Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot

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

(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Can I upload a map that I modified based on a map from Google Maps?

I would like to create a map for an article, but am unsure of potential base maps to use. Google Maps provides great base maps, but based on the answer to the above question, I assume that this was not be permissible. Can anyone confirm or correct?--Rpclod (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Content on Google Maps is copyrighted and can't be used here, nor can derivative works from it be used here. Stifle (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Photographs of photographs

I'm rather curious about a couple images I uploaded some time ago, and this may help with future images. {{PD-Canada}} says that any photograph taken before 1949 is public domain in Canada. As such, I believe that the photographs in Image:CalgaryTigersPicture.JPG (and the collage itself) are PD, as they were created no later than 1934. Is a second such photograph: Image:Stampedershockeyphoto.JPG from 1953 properly tagged as GFDL? I am not certain that Freedom of Panorama applies to photographs, even if they are part of a public display.

I guess I view this as akin to scanning a PD image, so basically these images are PD in Canada and the US if they were taken prior to 1923, PD in Canada prior to 1949, and still under copyright in both after Jan 1, 1949. Is that a correct assessment? Resolute 03:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you're correct, which means I don't see how the second photo could be GFDL (unless the original photographers so-released it, which seems unlikely). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That is what I was wondering. The only way, I think, that I could correctly license that as GFDL is if freedom of panorama applies. As that is unlikely, I'll delete and replace it, as the murals at the Saddledome and Corral have pre-1949 Stampeder team photos. Resolute 03:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I just had a quick look at the relevant Canadian legislation ([1] - Section 32.2) and freedom of panorama appears not to apply to photographs. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That is what I was thinking as well. I might be able to claim FoP if I argued it was an example of the photojournals that ring the arena, but that would properly belong on the Pengrowth Saddledome article rather than this. I know there is a team photo of the 1946 Allan Cup team there. I'll grab a shot of that tonight and replace it. Resolute 14:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

On the first picture, I don't think you can claim GFDL as you're merely reproduced a work in the public domain. butterfly (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Re-tagging

Can some add the appropriate tags to Image:Maltesefalcon1931.jpg? The film is now in the public domain - 1931 means it expired in 2006. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

So, no? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think that the copyright expired in 2006? Stifle (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Multiple use of sports logo

I've uploaded the image Image:SWALEC WRU League Logo.JPG, which is the offiical logo for six divisions, and roughly twenty leagues of Welsh rugby. I set up a fairuse page, but could only link it to one article, though I then used it on all twenty league pages. It has now been tagged as incorrectly used on all bar the one page that I tagged the fairuse criteria to. Fair enough. My question is therefore: How do I get around the problem of linking the fairuse to all the articles when the fairuse page for the image only (appears to) allows me one. Thanks in advance FruitMonkey (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You would need a separate Fair use justification for each article where the logo is usedNigel Ish (talk) 09:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Cripes, bang goes the weekend. Thanks for your help. FruitMonkey (talk) 09:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Another quick question, if the image gets moved to WikiCommons under the correct tags, can I then use it multiple times without creating multiple fair uses. FruitMonkey (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's being used under fair use, it's ineligible to be moved to the Commons, which only hosts free media. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

music

i would like to know if i take an old tune and put new words to it e.g green green grass of home and write my own lyrics to it is this seen as copywrite invrengement —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.239.196.196 (talk) 10:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Do not take this as legal advice, but I would guess: You could publish your lyrics as text with an indication that it is sung to the tune of “Green, Green Grass of Home,” but you couldn’t print the tune without permission. And if anyone performed it, they would have to pay royalties both to you and to composer Curly Putnam. Check with a lawyer or Putnam’s publisher. (You weren’t thinking of publishing it on Wikipedia were you? Wikipedia does not publish original works. I ask because this forum is for questions about using Wikipedia.)—teb728 t c 07:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

thank you for the info it helped alot and no i wasn't going to publish it on wikipedia my intentions are to make my own gospel cd and i dont know where to get info on how to go about getting permision to use some older tunes that i like to turn into gospel songs thanx willem —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.239.197.99 (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Covent Garden Rhinemaidens.jpg

I've uploaded this image following discussion at Wikipedia:Peer review/Rhinemaidens (Wagner)/archive1 where a very experienced editor suggested that an FU rationale may be possible for more production photos. It's not obvious to me how to complete the FU rationale. Anyone able to advise? I haven't yet added it to the article yet as I wanted to check here first.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've now added the image to the article as that appears to be a requirement and attempted a fair use rationale. Advice on whether this rationale need expansion still wanted. Someone? Please?--Peter cohen (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You need to add a link to the source - you say the ROH website. Then you can remove the top tag. The FU rationale seems valid to me, but others should confirm. Johnbod (talk) 21:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I moved the summary info to a FUR template; I think it's OK now. Mike Christie (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, both.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Material from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The IPCC has published a wealth of material under their own specific copyright policy.

