Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

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

(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

This talk page is automatically archived. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.

The page on the Image:Flowerfairiesjpg.jpg claims:

Image probably copied from: http://www.walldecorshops.com/WA13412.html but Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. means that that source cannot object. Since the artist died in 1973, this work is still in copyright and that copyright is enforced by Frederick Warne - see the Flower Fairies official website.

As I posted on the talk page of this image, the first claim is clearly bogus by merit of the second.

IANAL, however, the claim that the image source cannot object seems to be false, and fails as a fair use rationale.

Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. states that this case "ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright". But from the copyright notice on the same page, the image isn't in the public domain: if it's copyrighted, then by definition all copies of it, licensed or unlicensed, absolutely ARE "protected by copyright". Making unlicensed "copies of copies" of a copyrighted work is simply not permitted. Someone who's made a licensed derivative work from a copyrighted work (as appears to be the case here) absolutely *can* object to copies being made of their derivative work, even where it is closely similar to the original. So the copyright listed may also be incorrect or incomplete, since this appears a copy of a derivative work, with copyright belonging to the cited source, Sure, the use of the image may still be "fair use" (is using the entirety of a work EVER "fair use"?), but this citation certainly fails as a fair use rationale for that use. Also, I'm unsure about the claim that US copyright law applies, since they're the IP of a UK company, and the internet *does* extend beyond the borders of the US. Wikipedia does appear to serve content to UK IPs, so you are publishing this copyrighted image in the UK. Also I'm unsure if the claim that "it's fair use because it's used on the Cicely Mary Barker page" is valid: I found the image featured on its own page, following a link from a discussion of the image, on a user page. I never even read the name "Cecily Marie Barker" until I started writing the above. Clearly, any image which has its own page (all images, so far as I can tell) is not just being used "in context", it's also directly linkable: I feel that Wikipedia's claim that the images are only being viewed or used "in context" is flawed in this respect, and that images where the "fair use" relies on the context for should probably not show the image, but should instead provide a link to the context where the image is shown. But like I said, IANAL. --DewiMorgan 00:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

DewiMorgan

I could be reading all this wrong ... but I think they are saying this:

• Frederick Warne owns the copyright.
• Walldecorshops.com is using the image owned by Frederick Warne
• The copy of the image that Walldecorshops.com is using is a slavish copy
• Because Walldecorshops.com's use of the image is a slavish copy, they have no standing to object

We use amazon.com copies of DVD and CD covers under the same reasoning - Amazon doesn't own the images, so any permission they would give is irrelevant. We still have to either have the permission from the actual copyright holder or a fair use claim to use the image ... but, according to that image description page, Walldecorshops.com's permission or lack thereof is irrelevant.

I can't speak to the underlying facts of the matter (in other words, I have no idea who owns the copyright), but I think the conclusions are right. --BigDT (416) 02:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. This is not analogous to using Amazon's scan of an album cover, which is a "slavish copy". In this case we have a clearly derivative work. Elements of the original image have been cropped out and arranged in a new manner. Both the selection of elements and the new arrangement are new creative work. Since this is a derivative work authorized by the copyright holder on the original, the added creative elements are separately copyrighted.

I don't think we have a fair use claim that holds up here. The copyrighted elements of the derivative work are irrelevant to any valid fair use claim and will be copyvios regardless. The image isn't being used for criticism or analysis anyway, but merely to illustrate the artist's work. And it doesn't even do that adequately, since it's just bits and pieces cropped out of the whole. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

":*Because Walldecorshops.com's use of the image is a slavish copy, they have no standing to object" - My point was that this is not true under Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp, since the judgement only applies to public domain works. It has no bearing here. Nothing about this work, whether in the original, or the modified-by-walldecorshops form, is in any way public domain. Incidentally, I only pointed this out because the blatant falsity about Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp got to me: personally I think copyright is evil in all its forms, anyway, and it's no skin off my nose if the image is used. DewiMorgan 22:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

the critical part of the ruleing was the part about slaveish copyright not qualifying for copyright. the copyright status of the undelineing work should not impact this. On the other hand it would be harder to make a fair use case for someone else's slavish copy (since they would have a fair case that you are directly competeing with their use).Geni 22:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the critical part of the ruling was that slavish copyright of a Public Domain image did not become magically imbued with copyright purely by the act of making a copy of something that had no copyright. The ruling said that the act of copying was not a creative act. It was made very clear (just read the links I gave) that the ruling did NOT remove copyright that was already there. Any copy of a copyrighted thing has that same copyright applied, especially if the copy is made accurately. For a deeper understanding of this topic, see Bridgeman Art Library Ltd. v. Corel Corporation DewiMorgan 10:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Photo

