Wikipedia:Requested copyright examinations
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Requested_copyright_examinations".

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.

French space agency? PD? FUR?

There is an image listed at the copyright problems board for August 10th for which I could use advice/assistance. The image, Image:Andromeda patch.gif, is a patch created by the French Space Agency to represent Claudie Haigneré's participation in the Soyuz 3 Taxi Flight. It is inappropriately tagged {{PD-USGov-NASA}} and {{PD-USGov}}, since, though apparently displayed at NASA, it was not created by NASA. The uploader asserts at the CP listing that "there is no template for the foreign space agencies, just like the NASA template is used for the Soyuz (Russian) mission patches for TMA flights, and some of the JAXA, and ESA images. CNES (French Space Agency) works in conjunction with NASA, and the image was found on NASA's site. If it is not technically Public Domain even though it is displayed on NASA, it could certainly be listed with a FUR, as it is the only image of the patch for that particular flight, (Soyuz TM-33) in recognition of Claudie Haigneré being the first European woman to visit the International Space Station. The image is certainly beneficial to the articles it appears in."

Does anybody know if the French Space Agency releases images to public domain? Or if there's a FUR that would work here? Alternatively, any suggestions for a more appropriate venue to seek further opinion would be welcome. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Works created by French government agencies such as the French Space Agency are not public domain, so it's not a free image. To use it, you need a fair use rationale for each article it's used in. You can easily write a proper fair use rationale for Soyuz TM-33, and I think a decent case can be made for List of human spaceflights to the ISS. I can't imagine a reasonable fair use rationale for it usage in either Claudie Haigneré or Viktor Mikhaylovich Afanasyev as the articles and current usage of the image stand now.

Anyway, you're going to want to tag the image with

{{Non-free logo}}

and write a fair use rationale for each article using the template at Template:Non-free use rationale. When filling it out, make sure it addresses all the criteria at WP:NFCC. Let me know if you have any other questions. Vickser (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll give it a shot. Having only uploaded album covers or book covers, which have their own handy FUR, this is new ground for me. :) I don't want to delete the image, though, if it can be validly used under fair use. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I took a stab at writing one for the mission only, since I was worried that the list might correlate to say, discographies, in lacking critical commentary. If you have an opportunity to look at Image:Andromeda patch.gif and provide feedback, I'd be grateful. :) Again, this is unfamiliar ground to me, but I'd like to help the uploader out. She is a long-standing, good Wikipedian who evidently has limited connectivity at the moment. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That looks perfect. Great job! Vickser (talk) 06:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) I greatly appreciate your help. I'll get the hang of this eventually! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Photographs of art work

I have several photographs of works of art from various art museums around the world that I have taken with my own camera. Are these acceptable images to upload to wikipedia? If so, how do I licence them?Nrswanson (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Are the works 2D or 3D and how old are they?Geni 19:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Both. Some paintings, statues, murals, wall hangings, and tons of other stuff. They include works from 1200 B.C.- 2004 A.D. I have several hundred photos.Nrswanson (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Okey if the artwork is old enough to be in the public domain then you are free to upload (life of the author+70 is a good starting point for working that out). The others are more complex and the question is too generalised to give a useful answer.Geni 21:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Well that is still a significant amount of my photos. So what would I do in the upload process for those works that fit life of the author+70 years? Also, does date of the work play a factor at all if I know the year created? Perhaps you could show me an example of a current photo using that kind of licencing. Thanks for the help. Nrswanson (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

license for photos of art more than life+70 years old might as well be CC-BY-SA. When a work was created can factor in by you are getting into needing to read Wikipedia:Public domain territory.Geni 22:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you could view the guidelines at Commons. Images uploaded to Commons are usable on any Wikimedia project, and admins at Commons are usually knowledgeable about copyright. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Did I do this right? Image:Braying Camel.JPGNrswanson (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Remember that you create a new copyright when you take the picture; you need some tag to indicate how you are dealing with your copyright. For instance {{PD-self}} or other tag in WP:ICTIC --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

