and the copyright not renewed, then {{PD-Pre1964}}. Published before 1978 without notice of copyright {{PD-Pre1978}}. Check those pages for any additional caveats that may apply. Otherwise, copyright expires 70 years after the death of the creator. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 02:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Book Cover Images

So I'm working on filling in books that have hit number one on the non-fiction side of the New York Times Best Seller List, and that means creating a bunch of new book articles. I'd like to upload cover images to illustrate the books in question for their particular articles, and my understanding of the copyright reading is that this would be okay under fair use. However, I'm not 100% sure if I'm allowed to use the cover images provided by the publishers (example: [5] for the Mistaken Identity article) or if I have to go out and find a copy of each book and take my own image. I know either image would be a derivative work of the cover, I'm just having trouble understanding whether or not a plain image of the cover also counts as having its own copyright that needs to be respected. I searched quite a bit and couldn't find an answer, but I do apologize if this is an obvious question. If anyone knows one way or the other, I'd greatly appreciate an answer. Thanks! Vickser (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay I looked around a bit and found plenty of other articles using publisher/amazon images and since a response above mentioned that plain images of 2D objects don't create their own copyright, I think they're okay to use. So, my question then becomes if I'm going about this right. Could someone take a look at this used in Beautiful Boy: A Father's Journey Through His Son's Addiction and double check that I'm doing it right? I'd hate to upload a bunch of images wrong. Vickser (talk) 02:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Covers are usually okay under fair use if they meet WP:NFCC, and you've done the fair use rationale correctly. A faithful reproduction of a two-dimensional work doesn't create a new copyright; I'm a bit concerned about the pseudo-3D therefore. I would crop it out to be on the safe side. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! The 3Dness was a good point, even though that's the image amazon and elsewhere were using. I was able to find a 2D copy and get the old one speedily deleted [6]. Thank you again for the help! Vickser (talk) 03:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

non-free fair use rationale query

On the talk page Image talk:Usfa-engraving.gif I would appreciate knowing whether the non-free fair use rationale posted is sufficient to defend the image's use in the article it is used in. Would someone be kind enough to take a look for me? Newportm (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

How old is the engraveing in question?Geni 01:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. The company was founded in 1993, so it is definitely less than 20 years old. It's not like it was made 150 years ago, though it is supposed to look like it was...Newportm (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The non-free use rationale does not address WP:NFCC#8: “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 seems to me that no image is needed to illustrate the article where it refers to this image.

It also fails to address WP:NFCC#3: “Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.” Why does the article need 6 non-free images?

With regard to WP:NFCC#1: “Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.” It might be argued plausibly that the article would profit from a specimen of USFA Custom Shop work. But that doesn’t mean it needs this image (or any of the other non-free images which it has). Any specimen would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Couldn’t someone make a free image of some specimen of their work?

By the way, a non-free use rationale belongs on the image page not the image talk page. —teb728 t c 02:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comments and insights are invaluable. Thank you. Newportm (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyright holder has given consent under GFDL and CC-by-sa-3.0, I have forwarded correspondence to OTRS; what is the next step? Do I use the applicable templates and paste them onto the image pages? Newportm (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The copyright holder understands that this permission is for use by anyone for anything (not just Wikipedia), right? If so, replace the {{Non-free fair use in}} and {{Non-free promotional}} tags with {{GFDL}} and {{CC-by-sa-3.0}} tags, and change the use rationale back to the {{Information}} template. —teb728 t c 19:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Newportm (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have updated just this image in question so far; if correct, I'll proceed. Under attribution on the CC-by-sa-3.0 tag, is it customary to just give the company name as shown? Should I have left the fair use disputed tag you placed on it? Newportm (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The “by” part of the cc-by-sa-3.0 tag means that a user must attribute the image to the author or licensor. The parameter tells specifically how to attribute it. It does no harm to remove the tag, for fair use is no longer claimed. —teb728 t c 21:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

PD Image but host site is.. ?

Questionable. The figurehead of Andrew Jackson was published in Harpers Weekly in 1875 which makes it PD but I'm not sure about the site its hosted on as it's the State of Florida. I'm sure I could use this but want other opinions on the deal. Thanks. --Brad (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you are safe with {{PD-US}}. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 06:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Image available on wikimedia Commons Image:General Jackson - Harpers Weekly, news media image (1875c).jpg. Note also Harpers Weekly article for other images and licences and Wikimedia commons Category Harpers Magazine. Richard Harvey (talk) 07:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I had searched commons for "Andrew Jackson" but that one didn't come up. --Brad (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

How I should change an image info?

