Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Teb728 (talk | contribs) at 23:58, 18 November 2007 (→‎Official portrait images: explanation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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)


    High School Musical 2 (Hindi Version)

    I uploaded the image Image:Hm2hindi.jpg and got an error message since I didn't add a copyright tag. I'm not exactly sure how to add one of those. I got the image off of this page (http://www.musicindiaonline.com/music/hindi_bollywood/s/movie_name.9470/). If anyone could help, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks ImtiazAA 16:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment in general

    I am concerned that Wikipedia's polcies are more concerned with the policing and removal of images than with the possible benefit that a supposedly 'free' encyclopedia would gain by having less exclusionary policies regarding images in place. There are countless articles where we have a well-worded and fairly complete compendium of knowledge on the particular person, item or concept, yet due to complex copyright issues, one cannot even see a simple image of said topic. Perhaps instead of 'Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia', the title should be 'Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia with Unduly Restrictive Image Copyright Policies'. C'mon people, let's loosen up a little and allow images to be used here more freely. Maybe it will infringe on some copyright issues, but the greater good should be what's most important. What harm really is there in a picture that someone owns showing up in an online encyclopedia? That the copyright owner doesn't receive a royalty? Really? I mean, it's an encyclopedia, who's being injured? Where is the royalty? Who is illegally benefitting instead? Feel free to debate this point with me here or on my talk page, as I feel strongly about this. ROB 05:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC) (My Talk Page)[reply]

    I agree with your sentiments, but I assume that the good folk who run Wikipedia are worried about possible lawsuits, which can be made for reasons that seem to some observers to be trivial. It would be a shame if Wikipedia, for all its faults, failed because someone sued it. Patche99z 17:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ann & Eddie jpg

    The photo was taken by me {{GFDL-self}}tag, and is fine to use on the Ann Forster page if there is one. Forster is a known publicist and writer within the PR & Media industry having spearheaded campaigns including the motion pictures Gandhi and The War Room as well as advocacy campaigns for the UN and numerous NGO's and corporations.

    Nobel Prize (R) Medal images

    Image:Nobel medal dsc06171.jpg

    [and]

    Image:DSCN0732.JPG

    [and]

    Image:Nobel Prize.png

    [updated; addition. --NYScholar 00:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)][reply]

