Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chuckiesdad (talk | contribs) at 03:38, 21 September 2008 (→‎Use of images from US Patent Office?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Skip to the bottom
    Media copyright questions
    Shortcuts

    Welcome to the Media Copyright Questions page, a place for help with image copyrights, tagging, non-free content, and related questions. For all other questions please see Wikipedia:Questions.

    How to add a copyright tag to an existing image
    1. On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page.
    2. From the page Wikipedia:File copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag:
      • For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators".
      • For a work downloaded from the internet, please understand that the vast majority of images from the internet are not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. Exceptions include images from flickr that have an acceptable license, images that are in the public domain because of their age or because they were created by the United States federal government, or images used under a claim of fair use. If you do not know what you are doing, please post a link to the image here and ask BEFORE uploading it.
      • For an image created by someone else who has licensed their image under an acceptable Creative Commons or other free license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information.
    3. Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{Cc-by-4.0}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page.
    4. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}})
    5. Hit Publish changes.
    6. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below.
    How to ask a question
    1. To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below.
    2. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end.
    3. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page.
    4. Don't include your email address, for your own privacy. We will respond here and cannot respond by email.
    Note for those replying to posted questions

    If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template {{mcq-wrong}} and, if possible, leave a note on the poster's talk page. For copyright issues relevant to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally, questions may be directed to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.

    Click here to start a new discussion

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


    Now-defunct band picture question

    Hi folks, I have a question about what photos are allowable for a band that's been defunct (or, er, disbanded) for awhile. I'm not talking about some band with a decent chance of reforming, I'm talking about a band with a snowball's chance in you know where of even getting together for one last gig. I know about not being able to use photos that have already been published on a website, but what if a former band member were to pass along a studio photo that was taken for promotional purposes but never used and allowed its use on the band's Wikipedia article? Is that kosher? If so, could someone help out in terms of defining what to put on the picture page so no nefarious botbeings with too much time on their hands will get their grubby paws on the image and shove it off? I would consider this instance to be similar to that of someone who's died in that in both cases it would be impossible to recreate an image of both, but hopefully someone who can actually provide some assistance here can help out with this issue. 68.92.156.115 (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Since it is a studio photo, it is probably not under a free license. That means that to be used on Wikipedia it has to comply with WP:NFCC—in particular by WP:NFCC#4 “Non-free content must have been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia.” Does the band already have an article? If not, does it satisfy our notability guideline? If the band is not notable, it would be a waste of effort to upload a non-free photo, because there couldn’t be an article to use it on. —teb728 t c 07:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Trust me, the band satisfies the notability guideline. There's already an article about the band and it's been peer reviewed -- if the band hadn't been considered "notable" enough to garner its own Wikipedia entry, it would have come out in that process, I am sure of it. And besides, why did you automatically assume that the band might not be notable just because it hasn't existed in awhile? The band released quite a few studio recordings while it was around.
    By "non-free content must have been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia" do you mean that something that was displayed in, as a for instance, a magazine would be passable? Because there was another photo from the same photo shoot that appeared in Smash Hits magazine. Would that one be acceptable? I thought it was only the stuff that hadn't been used before that could be clearable by Wikipedia. I mean, it's not like anyone could recreate the exact band lineup from this photo shoot and recreate a "free license" photo of the band from this era. We're talking a good 25 years from that point to the present. So what, these bands are basically screwed out of photo representation on Wikipedia? 68.92.156.115 (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I'd treat a band in this situation similarly to the treatment of photos of individual dead or extremely reclusive people. Choose a representative published photo and explain why it can't be replaced by a free image (the band is "dead"). But others' milage may vary. Crypticfirefly (talk) 04:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mickey Mouse