The policy gives permission for whole graphs / tables / images to be reproduced, unaltered, provided they are correctly referenced.

Can these images be used in Wikipedia articles? What would be the appropriate copyright tag?

The specific image I want to use is a graph of CO2 emissions. --Travelplanner (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The copyright link above has a non-commercial use only clause which means it would not be usable on wikipedia. On the specific graph you mention I am not sure they would meet the criteria for non-free use because free versions could be created. Other editors may have other suggestions! MilborneOne (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It’s even worse than that: their copyright policy does not permit redistribution even for non-commercial use; so uploading it here was a copyright violation. But with the graph you cite, nothing would prevent someone from making their own graph with the same information; so that's the way to go. —teb728 t c 07:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the graph as a copyvio. As teb728 says, however, nothing's stopping you from making a graph yourself based on the data (using free software, just to cover all bases) and upload that. Data isn't copyrightable. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'll do then, many thanks for your help, --Travelplanner (talk) 06:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Airline liveries and logos

In the above article I have listed airline logos by type with a small image of each logo (derived from Wikimedia Commons). I believe this constitutes fair use, to illustrate the elements in each categorised logo. Kransky (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don’t understand what was “derived from Wikimedia Commons”: I don’t see any free images in your list, and Commons accepts only free content. Although your uses might qualify as fair use, I seriously doubt they would conform to Wikipedia’s far more restrictive non-free content policy—particularly WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3, and WP:NFCC#8. And even if they might otherwise conform to that policy, Wikipedia requires a non-free use rationale for each article and for each image. —teb728 t c 08:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your views. My responses are below

- What I mean is that images in the article are linked from Wikimedia Commons.

- concerning WP:NFCC#1 (No free equivalent), the logos cannot be replaced by a free version that has the same effect. There is only one Lufthansa logo.

- concerning WP:NFCC#3 (Minimal usage), each logo is unique, therefore one logo could not adequately all logos.

- concerning WP:NFCC#3 (Minimal extent of use), the logos that come from Wikimedia Commons are of varying quality. If a logo violates this principle then it should be removed (or replaced) on Commons.

- concerning WP:NFCC#8 (Significance), a visual image is essential to describe what the logo looks like, something words alone cannot do (especially when scores of airlines use the same species of bird).

- no-free use rationals are found on the pages in Wikimedia Commons of the respective logos. Kransky (talk) 23:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Music Video images/clips for songs

Hi. Most popular songs these days have articles for the song. Considering many songs have music videos, I've been using excepts or <30 second previews of them to demonstrate the song instead of pictures as usually a video except gives much more detail and information to the reader than a static image. However, many times other users have removed my videos in favor of static images.

Am I doing something wrong or incorrect? Videos allow for both normal users who can not view videos to see a normal image thumbnail as well as a video that can show the song, or specific element of the song, in much more detail for those that can view it. Why are other editors replacing them with static images? Both are proper claims are under fair-use but in my opinion, the videos greatly enhance article detail.

Could someone please explain to me how videos are not as good as I am perplexed as to why other editors keep removing them?

P.S. If this is the incorrect question area, please notify me as its so damn confusing...

Adammw (talk) 08:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion relating to this at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Fair use video. Wikipedia’s policy on non-free content is intentionally much more restrictive than fair use law. —teb728 t c 09:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to use this image?

Hi! I want to know if it is possible to crop an image released under creative commons 2.0, and upload it to Wikipedia. (this image, to be specific) Or do I have to upload it as it is? Any comments will be appreciated. Chamal ^Talk ± 10:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You should upload it at the highest resolution possible; MediaWiki will resize it automatically to the size required on the page. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's just that I want to crop it (not resize), to make a portrait pic of one of the people in it. I wanted to know if that was all right under the image policy. Chamal ^Talk ± 16:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Any image cropped from the original will be a derivative work and retain the same CC license as the original, however, based on the largest size of the original flickr file, any portrait would be tiny and unlikely to be fairly useless. I suggest you try to find a better quality image. ww2censor (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. No luck finding a better image. This is the only image I could find that can be used on Wikipedia. Chamal ^Talk ± 11:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Using CD cover to represent artist

The image used to represent Miklos Rozsa in the article about him is a cover of a recent CD of his compositions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RozsaCentenary.jpg). The picture is clearly not used in reference to the album; rather, it is used simply to represent the composer. In these cases, especially when the album isn't even referenced in the article, are CD covers okay to represent artists/composers?