I don't quite understand how to tag a photo properly. I have permission to use and have quoted the photographers name... what do I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cracka79 (talk • contribs) 2007-04-24:06:13:04 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about Image:Tars2.highres.jpg. You didn't say in the image description that you had permission, or what the permission was for exactly. Wikipedia only accepts media available under a free license such as the GFDL. See WP:COPY for details on copyrights and licensing. If you can get permission for that from him, preferably via email, forward that email to the address given toward the end of WP:COPYREQ. Then you can remove the tag that's there, and add one for the granted license from Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Photo

Hi. I recently uploaded a photo and the website gives permission to do so. Here is the photo. Image:WTNR Tower.jpg My concern is that the following message is posted within it. Licensing (Cut verbatim insertion of {{Non-commercial from license selector}} -- TCC (talk) (contribs))

However, on the website, it says this:

All pictures are copyrighted by Tom Bosscher, 2005 But, they may be used without 
prior approval provided Tom Bosscher is given credit for the photograph(s).

Curran (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S., please view the Summary heading where I specified this info. Thanks, Curran (talk)

You put this text there yourself when you uploaded the image and specified the license was for non-commercial use only. Since the permission given on the website contains no such restriction, you should not have selected that license. Just cut it out of the image page and add {{Attribution}} instead, making sure to preserve the website link, photographer's name, and copyright information. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Which copyright status to use and how? Image:Dukla6364.jpg

I have uploaded a picture on Wikipedia. I had an original photo at home and I scanned it to place it online. Which tag to use? Note that this picture wasn't taken from any book, I just bought the original photo myself.

--Vallejo06 12:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

copyright status of PRC propaganda posters

Hi there, I am trying to determine the copyright status of political propaganda posters created in the People's Republic of China during the 1950's. This collection of posters and the site's copyright information and attribution policy seem to say that they would fall under GFDL and that{{Attribution}} would apply, but images from the same site, which are currently being used in Criticize Lin, Criticize Confucius, Propaganda in the People's Republic of China and other Wikipedia articles are used under {{politicalposter}} as fair use. Any ideas on the actual status of these images? Thanks!--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 16:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

how do i add a copyright tag?

i have asked my friend to to do this new ersion of my mom's pic. his site is densemodesto.multiply.com if you check its under his pictures area and it's addressed to me. If i need to do the tag, how do i do tht. Im not much of a computer whiz. kindly help me thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angeldwbm (talk • contribs) 2007-04-25:20:10 (UTC)

It's not so important who edited the picture. What is important is that the copyright is probably owned by the original photographer, and odd as it may seem you don't have rights to release it to the public domain or under a free license like the GFDL. If the photographer is a family member, you can probably obtain permission from them. Otherwise we can probably apply fair use since your mother has unfortunately passed away and no new photos of her can be made. See WP:NONFREE for guidelines.

As for what a tag is, if you edit this section you can see where I placed a notation that your original post was unsigned. It's the bit between two pairs of curly braces. This is called a template, and it's a kind of shorthand for standard text and formatting. A "tag" here is a kind of template that indicates the copyright and licensing status of the image. You can find a list of them here. To place one, you go to the image page and click on the "edit this page" link. You won't see the image, but you'll see the accompanying text. Place the template in its own section ==Licensing== along with any explanation needed. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography

For the making of a Bibliography, what is th city of publication,and the copyright? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.142.196 (talk • contribs) 2007-04-25:21:00 (UTC)

This page is not for general questions on copyright. On the off-chance you're asking so you can cite a source for a Wikipedia article, you'll find the copyright information and city of publication on the copyright page, which immediately follows the title page. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Coat of arms

Image:K-L-Lindau wappen.jpg not sure how to tag it. It's a village coat-of-armsNankai 22:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't tag it; you allow it to be deleted. It's a copyright violation. It appears to be a scan of a patch or insignia. As such, the individual details that go into making the actual patch are copyright to whomever made it.