    An administrator has suggested (in User talk:Shell Kinney#Images based on photographs of Nobel Prize (R) Medals) that I post this query here. The query questions the presentation of these images on their image pages and specifically the featuring of a "public domain" in the U.S. template tag being listed for ""Nobel medal dsc-6171.jpg" image and the "GFDL" license on the "DSCN0732.JPG" image. These templates/tags appear to be inconsistent with the uploaders' claims of "fair use" in "Nobel medal dsc06171.jpg" and with the notices of "proprietary rights" posted by the "author" of the designs of the medals, the Nobel Foundation. There still appears to be a need for detailed "fair-use rationales" for each of the separate uses of each one of these images (or any other images of these medals posted in Wikipedia), since they are "Derivative works (photographs) based on images for which the Nobel Foundation still claims to have "proprietary rights". The "public domain" and/or "GFDL" license template tags appear to conflict with registered trademark and copyright notices posted by the author of the image design, the Nobel Foundation. The Nobel Foundation's notices appear to pertain to images of all of its Nobel Prize (R) Medals. The copyright status of the images appears to be more complex than the "GFDL" license on the second image indicates or that the "public domain" in the U.S. tags indicate. Please see the discussions pertaining to these image pages, sources pertaining to the images listed in User talk:NYScholar#Information pertaining to registered trademarks and copyright pertaining to designs and images of the Nobel Prize Medals (and in Archive 16 linked there), in User talk:Shell Kinney#Images based on photographs of Nobel Prize (R) Medals (and prev. sec.), on the linked "non-free use" and "fair use" administrative pages, and the (locked) Wikipedia Foundation correspondence no. cited in the fair-use rationale for "Nobel medal dsc-6171.jpg" (which I am not able to verify myself). Thank you. --NYScholar 22:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The image pages contain links to related discussion as well: e.g., in the first one listed: "Possibly unfree images 2007 October 21. --NYScholar 23:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of the history is here. -- But|seriously|folks  23:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that, at this point, NYS is simply forum-shopping to get the image removed. He has not addressed the fact that the registration and copyright of the medal ultimately dooms his argument since it was known the medal was first struck before 1923. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 21:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hardly: I was directed to post here by another administrator: User:Shell Kinney in that administrator's talk page.
    Moreover, I most certainly have addressed this non-fact. As another user points out, "public domain in the U.S." does not pertain to the images of the Nobel Prize (R) medals. The medal is not registered and copyright in the U.S. prior to 1923. The medal is minted in Sweden still, its image is registered as a trademark still by a Swedish institution (the Nobel Foundation, its "author" of record), and its images are still copyright-protected by the Nobel Foundation. It really appears to me the JC does not know what s/he is talking about and has simply been persuaded by faulty information and faulty logic. Do the research before making such claims. The "public domain" matter is not even currently in the image page of the image that you (JC) protected and have kept protected in Nobel Prize despite claims that the protection does not take a position on the current version.
    The whole image page needs re-construction and your protecting it is not helping matters. See the other image that I've linked to for what an image page should look like. This image protection is ridiculous and page protection is ridiculous. There is no way to improve this article due to it. The claim (by an administrator no less) that I am "shopping around" violates WP:AGF. It is also extremely rude.
    As a new administrator, you really do need to check some of these policies and stop attacking me personally for my attempts to discuss these matters in good faith. Administrators are supposed to maintain neutrality and to do the kind of research into policies and sources that reveal that they have thought about the matter carefully; they should not jump to false conclusions swayed by uploaders of images who have little concern for whether or not the use of the images actually pertain to the content of the articles. The image that you keep supporting (the edited photograph of the 1933 Nobel Peace Prize (R) medal given to Norman Angell illustrates one side of a Nobel Peace Prize (R) Medal; it does not even illustrate any of the other medals given to those who win Nobel Prizes (and it is not an "image" of a "Nobel Prize"; it's an image from a photograph of one side of a Nobel Peace Prize (R) Medal presented (minted) in 1933. If deemed usable in Wikipedia, it really needs to be placed as an illustration of a pertinent section of a pertinent article (not Nobel Prize's infobox!). The other contested image (the front side of the Nobel Prize (R) Medal for Physics) is far more relevant (it is the image based on the photograph of the front side of one of the five Nobel Prize (R) Medals in various fields [chem., phys., lit., and physiology/med.] to any such section on the medals that might be added to Nobel Prize (and it shouldn't be in an infobox either). If there were a section on the medals in this article on the Nobel Prize, it might be suitable to illustrate it. This one (the Peace Prize medal) is irrelevant to this infobox and all that blackness is, in my view, a distracting blight in the infobox. --NYScholar 06:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You were not "directed" to post here by an admin. To be fair to the admin in question, I am reposting the relevant passage from said admin's user talk page:
    "I'm not even reading that. Making your claims over and over using lengthier paragraphs each time you tell me doesn't change the underling problem. Your interpretation of copyright law contradicts current usage on Wikipedia. Since I am not an expert, I have suggested you bring this up with the legal counsel for Wikipedia, or the community at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions where someone may feel they have the time to answer your eternal arguments."
    -- But|seriously|folks  06:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I ignored the nasty tone in places and simply responded to: <<"Since I am not an expert, I have suggested you bring this up with the legal counsel for Wikipedia, or the community at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions where someone may feel they have the time to answer your eternal arguments. Shell babelfish 22:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC) I've done that. [I threaded this comment and yours and separated the discussion from what follows, which is not related, by adding a heading for it. Hope that's okay. --NYScholar 22:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)>>