    Another user recently deleted a photo I made and uploaded of my Pal Mickey toy, because he claimed that the photograph was a copyright violation. I'm still very confused by copyright law as it applies to Wikipedia. In an attempt to help me understand: are any of the images currently used in the Mickey Mouse article legally acceptable to use on Wikipedia? I don't think they would be, because they depict a copyrighted design, right? Or are there circumstances which would allow them? - Brian Kendig (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    They can only be used under fair use: they must provide encyclopedic content and they must not be reasonably replaceable by a free image.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 00:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the process by which I can have an image deletion re-evaluated? The image was already deleted, but I don't believe it should have been. - Brian Kendig (talk)
    Aren't you an admin? I thought you should know this stuff.. Anyway, I can't have a look at the photo now as it's already deleted. However, you might be able to upload it again with a fair use licence, if it passes the fair use criteria. Guy0307 (talk) 12:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I am an admin. But image copyright issues aren't my forté, and I'm frustrated that I can never seem to upload a picture of anything - not even this photo I took of a toy I own - without it being taken down as a copyright violation. I haven't had the time to figure out the correct channels and procedures to follow for this. - Brian Kendig (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that you own the toy doesn't give you copyright over it. Mickey Mouse is, I believe (I'm no copyright expert, either), covered by copyright; any photograph you take is covered by that copyright. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree with you, but I really want to understand this. I don't see how my photo of a Mickey toy could be a copyright violation which requires deletion while the photos of toys and the screenshots and the copies of artwork in Mickey Mouse are not. I'm at a complete loss to comprehend. - Brian Kendig (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Maps by User:PelionClimber

    Hi, There are a number of map images which have been uploaded by User:PelionClimber, which have questionable licenses.

    I would like a some second opinions about whether these are ok.

    The images are screen captures from mapping software by Next Destination Pty Ltd and map data by PSMA Australia. PelionClimber has stated that he has obtained permission, however I suspect the images require two things:

    • for PSMA/Next Destination to specify what license they are using when giving permission
    • for a OTRS ticket to be opened to archive the permission.

    I have discussed this with PelionClimber at User_talk:PelionClimber#Maps, but it is unresolved.

    The images involved are :

    Thanks, --Ozhiker (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just tag them {{subst:npd}}. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Attribution for images which are links to anywhere other than the image description page

    I've seen a number of images which are links to pages other than their description page, such as {{Featured article}}'s usage of Image:LinkFA-star.png (). As attribution of images is, to the best of my understanding, done using the description page, it would seem to me that use of images as links to other pages violates the attribution clause of licenses such as GFDL, CC-BY-SA and similar ones - licenses which cover most of Wikipedia's and Wimedia Commons' free image content. Is this really a problem? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That's an interesting point and imo you're correct: in order to comply with attribution requirements the link must go to the image page, which shows the author's name. The only way around this, as far as I can see, is for the creators of such images to release them to the Public Domain. What does everyone else think? -- Hux (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is strictly true. Unless you provide a tooltip or some other link, then it would appear that we are breaking copyright there. Stifle (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Does the fact that the target page has the same image linking to the description page matter? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Playing devil's advocate, but exactly what "attribution requirement" requires a link? The image description page includes attribution - that should be adequate. Do we need to have every word in an article link directly to the author who added that word? Gimmetrow 12:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I suspect Gimmetrow is correct, but I'm curious to know the "actual" license. Why is the local PNG using {{LGPL}} (a software variant) when the the Commons version is tagged as {{GFDL}}? Эlcobbola talk 15:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this question the question of whether a given image MUST link to the httpd'd URL of the author demonstrating he owns the image by hosting it "online"? Or just whether they must be credited in the Image: space? Only the latter is required--no Main space/article attribution typically, or direct URL. rootology (C)(T) 13:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think either you misunderstood the question, or I misunderstood your answer. The credit for an image is on the Image: page, and that's fine because when a thumb is included in an article, clicking on the thumb leads to the Image: page with the credit. However, in a small number of cases (such as at the top of any featured article), clicking on the image doesn't lead to the image description page, so there's no way to know who created the image. I do think this is a problem. I know the French Wikisource requires that only PD and Wikimedia-owned images be used in cases like this (see s:fr:Modèle:Lien sur image); other wikis probably do the same, and I think the English Wikipedia should too. Pruneautalk 14:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't say that {{Wikipedia ads}} is a problem. Here you have a GFDL image where a click gives you a WikiProject page; directly under the image, there is a link "File info" which brings up the Image: page for the image. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone please help me understand this? Where is the line drawn? Why clicking on the Wikipedia globe logo doesn't lead me to an image description page? Likewise, the many images used in the "sister projects" section of Main Page. Why is our site the only one required to provide direct links to attribution while others only provide a boilerplate license note somewhere in the footer? Thanks, Миша13 16:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Day Joyce Sheet photo

    I was asked to provide further information about the source of the photo and have now obtained as much as is available:

    "The image was derived from a photograph purchased from the Imperial War Museum, London, which holds the full copyright. It was taken some years ago by a member of staff in the course of their work for the IWM, but there is no record of exactly who it was. The IWM has given me permission to use it in this article, free of charge."