Note that the blazon itself probably is not copyrighted, assuming it's not of recent origin and it's not copyrighted to the city under local laws. If that's the case, then you can always create an image of the coat of arms yourself and upload it here under a free license. (It's for this reason that we can't apply fair use. Wikipedia policy restricts fair use when a free alternative can be reasonably created.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Given that there are rules which govern who may display certain coats-of-arms, does Wikipedia attempt to regulate that as well? I'm talking now about heraldic rules of use rather than copyright on a specific image of an emblazon. Thanks. Jackytar 19:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Missionbeach1.jpg

I do not know how to add a tag to this photo. I added one, but it was deleted anyway, so I'm at a total loss. I have permission from Joe Ewing, the copyright owner and the person who took the photo and owns it. I've put that on the image talk page. What else is it that I need to do to get this photo up? It's very confusing. Permission was granted, which, according to the Library of Congress, is what's needed for a photo to be used. I don't have a clue, even from the instructions, how or where to post a tag. I thought I was doing it right when I posted one, then you deleted the photo anyway. Help! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Writertoo (talk • contribs) 23:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC). The above was written by me, and now signed:

You need more than just permission to use on wikipedia. You need permission for anyone to use for any perpose includeing comercial use and make modifications. Getting the Photo released under the GFDL is probably the best simplest way to do this.Geni 19:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Taping a High School Play

My childs drama department performs plays and some of them are copywrited. The drama teacher says that you can't take pictures or tape the performance. My child acts in these plays and why is it "illegal" to take pictures or tape the performance for personal use? --Evac172 23:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This page is intended for questions about copyright as it applies to Wikipedia. To answer your question, IANAL but I would guess that many schools will purchase the rights to perform a play but have restrictions against taping it. ShadowHalo 01:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Dixie High

I Uploaded my school enblem but I don't know whether or not it is copyrighted maybe you know about things like that the file is Dixiehighseal.gif and it can be found at www.dixiehigh.org. --Aporras22 04:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

pretty much everthing is protected by copyright.Geni 18:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a question about Image:Feagin-1stphoto.jpg. I entered in the source of the photo, but the photo was still deleted. I was wondering what other information is needed in order to maintain this photo?Louwanda 17:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It's copyright status.Geni 18:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyrighting

I just wanted to change the picture of Ben Wallace from being in a Pistons jersey, to him being in a Bulls jersey.

I found the image on the web, and then changed it to a .gif file in Photoshop.

I am unsure what type of copyrighting i need to do.

Thanks.

since you don't hold the copyright and the image is unlikely to be under a free lisence you can't use the image on wikipedia.Geni 20:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

How can I add a photo to a page?

Hi-- I am trying to add a photo of the founders of Radical Women to the organization's wikipedia page. I have the permission of Radical Women to use the photo--the actual photographer is unknown. I don't know how to phrase this permission. And I don't know how to place the photo or add a caption describing. it.

Thanks.

HGat82ndSt 20:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You need more than permission to use on wikipedia you would need permission from the copyright holder for the image to be released under a free lisence such as the GFDL.Geni 20:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

How do I contest deletion of a mug shot?

Where and how do I contest the deletion of a mug shot? Nicmart 03:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:DRV.Geni 14:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Depends. Has the image been deleted already, or will it be deleted sometime in the future? --Carnildo 00:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate image size for fair use

Hello. I have been going through and cleaning up 'Screenshots of television'. A number of the images claim fair use based on being low-resolution images but they are 640 x 480 or even bigger in some cases. It seems to me that those screen-shots are too big to be considered fair use. The fair use tag uses the term 'web resolution'.

What is an appropriate size for a fair use image? Are different sizes appropriate for different sources (eg a TV Screenshot vs. a book cover)?

Iain 06:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

640x480px is not low resolution. Generally, anything under 400x400px is considered low enough resolution. The size of a fair use image should generally not vary based on the type of image (there's not really any need to have a TV screenshot at a higher/lower resolution than a book cover). It's important to keep in mind that there's always an exception. For example, Image:Citizen Kane deep focus.jpg is being used to illustrate the camera technique of having everything in focus, which cannot be illustrated at a lower resolution. ShadowHalo 07:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Picture of a deceased person.