John 67.189.56.142 (talk) 11:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

CD covers aren't acceptable in the article about a living person, but this person is dead. Stifle (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

ABOUT AGRA FORT

HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE LIVING IN AGRA FORT IN THOSE DAYS AND HOW THE WATER SYSTEM USE TOO WORK TOO PLAY FOUNTAIN SPECIALY BEHIND THE JEHANGIRS MAHAL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.57.84 (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for questions about media copyright. Try the reference desk for questions like yours. However, when posting, please don't type in all caps and sign your message by typing ~~~~ at the end. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Verbal permission from other site owner

Hi, I received verbal permission from the owner of this website: Ohr Reuven to use the image of Betzalel Rudinski, at the top of the page, on his Wikipedia article. How do I do this? Thanks. Shirulashem (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but Wikipedia does not accept permission to use an image only on Wikipedia. The permission must be license reuse by anyone for anything. If you think you can get that, see WP:COPYREQ. —teb728 t c 06:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Nor do we accept verbal permission anyway, for what I hope are obvious reasons. Stifle (talk) 11:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

yes, they are obvious. :-) thanks for the help. Shirulashem (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Photograph from de.wp

I'm unsure about the copyright status of this photograph on the German Wikipedia, my German isn't good enough to translate the licence and I can't make head-nor-tail of the machine translated version. Essentially, I want to know if it could be uploaded to here (or to commons)? Thanks, ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 11:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The bolded bit of the description translates to "unrestricted right of use without any conditions for everyone", so I'm thinking you'd be fine. I can get my girlfriend to double check it tonight, though. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I just confirmed it with my girlfriend - it's definitely free. There are no restrictions on its use whatsoever, including attribution. It's effectively public domain, though apparently Germany does not recognize self-released works as such (I'm foggy on this bit, so please don't rely on it). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That's excellent, thanks for your help :) ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 01:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Help needed on image policy

Hi, I recently uploaded an image to Wikipedia. Please click the following link to view the image.

The image is a screen capture from a Hong Kong television show. I have read the policy on uploading image but don't really understand the policy. Could you tell me whether this image fits the image policy requirement and can be used on Wikipedia? If yes, what description do I need for the image?

That image is probably not usable on Wikipedia. Screenshots of copyrighted television shows are permitted on Wikipedia only under very narrow circumstances, all of which involve illustrating something that's of great importance to the article and which couldn't possibly be replaced with a non-copyrighted shot. It appears to me that your intended purpose with this image is to illustrate the athlete; presuming that she is still living, it would be theoretically possible to get an uncopyrighted photograph of her. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. presuming that she is still living, it would be theoretically possible to get an uncopyrighted photograph of her. - Why does it mean? Tinbin (talk) 04:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It means that as long as she's still alive, there's nothing stopping somebody from going up to her, taking a picture, and releasing it under a free license. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The significance of that, just to be sure you understand, is that by WP:NFCC#1 we can’t use a non-free image if it could be replaced with a free one. —teb728 t c 07:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining in plain English. :) Tinbin (talk) 07:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, can I use the photos from the website below on Wikipedia? If yes, what description should I use for these photos? I am totally clueless here. Thanks Tinbin (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

http://fotop.net/boman/gymnastics

I can't find any specific copyright information on the page, which most likely means that the copyright holder reserves all rights. If you want to use any of the photos, I recommend you contact him at the contact information here and then follow the instructions at WP:COPYREQ. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding a photo

I play in the paul mckenna band. A wikipedia page was created about us. I would like to get an image onto the page but am not an administrator. Is there any other way to upload an image. Any help would be appreciated.

<email removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Northparkmedia (talk • contribs) 18:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Any registered user is able to upload images, though they may sometimes have to wait until several days after the creation of their accounts. If you can't wait until then, let me know and I can upload the image for you. Note that the copyright holder of the image must be willing to release it either into the public domain or under a license that allows for unlimited re-use of the image by any person for any reason, including derivative works, subject only to a requirement of attribution. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually your account is already old enough, but you need 10 edits before you can upload an image. (That’s 8 more than you have. Maybe there are some more improvements you want to make to the article.) When you have a free-licensed image and the required number of edits, see Wikipedia:Uploading images for how to upload the image. Be sure to indicate the source and the license of the image. Then see Wikipedia:Images for how to add your image to the article. —teb728 t c 22:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Lisence is there but bot complaints

Hi i uploaded http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:EntrepreneurialMindset.jpg which i created myself - this is the second time the bot complaints there would be no copy right info .... but there is - please help MaxSenges (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No bot has tagged the image since you recreated it on 22 September. Perhaps you are mistaking the 27 April message on your talk page for a new message. —teb728 t c 21:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Promo head shot from the BBC iPlayer

There is a promo head shot on the BBC iPlayer, the photo is of a radio DJ and can be found here. I want to upload for his article. Can I take a screenshot of this and upload it?