    Who should I submit this to?

    Also I would like the image to be restored to the size it was originally, when I first submitted it. The present reduced size makes it difficult to distinguish any of the details that the article describes and discusses.

    91.125.205.193 (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I presume you are talking about this image. If that is so, just edit the page I just linked to to include that information. Unfortunately, I think the image is probably still at too high a resolution for a fair use image, so it really can't be expanded any more. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am confused about the status of this photo. File:Day Joyce Sheet.jpg. If I click on the "enlarge" icon that appears below it I get to a larger image and the non-free use rationale that I have submitted. It would appear that the rationale has been accepted, since the image still appears in the article. I accept that this larger image cannot be used in the article. If I add a non-free fair use tag will that be sufficient to satisfy Wikipedia requirements? 91.125.31.163 (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    British WWI photo

    Hi, I would like to use the top photo at http://www.liverpoolscottish.org.uk/frontearly1915aim4.htm to illustrate an article on Colonel Davidson (At far right firing a rifle grenade) but am unsure of its copyright status. The photo was probably taken by a British Army captain who probably died after 1938 (for the 70 year limit) and appears to have been widely distributed through the battalion in 1915. Any help on determining its status is appreciated. If not I will add it as fair use. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 12:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Never mind, will upload as fair use anyway - Dumelow (talk) 12:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not certain. Need help

    I am not entirely certain I understand Wikipedia, or Wikipedia Commons.

    Deciding that the image I wished to post within an article was "not-free use"—but was within the public domain—I uploaded the image to the Commons. There, after reading the result, and reading further into the instructions, I am still baffled. As I understand: At the moment, someone somewhere has sent an email requesting premission from the author of the work. Meanwhile, I believe that I too could attempt to secure permission by sending the email myself. However, since everyone under-the-sun considers unsolicited email as spam, I doubt that emailing for permission is going to achieve anything. As I read further into the instructions, it dawned on me that I could add to my edit box (of the image) the expression {{PD-author |insert author's name|then some sort of explantion}}. I am here seeking assistance. Could someone access ''now deleted'', see what I have done, and then explain everything without linking me forever through the cyberspace of Wikipedia puzzles? Thanks. Hag2 (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    More...I have decided now that the image is not acceptable for the article. I do not like it. Hag2 (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To help you for next time, we need to be sure that images are free before we use them, and either an email with permission or a notice on the source website suffices for this.
    Note that your understanding of "in the public domain" appears to be incorrect. An image is in the public domain if anyone is free to use, modify, or sell it in any way without copyright restriction. If an image is non-free it is implicitly not in the public domain — just because an image is publicly available does not mean it is public domain. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you upload an image if it's made with a proprietary program?

    Specifically, a screenshot of a graph made using Microsoft Excel. Could it be used? zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, as long as it doesn't contain any non-free clipart or other non-free components. —teb728 t c 09:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ask

    can i use this image for rape for female by female

    No, you can't edit at all because you have been indefinitely blocked as a vandalism only account. —teb728 t c 09:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bailey bridges

    dear sir, i wish to know about the longest bailey bridges constructed in the category of continuous span bailey bridges. Also I would like to inform that a 360 feet long continuous span bailey bridge was constructed by the Indian Army in Pottuvil district of Srilanka —Preceding unsigned comment added by Girishkumar1974 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This page is for questions about media I would suggest you ask your question either at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science or read the article Bailey bridge which details some of the longest bridges constructed (which are three or four times longer than the Indian Army bridge). MilborneOne (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Difference between non-free and unfree

    What is the difference between Non-free as in Wikipedia:Non-free content and unfree as in Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. -- Suntag ☼ 16:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Insofar as they are different, non-free content is tagged with a non-free tag acknowledging that is subject to WP:NFC, and WP:PUI is for content (incorrectly?) tagged with a PD or free-license tag. —teb728 t c 19:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 22:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Free use may be fair use

    The images listed here largely are tagged as free use, but seem to be fair use. I put a note on the editor's talk page, but I would appreciate someone else reviewing the uploads. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 22:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Solved. All imaged have been deleted. Guy0307 (talk) 08:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Page explaining acceptable CC licenses?