I'm hoping someone here can help me out here - I've got a picture of a deceased wrestler Jonathan Boyd that would help illustrate the article and improve the quality of it. it's a picture from some time in the 1980s so I have no clear indicator of who holds the copyright to this picture Image:JonathanBoydBW.jpg and now I’ve been told that it’ll be deleted within 7 days if an appropriate copyright tag hasn’t been provided.

My question is – what sort of tag would be appropriate or should I just go ahead and get it deleted if it violates all wikipedia rules? Thanks in advance MPJ-DK 06:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

normaly {{Fair use in}}.Geni 21:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Normally, yes. But we also normally need to know who the copyright holder is in order to justify a fair use claim. That we don't have this information here is of no practical moment in this particular case (IMO) but someone may see it as a problem at some point. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Permission to use a photo

. My photo was recently deleted. How do I go back and add information to the current picture instead of uploading a new one. Also, the photo being used was given to me personally Dr. Joe Feagin. How do I ensure that my photo will not be deleted again? The photo is Image: Feagin-1stphoto.jpgLouwanda 21:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

the photo was given to you but there is not evidence the copyright was (and it probably wasn't) so you can't release it under a free lisence so you can't use it on wikipedia.Geni 21:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Complex image-licensing question

Hi, I uploaded Image:ICEWM_Screenshot.png for use on Active window. The image itself is a screenshot of my desktop running the IceWM window manager (LGPL), with the applications rxvt-unicode (GPL) and Firefox (Mozilla Public License), with Firefox showing the Wikipedia homepage. The particular arrangements of the windows on the screen was put together and screenshot by me. Also visible are the taskbar buttons for The GIMP (GPL) but not its icon (rather, the generic X Window icon).

I have no idea what kind of licensing mess this creates. Can someone help? Thanks.

Hawk777 22:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

non free since it includes the wikipedia (and firefox) logo.Geni 00:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

File:Gerri_Santoro_with_sister_Leona.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This was originally uploaded with the tag {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} and a restriction against using the image to promote anti-abortion causes. After an IFD, this was switched to a fair use template by the closing admin. A companion image was uploaded with the same tag, but was not listed at WP:IFD, but I changed the tag in accord with the IFD close. Question: Can a free license prohibit fraudulent uses of an image? Gerri Santoro died from a self-administered abortion, and it would be pretty fraudulent (not to mention disrespecting her memory and her family's wishes) to use it in any kind of abortion POV pushing. Is this license free enough for Wikipedia? Nardman1 02:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No.Geni 12:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There is some debate about this outside wikipedia however. Some of the new creative commons licenses do disallow disparaging the copyright holder for example. These licenses are not seen by the wikipedia community as being free, and are not usable on wikipedia. Wikipedia uses the definition of free located at freedomdefined.org The first essential freedom is:

"The freedom to use and perform the work: The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. For kinds of works where it is relevant, this freedom should include all derived uses ("related rights") such as performing or interpreting the work. There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations."

- cohesion 19:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyright?

I need suggestions for adding a copyright to Image:ShelbyFooteSignature.PNG. I explained how I created the image when I uploaded it and I'm confused as to which copyright selection to make. Thanks! BeeDub65 05:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably {{db-copyvio}} since the image will stil be under copyright.Geni 12:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe most signatures are pd-ineligible. Signatures are protected by fraud law, not copyright. Nardman1 19:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Another indecipherable speedy-delete message, on Image:MOST_with_Jaymie_Matthews.jpg

I recently received yet another form letter about an image I spent days getting onto the wikipedia. First I got one of these for a perfectly valid image I took myself that was going to be speedied because the tags changed, and now I'm getting a non-conform on an image that will be impossible to replace. If someone can suggest how we can get a free version of the MOST satellite, WHICH IS IN ORBIT, I'm all ears! Every image is licensed by the CSA like this, and try as I might, they simply don't "get" licensing -- no one does. So now what? Maury 12:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The message on the page states that the image cannot be used for commercial purposes. Wikipedia allows commercial reuse of its content, so we cannot make use of an image with this restriction. ShadowHalo 18:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

A couple of suggestions for how to get a free image of it:

1. Try contacting the copyright holder to see if they will release the image under a free license.
2. Most satellites in orbit have spares or mock-ups which are still on Earth. You could try to get a photo of one of those.