Greetings,

The following photo:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Damavand_in_winter.jpg

has incorrect information. The real author is Iranian photographer Hamed Khorramyar and the URL of the original photo can be found here:

http://hamedpix.com/details.php?image_id=1&mode=search

My Question is, how can I change the author info? And since the image used in several pages in Wikipedia, where should edit in order that the change become reflected in all linked pages automatically?

Regards, Kasra

Kasrayousefi (talk) 05:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The image has been moved to WikiMedia Commons, which is an archive that all WikiMedia projects including Wikipedia use for their images. You can edit it [7] and any project will be able to view the updated information. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 07:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Dariers disease

I am glad to finally find a place that has some sort of info on this skin disorder. i have a lot of questions abot it and one of my main ones is are there any over the counter skin cleansers that are better to use than others? as well as lotions & deodorants?

For the longest time now right behind my knee were it bends i break out really bad in the summer and i have been putting deodorant over it and it seems to work but lets face it deodorant isnt cheap. so if there are any other products please let me know.

I also seem to break out on my neck and chest. Also my forehead mainly when seasons chamge and in the summer time from wearing hats i suppose. i Get it on my scalp on my back and my bikini/ panty line. I need some sort of help! --Joni1082 (talk) 06:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Joni1082

Unfortunately we are not medical doctors, and we are here to assist with copyright issues with images uploaded to Wikipedia. I would suggest you see a MD for this issue. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 06:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Signature of politicians

I have Autographs of few Indian politicians I want to add it to there info box. Can you tell me under which format should I scan them and upload them? And what copyright tag and license should I select? (Note that all the politicians are alive!! how to upload it in public domain?)-Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 12:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Signatures may not be eligible for copyright, see Signature#Copyright. The tag to use here is {{PD-ineligible}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Images from the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress

The images in the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress are not all in the public domain. The site has a full page listing conditions of their use. But many pictures from this website are displayed on WP. Most have a blanket "Works of the Federal Government are in the public domain" template justifying their use. But the site itself seems to suggest that its images (although not its text) ARE NOT all in the public domain. It also purports to require that any reproduction be attributed to the House or the Senate, to wit:

Images on this site are provided as a contribution to education and scholarship. Not all images are in the public domain; some images may be protected by the U.S. Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). Do not duplicate without permission from copyright holder. Copyright information is provided whenever possile, but it is ultimately the responsibility of the user to determine and satisfy the copyright and other restrictions. Unless otherwise noted, images of Representatives are provided by, and should be credited to Collection of U.S. House of Representatives. Images of Senators are provided by, and should be credited to the U.S. Senate Historical Office.

Although I'm a lawyer, I know less than nothing about intellectual property law. Do we have a problem with images from the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress? David in DC (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

For the most part, no. I have seen a few cases where the accompanying photo is marked as copyrighted, but most of them do not indicate any such copyright, so those are fair game as far as we are concerned. howcheng {chat} 22:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll stop worrying :) David in DC (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

pictures

how do i put a picture about the person or subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckigurl (talk • contribs) 20:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

See Help:Images and other uploaded files —teb728 t c 23:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

which copyright tag?

I am unsure which copyright tag to use for my image. It is an image that the firm I work at paid a photographer to take the image, the photographer gave us the rights for Marketing for our firm provided there is a copyright line. The image is not free to others, but it is free for us to use for marketing purposes. This being said what copyright tag to I use for these images. Thankss! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpickrel (talk • contribs) 21:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair use. Because the photographer itself did not place it into the public domain or release it under a Creative Commons license, it can only be used on Wikipedia as a fair-use image. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 22:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Use of fair use images is highly restricted on Wikipedia. In particular an photo of a living person can almost never be used under fair use because a free image could almost always be taken. If you are referring to Image:Rafaelvinoly.jpg‎, is there some reason why someone could not take a snapshot of him? —teb728 t c 22:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Episode Summaries from other Websites

I am wondering if I would be able to use episode summaries from other websites and then citing my source. It seems like a silly question, but can I do that?Redsoxpatriot30 (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If you mean copy-and-pasting text from another site, no, not unless the author has licensed it under GNU FDL or something like that or released it to public domain. You can rewrite them in your own words, in which case you wouldn't really need to credit them at all, though you could still do that if you wanted to (maybe in a footnote). Richard001 (talk) 03:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

cc-by-2.5 license disputed

Could people please give their 2c here... I don't believe there are any issues but Matilda believes there is. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 01:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Computer sketches of cartoon characters