Thanks, --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope; it's a non-free image, and those can't be used to illustrate articles about living people except under exceptional (hence the root word) circumstances. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

MOTO GP

what is the fastest speed recorded in MOTO GP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Susheel4u (talk • contribs) 05:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If you can’t find the answer at MOTO GP, try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk. They answer general knowledge questions there. This forum is for media copyright questions. —teb728 t c 07:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Which free license?

In the template below, it is required to choose a free license, I don't really understand what to do, please could someone tell me what to do? Thank you.

This is the image that I am asking for permission for using on Wikipedia: Tinbin (talk) 08:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

http://fotop.net/boman/gymnastics/HYT_4923

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK [ insert link ].

I agree to publish that work under the free license LICENSE [choose at least one from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_tags ].

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

DATE, NAME OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER

Do I understand correctly that you are Boman, the photographer who took this photo? If so, you can choose any of the licenses in the list. If not, enter the license that the Boman licensed the photo under. If the photographer has not licensed it under any free license, we can’t use it. —teb728 t c 08:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Oh, and if you are Boman, please upload a copy of the photo without the watermark. —teb728 t c 08:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not Boman. But I am going to ask him to give permission to use his/her photo, so I would like to clearly know what to do first before asking him for permission.

But how do Boman choose the license? I don't understand it myself and I assume Boman will find it hard too. If it is too complicated, I think the image owner will not give permission. Pushing the delete button is much easier than going through all these procedures. Thank You. Tinbin (talk) 09:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, see WP:COPYREQ for how to handle third party permission. But don’t get your hopes up too much about his/her granting permission. He/she appears to be a professional photographer, and the free license effectively gives his/her work away. It allows anyone to reuse the photo for anything, including commercial use and derivative images. —teb728 t c 09:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Oh, I see. That's where you got the release form you quoted above. —teb728 t c 09:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I would guess that if he were willing to license the photo under a free license, he would not have trouble picking one. If I were to license one of my photos, I would use {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}. That license requires attribution and requires that any derivative image be licensed under a compatible license. —teb728 t c 10:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I will try. He actually posted his photos on a Hong Kong discussion forum, so I think there is a good chance that he will let me use his photo.

So with the form, it should read like this?

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK [ insert link ].

I agree to publish that work under the free license LICENSE cc-by-sa-3.0

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

DATE, NAME OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinbin (talk • contribs) 10:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have read this WP:COPYREQ before, but I still haven't got a clue what to do. Could I use this letter template http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Example_requests_for_permission (2.1.2 Example 2) instead of the form to ask for the permission to use the image? It seems much easier to understand. Tinbin (talk) 10:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That will be fine. Stifle (talk) 11:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Then I will use the letter template instead of the form. It is much easier to understand. Tinbin (talk) 12:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Photo Image:Hoshana Raba 2006 300x224.jpg is copyrighted

The copyright is clearly shown at the top of the photo.

If you want to use it you must credit: "Yirmeyahu Ben-David, Paqid 16, The Netzarim, Ra'anana, Israel, www.netzarim.co.il" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.122.129 (talk) 10:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That image was deleted over six months ago because it was copyrighted and lacking a proper non-free use rationale. Do you want it restored? If so, please supply a rationale. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Swan-Lake.ogg

This sound file was nominated at featured sound candidates but to me and several others, the copyright status, and justification for why it's free, sounds dodgy. It's relying on a facet of UK copyright law about captures of publically displayed artworks, but it doesn't sound like it applies here. I'm no expert in this particular aspect of UK copyright law, can anyone confirm whether that's an appropriate use? ~ mazca ^t|c 22:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama has to do with permanent buildings and sculptures; a musical performance is anything but permanent. Nominated for deletion. --dave pape (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. ~ mazca ^t|c 06:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Java logo.svg