For stuff that old see Image:Nabu-apla-iddina confirming a grant of land.jpg for how it can be done.Geni 23:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys. That was super helpful.Nrswanson (talk) 06:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no photographic copyright on the actual photo of a 2D artwork: see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. There is only copyright on the 2D artwork depicted, if it is still in copyright, that is. With 3D artwork, there is copyright on the photo and the artwork depicted: that is because there is an element of creativity in taking the photo of a 3D work with lighting, angles etc, whereas a photo of a 2D work does not have that creative input, because it is just reproducing exactly (if it's a good photo!) what already exists. There are some useful PD templates at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Public domain#Art, and some more useful links at User:Tyrenius#Images. Where you have a copyright to release (i.e. on 3D works) you can also use {{GFDL-self}} as an alternative to CC. Ty 08:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Dee Dee Bridgewater 2005.jpg

I would appriciate some comments about the fair use of this image. There is currently a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 August 11. Thank you.Nrswanson (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I threw in my two cents. Hopefully it will make the situation more clear. :) -- Hux (talk) 06:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyright status of Image:Bell logo.svg

I believe the Bell logo contains creative elements that make it eligible for copyright, and so I do not believe that Image:Bell logo.svg should be tagged as being in the public domain. (On a side note, since, based on Template talk:PD-font#SVG, SVG files of font renderings are being treated as potentially eligible for copyright, it's a bit inconsistent to place a public domain notice on this SVG file.) Can someone help clarify what the most appropriate tag should be? Isaac Lin (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, file type excepted it's public domain because US copyright law does not recognize a typeface as being eligible for copyright protection. However, the law does recognize software as being so eligible. With a JPG, PNG, or whatever this is not relevant, but an SVG file blurs the eligibility line somewhat, given that there's an element of functionality - scaling - that moves it closer to the domain of "software" rather than just "image file format". Imo, however, I think that it's highly unlikely that any court would regard an SVG file such as this as being eligible for copyright protection, so I think it is safe for us to tag it as {{PD-ineligible}}. -- Hux (talk) 05:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

removing an image

How do I get an image removed that is violating copyright that I uploaded myself? tabor-^{drop me a line} 19:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Tag it {{Db-imgcopyvio}} and someone will delete it. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, {{db-author}} would be better. {{db-imgcopyvio}} should include the source URL. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this image ok to use on wiki

Image:Dominica coa.png, the flag of Dominica is labeled PD, but I have not been able to find its PD status on its source website. Also, the copyright tag seems to be out-of-date. What copyright should it have? Snowman (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

As a former crown colony of the United Kingdom, chances are high that Dominica's copyright law is similar to that of the UK and that, therefore, government created images such as this are copyrighted. As such, I don't think this should be on the Commons. -- Hux (talk) 05:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

US state-created works

I know that US government works are public domain, and US state works aren't, unless specifically stated. User:Detroitnews9 has multiple times uploaded a scan of a document produced by the Texas government, calling it PD because it's produced with tax dollars, which I've deleted as having incorrect licenses and not being valid fair uses. I've said that s/he is wrong, but as s/he in this edit says "You're wrong!" I don't know what to say. Could someone please give him/her a better answer? Nyttend (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that works produced by employees of US states are not automatically subject to the same "public domain by default" rule that applies to works produced by employees of the federal government. However, it's not a case of, "US state works aren't, unless specifically stated". It's simply that some states do have this kind of blanket, public domain rule and others don't. Texas, however, is one of the states that does not: works produced by state (and also county and municipality) employees are copyrighted by default, unless specifically noted otherwise. This applies to things like the state seal, the text of state laws, court reports, etc. etc. It does not matter that a work is available on a university website, or that there's no copyright notice on it, or that a person can pay for a copy. It's still copyrighted according to Texas law. -- Hux (talk) 06:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the attempts to explain. I say it this way due to the open debate and overwhelming number of ways to interpret the subject. I will defer to this sites overview [1]. My uploads are, in my opinion, a fair use issue. The reasons: they are for 1. educational purposes 2. deal directly with the subject 3. have no loss or potential loss of revenue to an assumed copyright holder 4. was only the part of the report that was needed to support a claim 5. the insertion was thumbnailed and 6. the copyright laws do not mention Wikipedia's policy of having "commercial value". As mentioned to Nyttend, Wikipedia is a non-profit org., to deny the benefit of information that adds to Wikipedia's claims of being "the Sum of All Human Knowledge", is repugnant to Wikipedia's own claims. This being said, there is no way to satisfy everyone, so I consider all these issues moot, and will not challenge the issue anymore.Detroitnews9 (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hux, I'm pretty sure that no state has anything close to the U.S. federal government's rule about works of government employees. I would love to proven wrong on this, and to learn what states do have such a rule. --Rob (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not as extensive as the federal rule, but according to Commons:Template:PD-FLGov works of the Florida government are PD except in categories where the legislature provides otherwise. —teb728 t c 18:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hux, you make one mistake. In the US, the text of all current laws and many forms of court records are in the public domain at all levels, irrespective of the other copyright policies of the state or municipal jurisdiction. This arrises out of federal law and a number of court cases establishing that the public's compelling interest in having free and unrestricted access to the laws under which they are to be governed trumps any interest the state might have in the copyright to those laws. Hence, while a state or local government may own copyright to their imagery, reports, presentations, and various other things they create, they are generally prohibited from holding copyright over the text of their laws or the records of court proceedings to the extent that those court records establish binding precedents related to the future enforcement of laws. Dragons flight (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is the text of the opinions in Wheaton v. Peters, which held that laws themselves aren't subject to copyright. Nyttend (talk) 03:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