    [There's my response.]
    To these others: see WP:AGF and stop these false accusations; I posted here in "good faith"; why don't you just stay out of it and let other people respond to my queries; you've already posted a link to all the things you've said before. You're adding nothing new here. I attempted simply to do what Shell suggested; I was unaware of this page before s/he mentioned it. Please allow this section to elicit other people's responses and stop trying to skew things over to your positions that are (in my view) "eternal arguments". --NYScholar 07:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    See my changes to organization (format) of Nobel Prize in Physics and, specifically, the new section (with previous content): Nobel Prize in Physics#The award, which shows an appropriate placement of such an image, with an appropriate caption (if its copyright status is deemed okay). --NYScholar 08:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've added a third image, Image:Nobel Prize.png, which has questionable copyright (despite claims in posted licenses by uploaders). (See also "non-free" administrative page.) This image has been uploaded to Wikipedia Commons as well as Wikipedia with misleading licensing information. The image is very close to the trademarked and copyrighted images posted on the site of the Nobel Foundation (nobelprize.org) with a registered trademark for the image (front side of four of five Nobel Prize (R) medals), which the Nobel Foundation states that it has "proprietary rights" to; simply tracing and/or copying the image and then uploading it to Wikipedia image pages and Wikipedia Commons does not give one a license to declare it to be GFDL-compatible (it seems to me). Review requested of the third image, Image:Nobel Prize.png as well. For information, please click on the link provided on the Wikipedia image page, which links to the Wikipedia Commons image page. Yesterday I revised the description of the image in both places; it was previously described as an "image of a Nobel Prize," which it is not. It is a derivative work based on a [registered trademarked and copyrighted (non-free)] image of the front side of the Nobel Prize (R) Medals for four of the five Nobel Prizes (in Physics, Chemistry, Literature, and Physiology or Medicine); the Nobel Peace Prize Medal and the Medal for the Prize in Economics presented at the Nobel Prize ceremony both have different front sides). For source of information about these Nobel Prize Medals, see Birgitta Lemmel's article,"The Nobel Prize Medals and the Medal for the Prize in Economics", provided in the individual prize Wikipedia articles and in Nobel Prize in References or External links secs. Thanks. --NYScholar 00:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC) [additions; added links. --NYScholar 00:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)][reply]

    Here's the entry from Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 October 21, for easy ref. (scroll up for other related discussion provided by other user(s). Thanks. --NYScholar 01:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no foundation for the claim that the design of the Nobel Prize medals for Physics and Chemistry, Medicine or Physiology, Literature, and Peace are protected by copyright in the United States. They were first struck in 1902 and have had the same design ever since, according to [1]. Subsequent republication does not extend the term of copyright. They are plainly PD images in the United States, as copyright even on works published abroad before 1923 has expired. See this handy summary from Cornell Law School.

    This does not mean they are not registered trademarks: They certainly are. But since we're not using the marks to identify anything other than the Nobel Prize they're intended to represent, we are within the the law and Wikipedia policy to tag them both {{PD-US}} and {{trademark}}.

    On the other hand, the medal for Economics is more recent. It was published (i.e. first awarded) in 1968. Unless it can be shown to have been published by the Nobel Foundation in the US without copyright notice before 1 January 1978 -- in which case it's PD as far as copyright is concerned -- copyright will not expire under US law until 1 January 2064.

    It is crucial that trademarks and copyrights not be confused. They are two entirely different kinds of protection for intellectual property. Copyright -- very literally, the right to make copies -- expires under certain conditions; this governs issues such as reproduction, derivative use, etc. Trademark -- the exclusive right to identify goods and services with a distinctive design -- never expires unless the owner abandons the mark. We may not use an image of a Nobel Medal to identify some other product. That does not mean you may not use it in some context where it is not identifying a product, in non-defamatory ways, etc. We can, for example, write the words "Nobel Prize" without fear of trademark infringement even though that name is a registered trademark in the US as long as we do not:

    (a) use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; or
    (b) reproduce, counterfeit, copy or colorably imitate a registered mark and apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used in commerce upon or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive (15 U.S.C. §1114(1)(a),(b)).