Can I get some opinions on this, and its use at Java (programming language)? I think it should be allowed as the official logo, and is covered by our usual policies. TimTay believes that Sun's trademark claims prevent us using it, and that alternative free logos should be used instead. I'm off to bed right now, but we would appreciate some input. the wub "?!" 00:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A logo owned by a company is always non-free. We use it under the fairuse exemption of copyright law. In this case we should continue to use this image since it is a valid fair use claim. MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, hold on - what's this business about "alternative free logos"? The fair use claim is valid iff it's not replaceable by free images. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but the “free” logos at http://logos.sun.com/logosite.jsp?Category=sunuse are licensed under non-free licenses, which require Sun approval. That aside I don’t see any images that would be appropriate for Wikipedia: As nearly as I can tell they all imply that the image user uses and/or endorses Java, and/or they are not at all equivalent. Apparently TimTay does not understand that fair use law overrides Sun’s prohibition on use of the logo. —teb728 t c 19:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay. What MBisanz and teb 278 said, then. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Political campaign items

I'm working on an article about a political campaign from over 20 years ago. I'd like to add some illustrations. There is a "dead tree" archive some distance from me that I'm planning to visit which has a box of pamphlets, ads, signs, newspaper clippings, buttons, and similar items. What kind of photographs could I take of the materials that we could use here? If there's a problem with reproducing clear copies of individual items, would a photograph of many items at once, some obscured, be any better? (For example, several pamphlets or similar printed items splayed on the table.) Also, I expect that they may have photographs of marches or demonstrations. If I rephotograph them (lowering the resolution), can they be added as historical fair use? I only want to make the one trip to this place (time and money), so any guidance that regulars here can give me before I go would be much appreciated. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Scanning is better than rephotographing. Anything that meets the non-free content criteria can be used here under fair use. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Any thoughts on what political materials would meet the NFCC? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Anything that's not replaceable by a free substitute, has been previously published, would be used in at least one article and not outside the mainspace, has a proper fair use rationale for each use, respects the commercial opportunities for the material, is encyclopedic, meets WP:IP, is not used excessively, and has the required details on the image description page is fair game. Stifle (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

My suspicion is that the only materials you'd be able to use are those that are specifically addressed in the article (i.e. was there a pamphlet whose effect on the race is worth discussing in the article, or an attack ad that generated substantial controversy?). Essentially, you have to make the case that any image you use under the NFCC increases the reader's understanding of the topic in a way that text could not feasibly do. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I believe there is a fair use loophole for posters used in articles about the events they announce. Presumably that includes political events. Also, the fair use template for logos that indicates they can used in articles about the organizations. The article in question concerns a ballot initiative and the organizations formed to support and oppose it, so I'd think that logos from both sides would be useable. Finally, there's a good chance that some of the people involved in the campaigns are now dead. I wonder if photos of them engaged in activism related to the topic would be acceptable in any way. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Photos are very often considered replaceable. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Even photos of now-deceased people engaged in historic, one-time activities? That's strict! ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No - if it's a one-off event and the photo itself is a subject of discussion in the article then that can be used under NFCC since it is not replaceable (see Image:Zapruder-150.jpg, for example). If the article is about a dead person, or someone known to live a secluded life, or someone who is incarcerated, then it is also possible in those circumstances to use a copyrighted photo under the NFCC because, again, a free version could not reasonably be created. Regarding the use of political campaign materials, you have to tread a fine line. There seems to be a convention that it's okay to use the official logo of a candidate's campaign in the article's infobox, but if those kinds of materials appear to be more decorative than essential to the understanding of the article then that's not allowed. Of course, if a piece of campaign material is itself the subject of a discussion in the article then it's fine to use an image of it under the NFCC. Does that help? -- Hux (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes thanks, that's very useful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

External link to YouTube

I'm looking at an article which has a citation which is a link to a music video on YouTube. I don't know how to determine whether the video is available for reference like this; WP:ELNEVER says This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. How can I tell whether that's happening? Richard Pinch (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are 100% sure that the video uploader is the person or group that owns the copyright on the video, then a link to that video on YouTube is acceptable (see, Pork and Beans by Weezer, for example). But if you cannot validate the identity, then linking to the video there is not acceptable. --MASEM 13:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's clear - and speedy too! Richard Pinch (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Trademark/Copyright question

Resolved

The image Image:Microsoft wordmark.svg from Commons is currently being used in the article Microsoft vs. MikeRoweSoft which is currently undergoing a good article review. The reviewer has some concerns over the image's use in the article due to its trademark status. Would it be possible for someone with the relevent knowledge to clarify the whole copyright/trademark thing as it applies to Wikipedia policy and the article (the review can be found here). Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a policy on use of trademarks here. Unless they're copyrighted, they can be used freely as long as there is no attempt at passing off. Stifle (talk) 13:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Thankfully the situation has now been resolved (the image has been removed from the article but on the grounds of relevance rather than copyright status). Guest9999 (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of symbols