Just for illustration, is it acceptable for users to upload images of certain cartoon characters in which they drawn on their computers? 124.106.203.113 (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be a derivative work (see fan art), which we don't allow. It could be used as fair use if it's just "for illustration", but a screenshot or something would be better. Richard001 (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Image of a display showing the scientific artwork of Zdeněk Burian

There is a photo taken of the work of Burian here. I was wondering if the photographer can release such an image under a Commons compatible license, or whether it would have to be uploaded here under a fair use license if at all. Would it depend on the resolution? Richard001 (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The resolution wouldn't matter; it's a question of whether the collection of Burian's images displayed in this photo is considered a derivative work of the originals. It's a difficult call here, because no single image is the subject of the photo, but copyrights tend to be as restrictive as possible so I would take the more cautious route and say that it could only be used on Wikipedia as a non-free image. The photographer does have the right to release it under a Creative Commons license -- that just covers his/her creative aspects (the angle, lighting, etc), but there's still the copyrights of the original images to be considered. howcheng {chat} 22:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

copyright tags and sources?

I have recently had an image deleted because I failed to provide a tag or source data and I'm afraid I don't know what a proper way to fill out those fields would be. I have the rights to the image and they would qualify as fair use even if I didn't, I just don't know how to express that through Wikipedia, help?

Thanks, Andy.W.Ellis (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If you took the photos yourself, you have to release them with a free licence. A good choice is {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. This means that others can share your work as long as they credit it to you, and they can remix it (use it in their own work) as long as they release it with the same licence (by-sa), and of course attribute to you. It is generally the most restrictive liicence you can use. See [8] as well. Guy0307 (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, an image that you find on the internet (like Image:JMU Wiki.jpg) may not be usable. Almost all content on the internet is copyrighted. This means that we can use it only with the permission of the copyright owner. And Wikipedia is very fussy about what permission it will accept; the permission must allow reuse by anyone for anything. See WP:COPYREQ for how to handle permission.

As for fair use, Wikipedia is very restrictive about fair-use images. For example, the JMU bluestone image could not be used in the under fair use on the Bluestone article because it could be replaced by a free-use image and because its use is not essential to understanding the article. See WP:NFCC for all the restriction on fair-use content. —teb728 t c 03:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Solms Public License

I just came across this image which is licensed under the "Solms Public License". Details of the license can be found on the Solms website, by clicking the link at the bottom (I can't give a direct link). It looks 'free', but I don't believe we have a copyright tag for it. Is it worth creating one? Could someone a little more familiar with these obscure licenses take a look for me? Thanks. J Milburn (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

One of the conditions is "The knowledge is provided free of charge." That's comparable to a NonCommercial license, which isn't a free license. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That license is a mess. In addition to prohibiting commercial distribution, it also (apparently unintentionally) prohibits derivative works. --Carnildo (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That is how I read it as well, as NC and non derivative. Non free license. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 21:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Eurgh, God knows how I missed that. Glad I brought it up... Thanks for your thoughts. J Milburn (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct Copywrite tags?

Can someone please look at this and let me know if I did this right?

Image:Yak Ballz American Nightmare.jpg

I got the pic off a website that allows you to use his pics as long as you credit the pic with his name

Demented101 (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit wary that it doesn't explicitly say whether all uses are allowed, including commercial use and derivative works. I would get a permission e-mail using WP:COPYREQ first. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Upload Image Question

I want to upload a photo of a storefront for a wikipedia page. I'm an employee and have verbal permission to do so. I know how to upload images but what steps do I need to take to make sure i'm not violating any copyright rules and so the image doesn't get pulled?

Shefler2 (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You could do worse than reading the top half of this discussion for the opinion of Natl1. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Crest for railway company no longer in operation

I have uploaded an image at Image:Somerset and Dorset Joint Railway Crest.png for use in the article Somerset and Dorset Joint Railway. The railway company is no longer in existence, and the line was closed during the Beeching Axe in the 1960s. The crest is reproduced from a old photo, but hand drawn by me using a CAD package. Which copyright notice would be appropriate for this image? Own work into public domain, or something based on logos? David Bailey (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If you had hand drawn from a blazon it would be your own work. However since you hand copied a photograph, your drawing will probably be more similar to the original crest than if drawn from a blazon, so you would need to find out the copyright status of the original crest, if you can find out the date the original artist was deceased. If you don't know, then it is fair use and satisfies WP:NFC for the railway's article. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I couldn't find out who