Hope this helps. --Carnildo 23:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

For clarification, the copyright holder for this image will be the CSA if the person who took the picture was doing so as part of his/her job (and is a paid employee). If the person was not paid, he/she holds the copyright. ShadowHalo 23:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no backup for the satellite. The CSA holds the copyrights. The VAST majority of companies I have contacted do no know or understand copyright law, and have absolutely no interest in doing any work on figuring it out, as is the case here. We need to do something about this, something other than just quoting rules that might bad ones to begin with.

Academic now, since someone speedy deleted it anyway. What a pointless waste of my time. Maury 19:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.astro.ubc.ca/MOST/galleries.html includes several photos credited to the PI Jaymie Matthews, in addition to the CSA ones. Since he's a UBC professor, rather than CSA employee, you could ask him about releasing his own photos under a free license. --Davepape 14:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I need to delete images I uploaded

How do I delete images I uploaded? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neasyorc (talk • contribs) 16:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Add {{db-author}} to the images. ShadowHalo 18:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Common Law Copyright

Can a person copyright his TRADE/NAME TRADE?MARK e.g., TIMOTHY DANE COOPER(c)1974, ENS LEGIS,

and get paid if someone uses it without that persons consent? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.202.36.227 (talk) 05:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Yes (IANAL). --Iamunknown 12:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Generally, NO, you cannot copyright a name - see http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html (for the U.S.; most other countries are likely to be similar). --Davepape 14:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

grandlicencetokill_(2).jpg

MGM/UA granted permission to embed said image in Grand L. Bush article. A verifiable email was sent to permissions-en@wikipedia.org and I have posted this notice on my talk page. As I understand, a bot will come around and tag the image properly as this human has not a clue. Thank you. 37Celcius 07:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Permission to use an image in an article is not sufficient since Wikipedia allows anyone to reuse its content. If you believe that the image meets our policy on unfree material, you should add the appropriate licensing tag along with a fair use rationale. ShadowHalo 07:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Romanian Army Images

I uploaded the "Image:TR-85M1 company.jpg" "Image:Vanatori de Munte.jpg", "Image:Infantry fighting vehicles.jpg" images and I received some warnings from OrphanBot. I left a summary and I also tagged this images. What's the problem? Eurocopter tigre 14:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

These images are copyrighted and you didn't provide a rationale as to why they meet all of our criteria for using unfree media, especially why it would be impossible to find or create a free image. ShadowHalo 15:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I added the romanian law in the summary which says these images are in free use. Is it ok now? Eurocopter tigre 19:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The tag that you have used is for images that are non-free, where we are utilizing the exemptions at Wikipedia:Non-free content. It looks like Romania has their governmental symbols and seals in the public domain, but not everything. As such these are replaceable fair use. Please see the non-free content criteria also, be aware that not all governmental works are public domain, most are not. - cohesion 00:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

what is URL

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.187.87.243 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

See URL. howcheng {chat} 02:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Postcard

What copyright should be applied to an image (Slightly reduced sized) a postcard? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RossallJubileeGarden.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.82.208.146 (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Probably none. Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, which means all of our material is freely licensed. For a definition of freedom in this context see freedomdefined.org. We only use copyrighted material in very limited circumstances as defined by our non-free content criteria. This image could be taken by someone and uploaded to wikipedia, increasing the free content available. If you have any questions let us know. :) - cohesion 01:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Image posting

Yes, I have a question. It's been hard for me to post a picture of a West Virginia State Police cruiser on my article about the West Virginia State Police. Despite a written permission from the copyright holder (James Duff/National Police Car Archives), Wikipedia apparently still believe the photo is eligible for "speedy deletion." This is a copy of the e-mail sent to me by Mr. Duff: "Ramses, That's fine, be sure to send me a link when the article is complete -- James Duff Webmaster" This is a link to the photo in question: http://images4.fotki.com/v41/photos/4/49373/291084/npca1101a-vi.jpg Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ramsescoly (talk • contribs) 15:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

The problem is that you have not secured the kind of free license we need. Permission must be given for release under the GFDL or something compatible. See WP:COPYREQ for the kind of permission we need to have, how to go about getting it, and what to do afterward.