this image copyright right?

I uploaded an image i made. I copied the layout from a diagram i found is ok to do? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Emotionenginelayout.png thats the image link

I copied the layout from this PDF http://www.ieee.org.uk/docs/sony.pdf --Thunderpenguin (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a violation of Sony's copyright and it has been deleted. Stifle (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Map of a New York State Route

I have created a map of New York State Route 342, in northern New York State. I am not sure how to license my image, because I have used US Census Shapefiles. However, I see many maps that claim they are self-made ([2], for example). Smb6009 (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Anything that's produced by the Census Bureau is public domain, but you have the right to license the map if you've made your own edits to it, because you've put some creativity into it. Here's an image that I've created from Census Bureau data: Image:OHMap-doton-Rose Farm.png; this is a valid way to license your edits, although of course you can use any other free license (for example, Creative Commons or GFDL) that you want to, instead of the PD-self that I use. Nyttend (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Edited Screenshot of TV Program

Hello

I wish to upload an edited screenshot of a TV program to Wikipedia. Its composed of about FIVE or SIX separate screenshots which I stitched together as one image and made edits and modifications to make the image look more natural.

Which option do I choose in the upload page to upload the image? Need help with that.

Thanks

Krishvanth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishvanth (talk • contribs) 10:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

{{Non-free television screenshot}} would do for the screenshots themselves. It's worth noting how you made the images on the image description page, and probably would help if you disclaimed any copyright in your modifications. Stifle (talk) 14:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for your help! Krishvanth (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I need one more thing over here. Could anyone let me know how to fill up this stuff?

Non-free use rationale

Article=

Description=

Source=

Portion=

Low_resolution=

Purpose=

Replaceability=

other_information=

And under which heading do I fill in the fair use rationale detail?

Thanks

--Krishvanth (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Just an example is enough. I'm not asking for the exact same thing etc. --Krishvanth (talk) 13:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok figured it out myself. Thanks anyway --Krishvanth (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Einatharan.jpg

Is the explanation given at Image:Einatharan.jpg really valid, stating that since there was no license it would free use? My understanding is that it would be a copyvio unless there is a clear free license, but should it go directly to speedy delete as copyvio or is it necessary to open a PUI case? --Soman (talk) 13:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "provided freely" is explicit enough to consider it a freely-licensed image. However, since no new freely-licensed image could be made, one could make a good case for use under WP:NFCC. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Use of an image

Hi all

I have just read the stub article about the British writer and historian Gerald Suster and note the request for an image. I have several hardcopy photographs in my possession, given to me by his widow (now also deceased), shortly after his death in 2001.

I believe that the images were created by her, but obviously cannot prove this. I am not aware that any of them have been used in any other context and do not believe that they have ever been published previously.