    Some time ago someone pointed out to me a page here in the backstage areas of Wikipedia which explains (with symbols) which Creative Commons licenses are acceptable (why I can't find this linked off WP:IUP I don't know). Hoping someone here will know what I'm talking about and drop the link in here. Cheers. WWB (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    All Creative Commons BY (attribution) and BY-SA (attribution-sharealike) licenses are acceptable. Anything with NC (non-commercial only) or ND (no derivative works) is unacceptable. An alternative method is to look up the license template for the license you're wondering about, and it'll tell you if it's acceptable or not. --Carnildo (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification. WWB (talk) 01:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This page lists all the acceptable CC licences and also links to a list of "Non-free Creative Commons licenses". ww2censor (talk) 01:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone needs to explain this to me...

    I got two picture warnings about improper usage of non free content or something... My question is what should I add to the licences I already supplied for the media that I uploaded?

    Your fix for the self made logo is OK. The other logo is too simple to have a copyright; I fixed the tags on it. —teb728 t c 04:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hyundai Concept Genesis sketch

    I've been working a bit on the Hyundai Genesis article, and think there is a possibility this concept sketch could be included under fair use, especially as it is a promotional image used widely by the automotive press earlier in the year. Is there a fair use case (or another case) for using this image now? If not, what would I need to satisfy licensing issues? Per my disclosure on the talk page, I do have some access to Hyundai. So if there is an acceptable way to declare permission, let me know that, too. NMS Bill (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    We can only use it if the image itself is notable in some way -- for example, the image included some aspect that turned out to be impossible to build, or the sketch was copied from another company's concept sketch; something where the image itself became notable, not just the car that is depicted in the image (if that distinction is clear to you). However, if you can convince Hyundai to release their sketch under a free license, then we could use it without limitation. If they're uncomfortable with releasing a high-resolution image, maybe you can convince them to allow a small image instead. See WP:COPYREQ for help in this. howcheng {chat} 16:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yingz appears to be uploading images as free yet crediting them to a company

    Yingz appears to have been uploading a bunch of images (and scattering advertising text in articles as a bonus). He's marked them as free, but in the articles he places them in, for example Bowl_feeder he then adds an attribution which seems to indicate they are commercial images. There is no response to my comments on his talk page; but it does smell like he's using commercial images and claiming them as his own. Can anyone advise/deal? --Blowdart | talk 13:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Send the images to WP:PUI. TinEye shows that www.rna-uk.com has cropped versions of some of the images, such as Image:RNA Bowl Feeder pharmaceutical.jpg [1]; and Image:RNA Bowl Feeder Framework.JPG comes from page 3 of [2]. --dave pape (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, thank you for the pointer. --Blowdart | talk 16:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Photographs by Yousuf Karsh

    Greetings,

    I work with the estate of Yousuf Karsh. The goal of the estate since Mr Karsh's passing is to ensure the public is able to see his body of work. Images are copyright protected worldwide with small number of exceptions in Canada. I'd like to selectively upload some © Karsh's images to respective person's pages, eg Hellen Keller [3]

    What is preferred as far as a letter from the estate endorsing me as a representative of their copyright?

    Many thanks

    Jgrahame (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello Jgrahame - unfortunately, our policies require that we use non-free images only when no free alternative is available or could be created. In the case of Hellen Keller, for example, there are plenty of free images already in the article, so our policies would not allow for the inclusion of Mr. Karsh's portrait, even if it was better than anything we currently had. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Understood. If there are subjects with no illustration and I have an appropriate image would it then be acceptable? I'm not planning to spend my time finding them but would love to fill in gaps if I do. More often than not Wikipedia has the most useful entry on Karsh's subjects than other resources. Thanks for your help, big up for your username. 

    Jgrahame (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have read more on the copyright info pages and understand better. Jgrahame (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In case the reply above didn't fully answer your question, please note that a non-free image that is replaceable, e.g. a photograph of a living person, is unlikely to be usable on Wikipedia. Thanks for your interest. Stifle (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Might the estate be willing to release images under a free license? Other responders seemed to assume not, but you didn’t say that. If so, see WP:COPYREQ. If not, any permission from the estate would be irrelevant, for Wikipedia uses non-free images only under fair use. —teb728 t c 19:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Helleo I want to upload my own picture

    Hi


    Can some one tell me that can i upload my own picture in my own user page and if yes how can i do that. please reply me as soon as possible...


    Regards,

    Jimmy Shaw --Jam 18:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

    See Help:Images. Please note that you need to have at least ten edits and that your account must be at least four days old. howcheng {chat} 02:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Need some help

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

    I'm not sure what license applies to this image. The source is the Queensland, AU govt Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries.