Image:Virginia Class Cutaway.jpg is listed as a PD image, but if you blow the image up to full size and look at the bottom right hand corner you can see what appears to be a copyright symbol. One of these two tags is therefore incorrect, but as the external link goes directly to the source I can not tell which one is right and which one is wrong. Can some help me with this? TomStar81 (Talk) 21:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, in this case, I doubt that the image is public domain. We have no evidence that the artist was a serviceman, nor that this work was done in the course of his Navy duties. Physchim62 (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Rountree appears to be an independent, commercial illustrator - see http://www.rountreegraphics.com/, which has this picture, as well as others done for Popular Science and US News & World Report. --dave pape (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I nominated it at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 October 10 —teb728 t c 21:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE HELP with duplicated images

Hi,

I uploaded about 4 images on our page yesterday and this one image is duplicated 4 times, which i dont want, how can i delete the other 4 duplicates? so that only the 1 image(logo) is left that needs to be on webpage, please come back to me urgently!!! Thanks

Regards

Besa321 (talk) 06:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about he duplicates, per my discussion on Editor Assistance, I have corrected the fair use template problems with the image used in the article, I would just leave the rest, they will be deleted anyway if their fair use hasn't been correctly asserted. Mfield (talk) 06:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I am looking to use this picture on our website.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/London_skyline_2012_panorama.jpg/1600px-London_skyline_2012_panorama.jpg

How can I get permission to use the image above?

Kind Regards

Spencer Warner

spencer@cscscreeding.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.25.16 (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That image is released under the Creative Commons Sharealike license, which means that you can use it, provided you credit Will Fox (and that if you alter the image in any way, you release the altered image under the same license). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Oregon legislative district maps

I believe the Secretary of State of Oregon claims copyright to images of the Oregon Legislative Assembly's district maps, among other things. Those maps are here, here, and here. I sent an email a few days ago to the Archives Division, the agency that publishes the Oregon Blue Book, asking about the nature of the copyright, but I've yet to get a reply. I'm wondering if the doctrine of fair use applies for these images. Can any of them be used on Wikipedia in any way? Äþelwulf Talk to me. 01:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Those images should all be replaceable by free alternatives, and therefore are not acceptable for us on Wikipedia, even if the doctrine of fair use does apply (which I believe it would under the right circumstances). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. As for the suggestion of using free alternatives: At the bottom of this page, they provide shapefiles. I have downloaded these and played with them, and I have discovered how to make raster images with the data provided by these shapefiles. I feel like I'm on the verge of figuring out how to make vector images too. Would these images qualify as "free alternatives," or are they derived too much from copyrighted materials? If they would not qualify, then I can't think of any free alternatives. Äþelwulf Talk to me. 10:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well the Secretary of State of Oregon cannot copyright the boundaries of the electoral districts, nor the position of roads and rivers, but s/he can (if Oregon law allows it) copyright the "expression" of that information (federal law allows it for state governments, but one or two states have laws which limits the copyright of their own governments). Your alternatives must have a different expression of the same information to be free: eg, you can choose to include different features, in different colors etc. You have the right to manipulate the shapefiles and, if none of the original "expression" remains at the end, the SoSoO will have no copyright on the finished product. Hopefully you will end up with prettier maps than the ones you link to! Physchim62 (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You guys are great. Thanks! Äþelwulf Talk to me. 22:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Can someone help save these images?

Per the discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy/Anarchism#Help.21_Flavio_Costantini.27s_Images_will_be_Deleted.21 here, we have images which, on good authority, the copyright owners consent to be used on Wikipedia. Can someone who knows the formal ins and outs (WP:OTRS/emailing/licenses etc.) lend a hand? On behalf of the Anarchism task force, the skomorokh 11:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As Skomorokh has referred to me as confirming that artwork has been released for Wikipedia, I should clarify the situation. I have spoken to one of the members of the organization in a face-to-face meeting, and have been told that the organization's printed material is released for free use on wikipedia. Our discussion focused on the topic of an original translation of foreign documents, and that these could be hosted on wikisource, and the cover art of their pamphlets, which often utilizes creator released portraits of historic anarchist figures. I was never aware that the KSL hosted a website showcasing the work of this artist, Flavio Costantini, and so never asked if this artist's work was also covered by their disclaimer. As this would now involve two parties, I cannot claim that this work will be released to Wikipedia.