A solution that works equally well would be to take a picture of a cruiser yourself and upload it under {{GFDL-self}}. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In order for wikipedia to use images when the uploader is not the copyright holder in this situation we need explicit licensing of the image under some free content license. Wikipedia is given under a free license, meaning other people can use our work freely, even for commercial purposes. Before the image is allowed we have to make sure that is acceptable to the copyright holder. - cohesion 01:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

pictures from Nichi-ran jiten, a book from 1935

It seems I used GFDL presumed when that was not possible. So it seems I need to choose a different copyright tag, for Image:1109.jpg or it will be deleted.

Actually, the name 1109.jpg was wrong, so perhaps it should be deleted and replaced by the same picture with a more informative name (something like nichiran_jten_1109.jpg). But as for the copyright tag, I really don't know how to deal with that.

The picture (which I took myself) is a photo of a page of a book printed in 1935. Whether it would be permissible to publish simply a picture of one page of a book as a sample (irrespective of the copyright status of the book itself), and which copyright tag that should be - I don't know.

I did research the copyright status of the book itself however. The book was published by a Dutchman and the Japanese association Nan’yō Kyōkai (南洋協會) in 1935. The colophon (tagged as 著作権所有, which is Japanese for copyright) states firstly the Dutch compiler (P. A. van de Stadt) and than the publisher (a person by name, not Nan’yō Kyōkai), than the printer (also the name of an individual) and finally the printing shop (a prewar company in Japanese Taiwan).

As I understood it, there is the theoretical possibility that the compiler transferred his copyright to the publisher Nan’yō Kyōkai. In that case the book would be in the public domain, since both in the Netherlands and Japan that right would be public after 50 years. Take note that Nan’yō Kyōkai published a facsimile reprint of the book in 1989. I don't think that is relevant, butI am not a lawyer.

The other (more likely) option is that P. A. van de Stadt simply was the copyright holder of his own work. P. A. van de Stadt died in 1940. If I am right, then under the retroactively valid current law that would mean the book would be in the public domain in 2010 (70 after the compiler died). However, I tracked down two still living grandchildren of the compiler (H. A. N. Versluys and H. P. van de Stadt) and they gave me permission to publish the complete book online (which I did, www.jiten.nl). Versluys sent me an e-mail and H. P. van de Stadt gave me his permission on the telephone. Since I did not want to bother them anymore than I already had I did not ask for a formal document stating that I have permission to publish the book. Also, there may be other grandchildren that are still alive, but that I was unable to locate (the family members have gone there separate ways).

So which copyright tag should I use? I have no idea.

BTW, the title-page (with a portrait of P. A. van de Stadt) is in the article as well (Image:Titelpagina.jpg, should be something like nichiran_jiten_titelpagina.jpg) but that has not yet been tagged for deletion.

Nichi-Ran jiten

--Kornelis 23:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

We can use a page image under fair use guidelines since you are engaging in commentary on the text. I would think it more desirable to use the page image containing the entry you use as an example.

However, in making a fair use claim we still need to know who the current copyright holder is. I suggest contacting the publisher of the facsimile edition, since they must have that information. (Make sure you ask about the original text. They may attempt to claim copyright for themselves on the facsimile, but that's both invalid and not something we're interested in.)

Since we don't know which of the family members, if any, actually holds the copyright here, or if they all do jointly, we also don't know which grant of permission is valid even if you had it all in writing. If Versluys did, then his email would be sufficient as long as the permission was in terms acceptable to Wikipedia.

In the meantime, we're covered under fair use for both an image of the text and for the portrait since you devote some space to a biography of the author. Be sure to tag the images accordingly and provide rationale showing that Wikipedia's fair use criteria are met. -TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally Japan is life+50, not 70. But I don't think it matters in this case. :) - cohesion 01:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this necessary?

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

Vernon.dozier edited this photo I uploaded to blur out the faces within it. I've been searching for specific regulations on the subject but have come up with nothing concrete as to whether this is required or not. If so, I'm fine with that and could very well upload one without people instead, but looking at images from articles like protest make me think otherwise.