    I would also like to know what I should do in the future for images like this. Thanks. --Ryan858 (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm afraid that the copyright on that image is likely held by the Queensland government (I couldn't say for sure unless you provided a link to exactly where you got the picture), and therefore wouldn't be usable on Wikipedia. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the page I got it off of: http://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/horticulture/4759.html --Ryan858 (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    According to their copyright page, no part of the work may in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or any other means be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or be broadcast or transmitted without the prior written permission of DPI&F - thus this image is non-free, and since it's definitely replaceable, should be deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Container ships

    What do container ships have below their decks where the containers are stored?```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.220.45 (talk) 01:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please try asking at WP:REFDESK. howcheng {chat} 02:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    optic engines

    hi! friends im new to the wikipedia world... i think u people can solve my doubts.... my question is... 1.if the parts of engines used will be made of optical glasses which is reliable wat sorts of energy it can produce???????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANANDHANMARIMUTHU (talk • contribs) 06:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

    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) 14:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Photographs of busts, statues, portraits, and other artwork displayed in public

    If a bust or other work in on display in a public venue is there a general rule for what licensing/rights apply? Specifically I was wondering if I took a picture of the bust of Harvey Milk on display in San Francisco's city hall SF Chronicle story about it would be eligible for just a standard public domain tag, or would it have to fall under non-free justification? I know I've seen commons images of sculptures Commons:Category:Isamu Noguchi (died in '88), while portraits on display in Australian parliament were deleted. Is there a policy page I should be looking at here? -Optigan13 (talk) 08:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    See commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama. Problem is, rules differ from country to country. IIRC, the US do not have "freedom of panorama", so a (modern) sculpture on display in the US could not be photographed freely. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, looks like I'm out of luck as far as I can tell. I'll keep searching for images I guess. -Optigan13 (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Derivative work confusion

    According to Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#Derivative_works, "You may not distribute a derivative work without the original author's permission unless you're using one of the rights they weren't granted (like fair use or fair dealing)." I interpret this to mean if the usage of an unauthorized derivative work falls into fair-use, then it is acceptable. In terms of wikipedia, I take this to mean a low-res image that cannot be replaced by an equivalent freely usable image, being used to better describe the topic at hand, that does not deprive intellectual property holders of profit (my own shoddy paraphrase).

    However, I cannot find any Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free for which this is appropriate. This causes me to doubt my reasoning. I suppose my question specifically relates to unauthorized derivative works where the derivative author is willing to grant usage under whatever license is appropriate (if it's even possible to give licensing to an unauthorized derivative work...) Could someone please set me straight? (Man, I prefer dealing with Concensus-based policies over this legal muck!) -Verdatum (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    While legally, you may be correct that such images fall into fair use, on Wikipedia there is a more stringent requirement that we aim for free content (free as in thought). Derivative works are non-free content even if the unauthorized author releases them with free use-type licenses, and even if used in a manner that aligns with fair use consideration. Such works should only be used in articles where there is critical commentary (sourced discussion) about the nature of the derivative work, and not as a replacement for a non-derivative work that is non-free (a non-free non-derivative work is less a problem from the "free" standpont than a non-free derivative work). --MASEM 17:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Masem, that sounds like a resonable guideline to me. Perhaps such a clarification should be added to Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#Derivative_works or...somewhere? I came to that link when an image I happened to be watching was appropriately tagged with Template:derivative. -Verdatum (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Talking parrot video on flickr

    There is a talking parrot video of flickr at here. It can be downloaded and modified to a local computer. Can you confirm that its copyright is appropriate for the original and an edited version to be uploaded to commons and linked to en wiki. Snowman (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That is perfectly fine. Just tag it {{cc-by-2.0}} and {{Flickrreview}} (this one apparently exists on commons only and not here... it lets a bot review the copyright status). By the way, have you found an easy way to convert .flv to .ogg (the only video format accepted on commons)? I was trying to do this and was having a hell of a time. Let me know on my talk page! Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi managed to download the file using Downloadhelper [[4]], it took a while but used the software as a Firefox add-on to XP, initially it wouldn't see the video but after I tried one on a different site it then saw the parrot one and let me download it. I then had to download the conversion tool from the same site and created an MPG after rotating part of the clip in Adobe Premiere Elements. From this I had to reboot into Ubuntu 8.04 and convert the file into ogg format using KinoDV (FFmpeg2theora must be installed too) Hope this helps.....Aviceda talk 07:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for uploading it to Image:Amazon edited.ogg. Snowman (talk) 09:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Posting an image for the first time

    Hello, I'm updating a page for an actress and the photo I have was given to me by her. She dose not know who took it, but it was taken at an event party for a play she was in. Can I use this image, and if so, how do I mark it? Thanks.