Quite simply, can I upload these photo's into the article or cant I ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjminogue (talk • contribs) 22:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As Mr. Suster is deceased, it's possible to use non-free photos of him in his article. However, they must have been previously published (see WP:NFCC item 4. Therefore, those photographs can't be used. Stifle (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the issue is whether the widow intended to transfer the copyright along with the physical images. I am not familiar with law on this topic, so I can't say. Can anyone else assist? Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Gyah. Most people don't know copyright law well enough to spell this out clearly for legal purposes. Odds are if she took them she had the copyright and intended you to be able to use them, whether she understood the copyrights behind it or not. The only potential pitfall I can see is if someone else took them, has a copyright on them, and she only had prints... in which case she wouldn't have had the copyrights in order to transfer them to you in the first place.

I think you could probably just presume she had the copyright and transferred it to you (assuming they look like normal photos and not super professional studio ones), and write it up as such, as that's your good faith belief. She anyone ever dispute it later they can alert us and we can take further actions then. DreamGuy (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Photo of old leaflet

I have taken a photo of an old leaflet I want to upload and use in an the article on EOKA. I took the photo at a museum that had on display the first leaflet released by EOKA announcing its existence to the world, what it stands for etc etc. I have since cropped the relevant bit. The organisation is now defunct (dissolved in 1959) however, I am not sure if, or under what licence I should submit this. Georgeg (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There's two possibilities that may apply, {{PD-Pre1978}} and/or {{PD-Pre1964}}. I don't think the copyright goes away when the organization is dissolved, but it may go back to the individual who made it. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The individual who made it is dead. But I am not sure if the above applies as it was not published in the US. It is in the EU. Georgeg (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry didn't notice the bit about it being in the EU. The chances of it being public domain are slim. If the author is dead, the heirs probably own the copyright then and they would have to be the ones to release it to the public domain or under a free license. Otherwise the only remaining possibility is see it it meets WP:NFCC --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Reading about I think it should meet criteria for Category:Non-free historic images Georgeg (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Expired copyrights question

I have a book (published in the USA) that I'm not sure if it's copyrighted or not. It has no copyright notice; the only date in the book is that at the end of the foreword, 10 April 1964. There's no evidence (as far as I can see) that the copyright was renewed or that it was filed with the Library of Congress in the first place (it's not in the online catalogue of the Library of Congress). Another question: there's a similar situation with a similar type of book (different author) published in 1930: no copyright notice is claimed anywhere in the book, and it's not in the LOC's online catalogue. Is there a clear verdict? Nyttend (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

According to [3], both works would be in the public domain if they were published in the USA between 1923 to 1977 without a copyright notice, but wait for other opinions. Guy0307 (talk) 07:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The older one would definitely be in the public domain for being that old with no copyright notice. The newer one should be too, but I've seen court decisions do some odd things with more recent works... which for our purposes wouldn't matter since we make good faith decisions based upon the facts in front of us, and all indications are that it's public domain. If someone were to dispute it later we can reassess at that time. DreamGuy (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Free?

Are the images from this brochure free? [4]. They are used at this page also [5] Thanks — Navy  Blue  23:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

They are for this page: Cira Centre South — Navy  Blue  23:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No they are not free licensed, if you look at http://www.costar.com/ itself you can see that it says "Copyright © 1997-2008 CoStar Realty Information, Inc. All rights reserved.", but even if that was not the case the default state of all copyrighted works is "non-free". As a rule of thumb you can fairly safely assume that anything not explicitly labeled as free licensed by the rights holder is in fact not free licensed, and must comply with all parts of WP:NONFREE if they are to be used on Wikipedia. Exceptions include very old material that have lapsed into the public domain due to age or works created by most US federal (not state) government agencies (but watch out, not all material on US federal government websites where nessesarily creaged by a government agencey, they may be press photos, material from a civilian contractor and so on). --Sherool (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair Use photo of Chinua Achebe

I originally uploaded this image of Chinua Achebe to Commons with a misunderstanding about which CC licenses were acceptable; it's currently being deleted. Since no free images are available, I'd like to upload one from this Cornell University page. Assuming I add the appropriate templates, is this acceptable? Thanks in advance. Scartol • Tok 12:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe so: it's entirely possible that someone could take a picture of Achebe and license it freely, so fair use for the purpose of identification (as I believe the point of your uploading these pictures is) isn't an option. Nyttend (talk) 12:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Grr. So until we get someone to get access to him and snap a photo, we have to use this image at the top of the page? Scartol • Tok 12:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The Lagos image looks problematic too - what exactly is the basis for the "copyrighted free use" claim?