In fact, I have just discovered that the artist's illustrations, several of which have been placed on the commons, are actually used in Without a glimmer of remorse, by Pino Cacucci, a fictionalized account of the Bonnet Gang's history. An inside cover notice states that the illustrations are indeed copyrighted by Costantini. If they are to be hosted by Wikicommons, we must confirm what are the specific conditions the artist holds over them. Are all rights reserved? Some? Can they be released, if freely attributed and used for non-commercial purposes? Etc. --Cast (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the loosely-worded opener Cast. Do we know if Costantini is still alive? the skomorokh 17:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Running a quick search, the Anarchist Encyclopedia, RA Forum, and Costantini's official website hosted by KSL, each fail to mention that he is dead. I think he is still with us.--Cast (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

How inconvenient. I'd say this is a long shot then, unless someone gets a hold of him and gets him to give up the goods. Even then I'm not sure if the publishers permission/personality rights/book author's permission are required on top of that. the skomorokh 17:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia does not accept permission to use content only on Wikipedia or only for non-commercial use. Wikipedia accepts only a free license—one that allows reuse by anyone for anything, including commercial use. (Requiring attribution is OK.) It the copyright owner will grant that, see WP:COPYREQ for how to handle it. —teb728 t c 20:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Momentum (Song)

In 1981 at Toronto the Eastern Sound Company released a 45 RPM stereo titled "Momentum" : a liryc song by A.F.Corea. Question : it is not in wikipedia.How come? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canabro (talk • contribs) 13:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It might be that someone wrote an article, but it was deleted for not meeting our notability standards. Hundreds of articles are deleted every day because their subjects are not notable. Or if the song is notable, it might be that nobody has written an article about it yet. —teb728 t c 20:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Uploading image to Wikipedia

Hi,

I have been granted the permission to use an image, after I uploaded the image to this location: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Yuyuan.jpg, I found that I might made a mistake, so I uploaded the image to another location: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Yuyuan.jpg.

Since I uploaded the image to two different locations, I emailed TWICE the original URL and the URLs of the two 2 different locations with the permission emails to "permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org" and "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org".

I am sorry that I made the mistake. But I would like to know that what is going to happen next? Have I done the correct procedure? Am I still OK with the image that I uploaded?

Sorry for the inconvenience caused. Tinbin (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Logistics

How do i discuss an existing logistical function of any organisation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.32.36 (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, this page is for copyright-related questions about media (usually images) uploaded to Wikipedia. For answers to your question, try asking at the Reference Desk. -- Hux (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Tortugapotco.png

I forgot to put my license on this image when I uploaded, and now it's going to be deleted :( Image:Tortugapotco.png‎ I took this picture, and I release it to public domain, but I don't know how to write that tag now! A little help, please? Thanks so much! BlackPearl14^{[talkies!•contribs!]} 22:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a screenshot of a copyrighted computer game. It does not count as your work, and you cannot release it as public domain. The only way it can be used on Wikipedia is under fair use if it fits the non-free content criteria. In that case the tag you would use would be {{Non-free game screenshot}}. ~ mazca ^t|c 22:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, got it. I didn't realize that ;) Thanks! BlackPearl14^{[talkies!•contribs!]} 23:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone requested to delete a image uploaded by me

Hi, I just checked here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Yuyuan.jpg. Someone requested to delete this image, but I have already sent all the permission emails to OTRS. Could someone tell me what is happening? Tinbin (talk) 06:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the deletion tags were removed so you're all good. Whoever wanted it deleted seriously jumped the gun though. It clearly said OTRS was pending and they couldn't even wait a single day before spamming the page with deletion tags? Lame. -- Hux (talk) 01:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, there seems to be rising abuse of "OTRS pending" by people who must view it as a way to make copyvios look legit (over 1200 images are currently marked pending). This photo had some of the hallmarks of such an image - watermarked, uploaded by a redlinked user with no other contributions, didn't use the actual {{OTRS pending}} template (which means it wouldn't be tracked in the proper category) - so I wouldn't really blame Megapixie for being suspicious. Personally, I favor linking the template or tagging them "npd" - simpler than a full deletion request. --dave pape (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

"uploaded by a redlinked user with no other contributions" Well, that is a very good reason for requesting image deletion. So every first time user's image should be deleted just because it is their first time. You would not blame Megapixie but I would. I followed the instruction here WP:COPYREQ and sent all the permission emails to OTRS, and it was clearly saying "OTRS pending" in the description. It should be up to the editors with OTRS access to decide whether the image should be deleted or not. But a random guy like Megapixie walked pass and proposed to delete an image that I have been trying very hard to get the permission from the author. It is much easier to complain than actually doing some work. People like Megapixie discouraging other people, especially newcomers, from contributing or doing anything for Wikipedia. I am lucky that there is a nice editor with OTRS access who proved I am not guilty of copyright violation. Tinbin (talk) 03:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Picture