    Biggunn01 (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No. Images on Wikipedia must quote their source and copyright license. The image you describe is copyrighted and would need to be released under a free license to be used on Wikipedia. Non-free images of living people can very rarely be used because they are assumed to be replaceable by a free image. Stifle (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Image:Mindfield sampler.jpg Not Fair Use?

    The Betacommandbot removed this image: Image:Mindfield sampler.jpg, saying that it doesn't qualify under fair use, however this one: Image:Load_Metallicaalbum.jpg is an album cover just like it and is accepted as fair use. Is this some strange double-standard or did I do something wrong when posting?

    MR.R (talk) 14:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    According to the deletion log Image:Mindfield sampler.jpg was deleted because it did not have a non-free use rationale as described at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. Image:Load_Metallicaalbum.jpg does contain a rationale. —teb728 t c 04:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    First image uploaded.

    Okay, I uploaded my first image of the book cover on The Post-American world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ZakariaFareed-PostAmericanWorld.jpg I got the picture when I did a google search on the book, off a forum. The picture of the book cover is all over google when you type in the books name. So I should be able to use it without any problem. A bot left a message on my talk page, and I don't really know what it wants me to do. Help please Deavenger (talk) 02:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What the bot is telling you is that you need to add a non-free use rationale to Image:ZakariaFareed-PostAmericanWorld.jpg as described at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. Perhaps the easiest way to do that is to use the {{book cover fur}} template. —teb728 t c 03:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding this comment: "The picture of the book cover is all over google when you type in the books name. So I should be able to use it without any problem." FYI, the fact that you can find it all over Google means nothing with regard to whether or not you can use it on Wikipedia. (Similarly, just because I can find pirated DVDs for sale on any number of street corners, that doesn't mean I can legitimately copy my DVDs and start selling them on street corners.) Book covers are copyrighted the moment their design is created or published, which means that Wikipedia's non-free content criteria apply. -- Hux (talk) 04:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it possible to upload a fair use seal? (details below)

    I'm planning to upload a vectorized version of this image but the problem is that I couldn't apply this template on it. Could I be involved in potential troubles/problems once I uploaded it's vectorized version? Thanks in advance. -iaNLOPEZ1115 11:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Generaly best not to vectorise fair use images. If you are looking for something to vectorise there are various lists of images that could usefuly be vectorised such as Category:Images that should use vector graphics.Geni 12:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Best to try Category:Images that should be in SVG format rather than that redlinked one. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Person photo released under GNU now has "special" restrictions?

    Image:Magadan, 09.06 019.jpg the fair use bot has posted on the talkpage that the History of the Eastern Orthodox Church that the image can not be used. Is this consistent with GNU fairuse? LoveMonkey (talk) 00:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The bot's message doesn't say that the image cannot be used. It says that it needs a non-free use rationale added to the image page for the article in which it appears. See this page for information on how to add such a rationale. -- Hux (talk) 04:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    National anthems of micronations

    Can I upload the audio files of national anthems of micronations? If so, what template would I use? Thanks - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Free image?

    Hi, I'm in the process of making an info box for a wikipedia article about the book "Woman Hollering Creek" and I am wondering if this image is ok for me to use.

    It is the book cover image for "Woman Hollering Creek" and it is on the right hand side of the webpage. (I tried enlarging the image so it was by itself, but the URL for that page didn't work...

    [[:Image:http://www.sawtoothbooks.com/details.php?record=19896&URLPAIR=%2F%2Fwww.sawtoothbooks.com%2Finquiry.php%3FURLPAIR%3D%25252F%25252Fwww.sawtoothbooks.com%25252Fdetails.php%25253Frecord%25253D19896%26record%3D19896]]

    --Jacqui Nicole (talk) 01:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Use of images from US Patent Office?

    I'd like to upload and use some images from patents to illlustrate an article. I've found them in the US Patent and Trademark Office database, http://patft.uspto.gov/, but I can't find a clear statement in Wikipedia or at the Patent Office site about appropriate use of images from this source. I would appreciate some direction on this. Regards, Chuckiesdad (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions&oldid=239926276"