    Since it is very unlikely that anyone will mistake a Wikipedia article for a product of the Nobel Foundation, there is nothing to prohibit the use of these images. They are free media within our meaning of the phrase, since there are any number of derivative works that can be made from them while still complying with trademark law. We should, of course, identify the trademark owner in the image description. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • The "Trademark and Copyright" policies stated clearly in the "Terms of Service" regarding the Nobel Prize (R) Medal images and the "design mark" of the Nobel Prize (R) and the copyright notices at the bottom of the webpages on the official site of the Nobel Foundation place the above claims about these images being "free content" in dispute. Despite the templates and claims made on the image pages and in these various discussions, no one has provided a reliable and verifiable source to document that the design of the images (pictured in the derivative works--photographs--uploaded by Wikipedia users) are in the "public domain" in the United States [their copyright "author" is the Nobel Foundation in Sweden; there may be renewals/automatic renewals of copyright that these users are not aware of]; allusions to prevailing laws in the Nobel Foundation's Copyright statements account for such possibilities. All the notices posted on the Nobel Foundation's website assert current and ongoing "proprietary rights" and the need to write the Nobel Foundation for "permission" to feature them and the conditions in its providing such written permission (if and when it does). Fair use rationales still seem to be needed for each use of such images in Wikipedia articles as per Wikipedia policy. The uploaders can only give Wikipedia permission to use their own photographs, but they do not have proprietary rights (e.g., copyright) over the images that their photographs are based on, which look much the same as those featured on the Nobel Foundation website. The Nobel Foundation requires that one post a notice with both the registered trademark and the copyright symbols and "The Nobel Foundation" when it gives permission to feature such images. See Talk:Nobel Prize in Economics for related discussion. A user has written to the Nobel Foundation for further clarification. In earlier correspondence (from Sept. 2006), the Nobel Foundation public relations office stated that it was referring the matter to its legal department. Locked (possibly later) correspondence with the Wikipedia Foundation exists, but I have not seen it. I do not know what it says. --NYScholar 04:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It really doesn't matter what it says on their website. Nobody is arguing that they have licensed or otherwise permitted use of the image, so the terms pursuant to which they grant licenses or permissions are irrelevant. And as far as their proprietary claims are concerned, such claims cannot be broader than the rights provided by law. If a design is no longer protected by copyright, it's in the public domain, regardless what its owner says on a website. -- But|seriously|folks  05:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The "if" in your conditional clause is precisely what is being questioned; the Nobel Foundation's copyright and trademark notices do matter (despite your claims to the contrary) and you have provided no documentation/source to establish your claims that they do not. In the notices they refer to legal matters pertaining to their proprietary rights which you do not have enough information to dispute. Until you have concrete details about whether or not the copyrights of the "design" of the images of their Nobel Prize (R) Medals have or have not been renewed subsequent to 1902 +28 years (e.g., 1930 (extending copyright to beg. 1931) plus 95 years=2026), there is no way for you to claim that they are "in the public domain in the United States"; you have clearly not carefully read the laws posted on U.S. government's copyright office site and/or the circulars linked via the Library of Congress; the links are provided on my talk page. Until there is truly a definitive answer about these legal issues, your opinions are simply just opinions and not matters of fact as you state them. Continuing to repeat "public domain" is contrary to the "fair use rationales" already provided on some of these image pages. Some of the images are exceptionally close to the images posted on the Nobel Foundation's website so as to be virtually indistinguishable from them. This closeness does matter and the Nobel Foundation's statements prohibiting "derivative works" matter as well. Though Wikipedians provide statements claiming that the images are based on personal photographs, there is no way to verify those claims. Some users have challenged the first image listed because it looks so close to the image on the Nobel Foundation site for the front side of several of its medals. If the format for presenting the image in that case (which provides fair use rationales) is being accepted in Wikipedia, then the other images need similar fair use rationales as well. There needs to be consistency in the way these image pages are presented that does not make Wikipedia liable to copyright infringement claims from the author of the designs of the images (the Nobel Foundation). The locked correspondence is relevant to this discussion, yet no one has provided verifiable information about what it says. --NYScholar (talk) 09:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • See related updates re: correspondence with the Nobel Foundation (the "author" of the copyrighted designs of the Nobel Prize (R) Medals depicted in images of them); the Nobel Foundation's public relations officer had already referred this matter to its legal department according to correspondence with it in Sept. 2006, referred to in Talk:Nobel Prize (Archive 1) and in Talk:Nobel Prize#The Nobel Prize Medals (and earlier secs. of current talk page). Panda's more recent update simply reiterates what the Nobel Foundation had already stated both in that correspondence cited in Archive 1 and on its own website's notices of copyright and trademark. (Those notices are linked in various discussions of these images and in my own talk page section on them.) --NYScholar (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    links