My question, then, is when, if at all, do I need to blur the faces of people in images? Do I need consent from each person in each image? - Boss1000 01:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

(Oops. I realize now that this is concerning copyright issues with images, but I can't seem to find the right place to ask this. :-S)

So far as I know, we do not need to blur out faces, regardless of whether or not they are minors. IANAL but I don't think they have the right to keep us from using the unblurred picture since personality rights aren't an issue with a picture like this. ShadowHalo 01:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I want to say the same thing, and looking at Vernon's history, he's only made 6 edits, so that leads me to think he might be mistaken. If someone knows this for certain, it would be a good idea to add the information to whatever article it fits under or perhaps a policy page. I know I'm curious... - Boss1000 01:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As a general rule, unless we have a policy dictated by legal requirements, we should not try to make judgments based on legalities ourselves. See WP:PEREN#Legal issues. If blurring faces in photos is necessary, we'll hear about it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. That's interesting. Normally when one uploads a new version of an image there's a history and you can revert if called for. Your photo was on the Commons, however, and Vern uploaded his defaced version to en and essentially "obscured" yours. You can get around this by renaming the Commons version and relinking to it under the new name. Or you can just wait a week hoping Vern doesn't catch on, and let it be deleted since it lacks a copyright tag. Alternatively you can move the en version to a new name and mark the redirect page it leaves behind {{prod}} to get it out of the way faster. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll probably first take another and better picture, removing the unnecessary floor and ceiling taking up half the image, and replace the old one I uploaded. To get that to show, I'll probably take the latter course you suggested. Thanks a lot for both of your help! - Boss1000 02:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Deshima 1852.jpg

I do appreciate that I should have done something differently, but I don't understand what more or what else I should have explained. This is an illustration from the 1852 London Illustrated News. The original image has been cut from the original newspaper and mounted as part of the New York Public Library Picture Collection; and I have the impression that I have clearly indicated the source with appropriate language. My plan to post other images from the NYPL Picture Collection makes it important for me to understand what I seem to have done WRONG so that I can do better in the future. Please advise me how to appropriately label images from this unique source in future postings. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ooperhoofd (talk • contribs) 05:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

All images on Wikipedia need a licensing tag so that automated bots can recognize its copyright status. If this image was published in 1852, then add {{PD-art-US}} to the page. ShadowHalo 05:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

---I'm pleased, of course, that ShadowHalo has given me good advice, but I just don't know how to make use of it. I clicked on the image, which is located within the article I created about "Isaac Titsingh" ... but this effort was unavailing. I don't know where or how to add {{PD-art-US}}. More critically, I don't quite appreciate where or how I could have/should have appended this datum a priori. My goal here is two-fold: (1) I do want to resolve the issues that an automated program has raised for this specific image; and (2) I want to learn how better to comply with Wikipedia protocols in the future. I can't turn to someone in my immediate circle of friends for advice because, alas, I don't know anyone who understands Wikipedia better than me. In fact, I'm the boldest amongst my small circle of acquaintances. If I may, I hope you will allow me to ask, please, for a more specific response which will allow me to modify the label for this specific image and also, hopefully, to better understand how to label other uploaded images in the future.

Go to the image description page, click "edit this page" at the top, and type in {{PD-art-US}} at the end. ShadowHalo 06:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Caron1663.jpg

The OrphanBot "message" alerted me to the fact that I somehow did not appropriately label this image. I'm at a loss to guess what I failed to do; but more importantly, I'm uncertain about what I should be learning from this message. This image comes from a book published in 1663. The New York Public Library must have determined that at least one volume of this work was irretrievably damaged, because this specific 1663 image comes from the New York Public Library Picture Collection. Although an intact version of the book is doubtless held in Rare Books Collection, this image was mounted on poster-board, and I simply copied it using the copy machines available at the Mid-Manhattan Branch Library. As far as I can tell, my identification clearly indicated that NYPL was the source of this image; but clearly, I need to learn something here. Please explain how better to identify the images I select for online posting from the NYPL Picture Collection. I'm more than happy to comply with whatever requirements Wikipedia needs to require, but I'm at a loss to figure out what I've done wrong ... nor am I able to guess about what I should do better in the future. Please give me appropriate guidance. Thank you. 05:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Ooperhoofd