FWIW, Achebe will be here in Buffalo next month. I had checked the lead image while looking for potential tasks to give my Wikimedia class this fall; I'll see what I can do to get someone to photograph him. --dave pape (talk) 02:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

LimeWIre

I know this is not the right place to talk about this. This image says that is not used in any pages but it is used used in LimeWire And since the image is fair use it will get deleted. Is it a bug? Thanks — Navy  Blue  14:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe someone decided it was funny to blank the page and a bot noticed the image was orphaned before someone restored the page. _{TIM KLOSKE|TALK} 16:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I purged the cache on the article, and that brought the list of uses on the image page into sync. —teb728 t c 20:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Smith Papyrus

I have some scanned images of the Joseph Smith Papyrus. They were scanned from a book 'by his own hand upon papyrus', written by Charles M Larson. I have searched the book thoroughly and there doesn't appear to be any copyright indicated for the pictures or credit for the photographer for that matter - probably taken by the author. I doubt the papyrus is copyright protected since they are a couple thousand years old. Can I upload these for free use? I have found similar pictures in wikimedia so I assume it is safe. Just want to check as mine are higher resolution and sharper focus. ThanksJspice9000 (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

what country are you in?Geni 13:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Couple thousands of years old? Err, not likely. If this is Joseph Smith, Jr.'s papyrus, it would have been in his hand, which would date to less than 200 years ago. It's the golden disc that it allegedly thousands of years old. The age of the papyrus would fall under public domain anyway, regardless of when it was photographed or who did it. Mere photographs of two dimensional objects like paper (assuming the thing is flat and not rolled up artistically like a scroll or something) do not get a new copyright, as that's mere technical copying and not artwork. DreamGuy (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Uploading Images

I want to upload an image from an artist that has given me permission to upload them. What copyright should i use?

Thanks RumiRain —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumirain (talk • contribs) 01:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

permission to upload isn't enough you need a release under a free license such as the GFDL.Geni 04:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

See WP:COPYREQ for instructions on obtaining and forwarding license releases. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Forwarding an image question

Leoboudv left the following question on my Talk page. Since I don't know the answer, I'm copying it here for those more knowledgeable in this matter to answer. (And I will let him know to look here for the answer.) -- llywrch (talk) 05:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the deletion code for removing duplicates? ie: {{}} This image was uploaded to Commons from wikipedia with the same image title but it still remains on Wikipedia: Image:Stela of Tuthmosis I.jpg Please 1. delete this image on Commons and 2. let me know what is the tagging code for deleting duplicates. BTW, is there a deletion code for copy violations? In the latter case, I assume I must provide the source where an image was copied from. Wonder how I would type that? Leoboudv (talk) 00:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry I thought that you as an Administrator would know the answer. (I'm really a novice at these things...there are just so many codes to type). Well, hopefully someone will respond to my question. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

For image moved to Commons, use {{subst:ncd}} — there are instructions at the top of CAT:NC (not that one could really be expected to find them there). As for copyright violations, use {{imagevio}} or, for blatant cases, {{db-imgcopyvio}} (yes, they both require an URL). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Photograph of portrait > 100 years old

What is the appropriate licence / tag? Kittybrewster ☎ 11:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Assuming the year the author of the portrait died is unknown, presumably {{PD-art-US}}. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Snippets of Music

Is it ok to make a short snippet (about 20 seconds) of a song released on an album and use it on wikipedia as a sample? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Via-Direct (talk • contribs) 13:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) It depends on the length of the song. Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Audio_clips notes that samples should be 30 seconds or 10% of the length, whichever is shorter. Wikipedia:Music samples goes on to note that if the song is shorter than 5:00, 10% is shorter. (To justify 20 seconds, the song would need to be 200 seconds long--which comes out to 3:20.) You can find more details by following those two links. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use question, Image:JAKlang.jpg