    can I have a link to wikipedia on my web site home pageDianes Jewelry 03:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, but you can't use your business name as your username here. -- But|seriously|folks  19:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not? I don't see anything about business names at WP:UN. --teb728 21:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's right in the middle of the page. -- But|seriously|folks  20:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoa!!!! wtf? Way to bite the newbie right up the bottom. You should give a better explanation than just slapping a ban on Diane's Jewelry because it's iffy if that person might see info here. Remember, if you're an admin you're also an ambassador for Wiki. Guroadrunner 07:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I second that. I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who thinks so. --teb728 09:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The following Image:FAITHemblemPKproFinal.jpg is claimed to be a hand drawn version of a copyright logo from an animated series. Is the current tagging sufficient?144.15.255.227 22:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No. It's covered by the copyright on the original screenshot. This is at best a derivative work of the original and cannot be released under a free license. It needs a rationale. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the proper procedure when the tag requesting valid fair use rationale for this image keeps getting reverted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.41 (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe tag it with {{pui}} and list it at WP:PUI. See WP:PUI#Instructions for instructions. --teb728 08:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Image:2005 Per Capita.PNG

    I'm not familier with how to copywright materials. I am trying to copywright the file Image:2005 Per Capita.PNG and I'm not sure how. I created this file on my own. This file is probably origional and unique. I searched through the pages and the best I could find was to insert the phrase "{{PD-self}}". Apparently I'm missing a tag and I don't know how to tag this file. Davidmmcfadden 03:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The copyright notice you inserted on the image description page corresponds roughly to a GFDL license. If that is what you wanted you should have used the {{GFDL-self}} tag. I see that an anonymous editor has replaced your copyright notice with a {{PD-self}} tag. That is OK if you want to give up your copyright; otherwise replace it with a {{GFDL-self}} tag. But in any case you should remove the {{untagged}} tag. --teb728 21:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Advice please: How do I stop my own photos being removed?

    I illustrated an article with my own photos, but one by one they have been removed for copyright violation or something. The note left by the remover refers me to a page which is supposed to show me how to stop this happening, but the page does not actually explain what to do. I have lost 3 photos already! Can someone please add details of how to tag my own photos (i.e. I took the) in such a way that some busybody will not keep removing them. Thanks Sah10406 21:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi there. If you took the image (that is, you took the picture and is not a picture of a postcard or a scanning), you need to choose a license. You must know that others will be able to use your image for profit, or edit it if necessary. If you don't have any problem with that, there are a few licenses that may be used: {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}, {{cc-by-2.5}}, {{PD-self}} or {{GFDL-self}}. Also, please provide some information about the image (when you took the image, where, etc). Finally, consider adding it directly to Wikimedia Commons so that other Wikimedia projects can use them (although if you are not sure, just upload them here and someone else will upload them there later). -- ReyBrujo 00:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    band

    i'm uploading an article about a band, but i don't know what the license should be —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxmax12 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don’t understand: It sounds as if you are asking about a text article rather than an image, but this page is for image and other media questions.
    Assuming you are asking about a text article, all text in Wikipedia must be GFDL. If it is an article you are creating (rather than copying from another source), by uploading it you inherently license it under GFDL. If it is an article by someone else (and it sounds as if that is what you mean), you could upload it only if it is licensed under GFDL. If it is an article by someone else that is not GFDL, you could rewrite it in your own words. --teb728 17:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Pictures

    What type of license is a picture I took with my camera?LeonardoGolden 17:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If you took the picture, you can choose between Public Domain, GFDL or Creative Commons. Check the upload form to learn a bit more about the different licenses. If you are uploading such a free image (you took it and want to "donate" it to Wikipedia and all the editors) you can upload it at Wikimedia Commons directly (you will need to create an account there). -- ReyBrujo 19:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding the right copyright tag to photo

    Hi - I am a newbie and I have had the following message appear. I'm stuck and I don't know how to edit my photo with the right tag. Please help

    You appear to have taken an image from a copyrighted source and placed it on Wikipedia under aGFDL license. You have made no assertion that you are the actual owner of the image and thus have the right to do so.dramatic 17:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

    This is the photo Image:RedHat2.jpg

    Thanks 21:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

    User:Dramatic was referring to the copyright notice on the source page, which says “The text and images on this site are for personal use and the public. Any other publication of the copyright holder, Copyright © Ellinore Ginn 1999 - 2007, New Zealand is strictly prohibited,” and to the text you put on the image description page, which is confusing: “The copyright belongs to my late mother or the Ginn family "Own work, all rights released (Public domain)"” And there is a GFDL license tag. I don’t understand: Does the copyright belong to your mother, to the Ginn family, or to you? Or has someone released it into the Public Domain (in which case there is no copyright)? Or is it licensed under GFDL, which is inconsistent with Public Domain? Was the picture taken by you personally or by a photographer? If you own the copyright, you could release it to the Public Domain or license it under GFDL. --teb728 22:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Thank you for that but - I do not know how to actually add the right tag to my page with the photo on once it's on the site. I actually own the photograph and took it myself.