Hi, I just found this picturehere so Im dropping you a note since there is no attributation or license as far as I can see. --217.84.43.183 (talk) 10:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The one you linked to on the external page was uploaded three years earlier than the Wikipedia one. More importantly though, assuming you specifically mean the picture in the top right of the external site: they're completely different pictures. They're of the same building and taken from a very similar angle, but note that the people in front of the building are entirely different. ~ mazca ^t|c 12:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Images deleted

I designed a portal for novels project and added as the featured articles, novels with the book cover that is used on the article (linked from commons). Yet a bot comes and deletes many of the covers stating (Removing links to fair-use image) yet the images still remain on the article. The portal is Portal:Novels and the bot which removes them is SoxBot VIII. Am confused why the same image is deleted from a portal yet remains on the article ? Boylo (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

If the removal of Image:Halo contactharvest.PNG from Portal:Novels/Selected article/7 is an instance of what you are referring to, it is a non-free image. By Wikipedia’s policy WP:NFCC#9, “Non-free content is allowed only in articles….” The Portal page is not an article; so it had to be removed. Halo: Contact Harvest is an article; so it can remain there. I suspect that the other images you refer to were also non-free, and that they were removed for the same reason. —teb728 t c 06:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the reply, that explains it. Boylo (talk) 07:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Promotional photo

I have found multiple copies of photo on different sites, [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] etc. I believe it is promotional, but I want to be sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael miceli (talk • contribs) 06:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Promotional photos have no special status. Promotional photos are seldom released under a free license—one that allows reuse by anyone for anything. And without a free license they are restricted by Wikipedia’s non-free content policy. One of the requirements of that policy is that “Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.” Since the Pine Leaf Boys are still alive, a non-free photo of them could be replaced by a free photo. If you think they might release this or another photo under a free license, see WP:COPYREQ for how to handle permission. —teb728 t c 07:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

About justifying all of the uploaded images on international wikis

Hi, WP:MCQ, I have a problem which needs some discussion. I'm from the Macedonian Wikipedia where some people are uploading images without any consideration to the copyrights of the author — is the image under a free license, or is it protected. They are trying to justify this by the Macedonian law of free use: that any copyrighted material is free to use if it is for educational purposes. Even a license template was made to slap on all the non-free images (and it wasn't fair use, they are easily replaceable!). I tried to point out to those users that Wikipedia only accepts images that are free to redistribute, modify and use for any commercial/noncommercial purpose, either by one of the free licenses like CC/GFDL, or because those images are in the public domain. Only in exceptional cases we can use copyrighted material under the fair use law of the US (which hosts the WP servers). We can't justify this "free use for educational purpose", because this language edition of Wikipedia is not under the jurisdiction of Macedonian law, but under the policies of the Wikimedia Foundation and the United States law. Now answer me this: am I right about this matter? I got a reply that there were a lot of other Wikipedia language editions that are using this similar kind of justification, for example, the Albanian Wikipedia with this template which is used on this image (a clearly replaceable image!). Like, wtf?! I'm sorry for asking this question here, rather then on meta or some other place. I'm just trying to get a second opinion, because I know this is wrong! Thank you in advance, Brainmachine (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

terraserver-usa.com

Can {{PD-USGov-USGS}} be used for some images from terraserver-usa.com, which describes itself as providing free public access to a vast data store of maps and aerial photographs of the United States originating from USGS? I think it does and added the link to U.S. Government sites. See also Image:MerckHQ.png, showing that commons.wikimedia.org believes that PD-USGov-USGS applies. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 14:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

According to the FAQ, "The images from the U.S. Geological Survey, and are freely available for you to download, use and re-distribute. The TerraServer team and the USGS appreciate credit for their work on this project by displaying the message "Image courtesy of the USGS"." Looks to me like you're correct that there are no restrictions on the use of the data - even the attribution is a request rather than a requirement. ~ mazca ^t|c 14:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't upload

I can't upload any picture because it doesn't have a copyright tag or something of that sort. HOW DO I SOLVE THAT PROBLEM!!! Here, tell me the answer at my page. Thanks SO much!!!

Blacky98 (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I posted the following at User talk:Blacky98: What kind of picture is it? Who owns the copyright on it? (If it is a photo, for example, the owner is probably the photographer.) Has the owner released it under a license which allows reuse by anyone for anything? If so, which license? If not, we probably can’t use the picture. —teb728 t c 18:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)