Image:JAKlang.jpg was listed on August 8th at WP:CP as infringing this source. It had been tagged public domain. Although it is not in an article specifically about the subject, John Klang, he is a major point of discussion in the article which features it, Weston High School shooting. Klang is deceased, and he was awarded a medal for his actions during that incident. Thinking it appropriate, I've taken a stab at writing a fair use rationale for it, and I would appreciate feedback on whether or not this is appropriate and also on whether or not the image needs to be resized. I know album covers usually go 200 px. I don't know if there's a ballpark for other types of images. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Just an opinion but if it is a non-free image should it only be used on an article named after the subject? (To illustrate the subject in question), I dont think you can just use a non-free image just for identification or decoration and the image is not discussed or directly related to the actual shooting, but you should get other opinions. MilborneOne (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. :) If it's inappropriate, of course, it should be gone. Given that the article isn't about him, I did have some doubts. This is so not my area. :) I guess I'll wait other feedback, and if others concur, I'll go ahead and delete it as the copyright violation it was. No reason to go through the invalid fair use process. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The title of an article should follow Wikipedia:Naming_conventions and is not an issue for NFCC. A quick look shows that Mr. Klang is at the center of the Weston shooting article. A non free image can be used in multiple articles. To meet Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria a non-free image "must be used in at least one article" but each use must be justified. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the image has now been nominated for deletion, here. I don't know that I'll participate in that conversation, as I don't have a strong idea here (or would not have brought it up here in the first place). But since basically there are now two conversations about its appropriateness, it seemed worth pointing out. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Not seeing any reason to keep the thing. Fair Use has pretty high standards to qualify, and the only explanation here seems to be "Yeah, I know it's copyrighted, but I want to use it anyway." which of course doesn't cut it. DreamGuy (talk) 13:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

What does cut it, in terms of fair use for dead people? There's another image at WP:CP (improperly tagged as an article), Image:Fuat-deniz.jpg. It seems to have been uploaded as pdself, but the tagger has labeled it as owned by a university. Link provided seems to bear that out. What should be done with images such as these? Are there specific things to look for in terms of fair use allowances for images of dead people? (Images have been taken away from CP, thank goodness, but I have to do something with it—either move it to WP:PUI or tag it for speedy or give it a fair use.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Band photo?

This is probably a really stupid question, but is it okay to use a band photo from the band's official MySpace? And do you need the band's permission? --HardRAWKR (talk) 01:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Permission would be best. We could theoretically do a free-use rationale, but permission would be better. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

So I'm assuming I'd need to have proof that I have permission when I upload it? --HardRAWKR (talk) 01:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You would need proof that it had been released under a free license such as the GFDL yes.Geni 01:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

And what is the case for the cover art on an album? --HardRAWKR (talk) 01:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Depends if you can provide a rational consistent with wikipedia policy.Geni 01:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay thank you. --HardRAWKR (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I thought I was done asking, but what if the band photo was hosted on Photobucket? Would that change anything? --HardRAWKR (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No. Release under a free license is the critical issue.Geni 02:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Google Maps

Sigh... I was wondering if images of Odwalla's buildings from Google Maps are acceptable. On the Google Maps Terms of Use it says "For individual users, Google Maps, including local search results, maps, and photographic imagery, is made available for your personal, non-commercial use only." So, is that allowable? Thanks. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 02:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No, Google Maps are not acceptable. NASA Worldwind offers a free license alternative (though Worldwind is less convenient to use). Dragons flight (talk) 03:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That what I thought. For Worldwind, do I use the pd tag on Image:Worldwind.png ? Intothewoods29 (talk) 03:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Museum photographs

I have a number of photographs to upload that were taken at a museum (specifically the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology). They are entirely my own work, and were taken both as a visitor and as a student there. Does anyone know - Is there some kind of licensing that applies to museum exhibits and/or possessions that would prohibit me from uploading these images as my own work? Thank you very much.
- Jeyradan (talk) 02:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

we never run across any that were actualy enforceable.Geni 04:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

A museum normally has no say in terms of licensing, unless they're the copyright holder of the work. The copyright holder of the objects photographed, though, may have rights to any images made from their work. For example, I would assume that Image:The story of life.jpg should be considered a derivative work, and the artist (or their heirs) would have a claim to it. I'm assuming "freedom of panorama" doesn't apply inside a museum. But, am not sure. This brings a question I would have, is whether a reconstruction of a dinosaur is treated like a statue (and copyrighted) or treated the same as a living animal. --Rob (talk) 06:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Though I am open to the possibility there might be exceptions, I would generally expect that assembling skeletons from bones is a technical act and not a creative one. As such, I would generally argue that such skeletons are not eligible for copyright. By contrast, a diorama or painting showing an artist's conception of what a dinosaur's world looked like probably is eligible for copyright. Dragons flight (talk) 06:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Bristol Temple Meads Engraving

I've found an image of Bristol Temple Meads railway station online at ingenious.org.uk. The image is on an engraving by John Cooke Bourne made in about 1843. Can we re-use it on this site to illustrate the BTM article? Are we allowed to remove the NMSI watermark before uploading? David Bailey (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

under UK law probably not.Geni 22:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I have an alternative version of the same engraving now, but just wanted to ask... does UK law apply to Wikipedia? Isn't it hosted in and run from the US? Surely US fair-use rules would apply, or even public domain... as the artist has been dead for over 100 years. David Bailey (talk) 09:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

however you are not in the US so UK law appplies to you. You are running into the issue that UK law allows copyright on copies of public domain works.Geni 15:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Irina Slutskaya Scunthorpe Problem.jpg

Cluestick required on the talk page. User:Ianmacm seems to believe that "replaceable" doesn't apply to their images. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Replied on the talk page. NFCC 1 may or may not be an issue, but I also see a problem with NFCC 8. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

copyright date

what is the copyrght date for wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.70.119 (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Varies from page to page. If you are asking in order to cite wikipedia see Special:Cite.Geni 16:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

How do I upload an image to my article?

I just got done submitting my first article!! I tried to be so careful to do everything right, however, I can't figure out how to add jpegs to my article. please help...thanks!Aussiedoglover (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You can just click the "upload file" button in the left bar to upload an image. Wikipedia:Uploading images has additional help if you need it. Please note that because of Wikipedia's non-free content policy all images you upload will probably need to be created by you or be released under a free license by the copyright holder (see WP:COPYREQ if you hope to get permission). Once you have uploaded an image, it can be included in your article by adding the code [[Image:IMAGENAME.jpg|CAPTION|thumb|right]] . Obviously you will need to replace "IMAGENAME" and "CAPTION" with the appropriate text.) You can see WP:IMAGE if you need more help with this, or ask back here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Chemist William Hoskins and family ca. 1885.png

Why was this deleted, and how do I get it restored? I'm actively working on the article to which it will pertain: User:SMcCandlish/William Hoskins (inventor). Something that old clearly has no copyright issues. — SMcCandlish talk cont ‹(-¿-)› 10:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesnt appear to have been deleted it is still at wikimedia commons as Image:Chemist William Hoskins and family ca 1885.png but note that it has the fullstop/period missing after ca (dont think you can have fullstop/periods in file names). MilborneOne (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Calander Pictures

If there are screenshots of a film in a promotional calander, can these images be uploaded and used under fair use? ~ Bella Swan^? 15:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Potential yes if you can write a fair use jutification.Geni 16:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. ~ Bella Swan^? 16:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

PD:Italy images

There is a continuing drive on Commons to delete images that used the PD:Italy tag, as it was considered unusable for Commons Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Italy with photos being moved to it.wiki. As the English language wikipedia also allows PD:Italy tags would it be acceptable to upload a picture like this one (which uses Commons as a source) on en:Wiki using Italian Wikipedia as a source?Nigel Ish (talk)

Image copyright problem with Image:Judith - R Whitaker shot 68.jpg

I'm not sure what you're asking of me. I displayed (or thought I did), with the images, the permission I had received from Judith Durham's agent Graham Simpson to use the images on Wikipedia (please see string below, emphasis mine). If you will, I welcome you to let me know specifically what I am supposed to provide beyond what I have provided. Please excuse my ignorance, but help me get done what needs to get done.

Date Sent: 7/7/2008 1:26 AM From: <gsimpson@musicoast.com> To: "David Ramsey" <Dave.Ramsey@selu.edu> Subject: Re: Web site enquiry Attachments: Judith - R Whitaker shot 68.jpg, Judith 2001 Solo.jpg,

Dear David,

Thank you for your email, which was forwarded to Musicoast by the Webmaster at www.judithdurham.com.

I am attaching two JPG photographs of Judith Durham, one from 1968, the year The Seekers broke up, and a more recent 2000s photo of Judith performing solo - and this email confirms that I am giving Wikipedia to reproduce them without infringing any copyrights.

I have passed your comments on to Judith and she has asked me to send you her love and best wishes,

Yours truly,

Graham Simpson General Manager Musicoast Pty Ltd Record Production & Music Publishing P O Box 555 South Yarra Vic 3141 Australia Email: gsimpson@musicoast.com Website: www.judithdurham.com

Original Message -----

From: "David Ramsey" <Dave.Ramsey@selu.edu> To: <mail@judithdurham.com> Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 2:36 PM Subject: Web site enquiry

> > Dear Judith, > > Do you have a photo suitable for publication with the article about you in Wikipedia? > > I would be pleased to have it (electronic file, preferably JPG) together with a note from you that it can legally be posted on the Wikipedia article. > > You may also be interested to read the recent comment I posted recently on http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kuj1IC9kXt8 . Additionally, although many artists have recorded \"A Perfect Day,\" I chose your interpretation to link to in the Wikipedia article on Carrie Jacobs-Bond (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrie_Jacobs-Bond). > > You are cool. > > David Ramsey, Ph.D. > \"Experienced Editor\" of Wikipedia > 11 White Drive > Hammond, Louisiana 70401-1025 > USA > (985) 542.6845 > Dave.Ramsey@selu.edu

The problem is that you did not obtain a release to use the image under a free license. Permission to use an image on Wikipedia alone is not sufficient - there must be a license release that allows reuse of the image (even for profit) and derivative works. Please follow the instructions at WP:COPYREQ to obtain a sufficient permission email. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

الحاضر البسيط

ما هي صيغة الحاضر البسيط؟ 2-ما هي استخدامات هذا الزمن؟ 3-ما هي دلائل هذا الزمن؟ 4-كيف نشكل سؤال أوننفي جملة؟ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.137.200.7 (talk) 07:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

See the Arabic Wikipedia, or, thanks to Google translate:

اذهب الى ويكيبيديا العربية - CL — 07:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

NICKLE CHECKING STANDARD

WHAT IS JIS NICKLE STANDARD & HOW I CHECK NICKLE STANDARD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.58.178 (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

N Not done - has been posted to Wikipedia:Help desk as well. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 18:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Google Knol Autor just copy Wikipedia articles and put them under his own Copyright

Hello,

I dont knwo if this is the right site to report license abuse. A few Google Knol Autors just copy Wikipedia articles (per Example USA ) the Google Knol Autor Nguyen Thuy Hoang per Example. Google has integrated a button "Flag inappropriate content" i put them an my friends do so, but waiting a week, nothing has been changed... Google writes in their Knol Terms of Service "...Owner’s Licensing Options...Please also be aware that the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) is not currently deemed compatible with Creative Commons licenses, and that content licensed under GFDL terms therefore may not be available for reuse under a Creative Commons or other non-GFDL license..." -- Stefan 21:12, 20. August 2008 (CEST)

That's pretty funny. He's tweaked it just enough so that it doesn't match the wikipedia article 100%. I don't imagine it will last very long. You could raise the issue at Wikipedia_talk:Mirrors_and_forks. Megapixie (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

photograph of an artwork that I own

I have a carving that I have photographed myself. The carving is substantially 3-D and my choice of artistic composition in the photograph is significant. The purpose of the photograph is to illustrate the "Argillite" article, possibly for new "Argillite (Haida)" article. The original carving is new -- approx 2002 -- and the artist is known.

What say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbuchana (talk • contribs) 22:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Your photograph would be a derivative work - and not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Thought experiment - take a video camera into a movie theatre - what happens to the resulting video ? Megapixie (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

{edit conflict) If you have made a significant artistic contribution, then it would be classed as a derivative work. Unless the artist agrees, you will not be able to release the image with a free license. Fair use in Argillite may be possible if you argue that a carving is necessary to illustrate the article, and that a free image of a carving is impossible to obtain for the same reason your image is not freely licensed. Kevin (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)