    I also think my own webpage itself has the wrong copyright notice on it and I will have to get someone to show me what it should be.

    Can you please put on the right copyright on my site here or not? I don't want to get it deleted.

    I also have uploaded 2 other pictures somewhere but they are not on my site and I don't know where they are to delete them as they are probably wrong too. Where are they? Is there a File Manager that holds my own uploaded photos somewhere?

    Hope you can help and thanks once again

    --SphinxGottaGo 20:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The other two images are Image:ReturnMe.jpg‎ and Image:Musicbox.jpg‎. You could have found them (and all your other contributions) by clicking on “my contributions” at the top the page.
    The picture of your mother is not tagged for deletion; so it is not in immediate danger of being deleted. If you do own the image, it has a good tag already. The concern expressed by User:Dramatic is that you do actually claim that you own the image. If you do not own it, you cannot license its use. --teb728 22:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Book cover images

    I made a picture of a book cover Image:HoldOnToYourKids.jpg. In general, is a book cover in the public domain since it is sold in book stores? The book cover picture is used with the article describing the book content. Is this not allowed, the same way we can use the book title. The book title could be argued to be copyright material as well, couldn't it? So my question is: Is it allowed to make a picture of a book cover and upload the image with an article about the book itself, or not?

    If that is allowed, what tag should I use? Thanks Ervinn 05:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No, a book cover is in the public domain if its first edition was created and first published before January 1, 1923, or at least 95 years before January 1 of the current year, whichever is later For all newer covers the copyright is still valid, and therefore finding an image of the cover in Amazon or scanning it is the same: they must be tagged as fair use ones. -- ReyBrujo 15:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Copyright rules for very old photos

    Would like to understand copyright rules for several specific cases. First case....photo is potrait of long-dead public figure. The individual died in 1920 so photo was obviously taken before 1923. I found the image on internet, but I have also seen it on a book cover and number of other places. Are there any restrictions on use of this image? Can I upload it to Wiki-Commons? Second case....I have number of original photos take in China between 1915 and 1945. I did not take them, but I inherited them so the original hard-copies are my property. What copyright rule apply, if any? --Orygun 05:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Copyright law is a bit peculiar: you can own the original physical copy of something without owning the copyright. What's the history of the China photos: who took them, for what purpose, and have they been published anywhere?
    As for the pre-1920 photo: is it reasonably likely that the photo was published before 1923? --Carnildo 07:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Pre-1920 photo is of State official; probably his official portrait. It was published in a local news paper obituary on 8 Jan 1920. China photos were taken by my grandfather who was U.S. diplomat in China. They are personal photos; however, many were taken while traveling on Gov business. There are few photos of him so he obviously didn't take those, but they were clearly taken with his camera. Photos have never been published. Among the photos is one formal portrait. It could be official State Dept portrait photo; however, there is no photographers label on front or back.--Orygun 19:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds like they're all useable, then. The pre-1920 photo is in the public domain in the United States, and you appear to have the rights to do what you want to with your grandfather's photos. --Carnildo 08:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    One more Q, if you have time....Am working on another bio and have copy of news paper obit photo published in 1955. There is no attribution, but photo obviously was not taken by news paper since individual was not public figure (i.e. artist). Photo was probably provided by family; however, artist was unmarried and only had 1 sister (who would now be 90+ if she is still alive). Who own rights to that photo or is it public domain?--Orygun 03:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I wouldn't want to guess. It could be in the public domain because the copyright was not renewed, or it could be in the public domain because it was published without a copyright notice, or the copyright could be held by the newspaper, or the copyright could be held by the photographer (or the photographer's company, or the photographer's heir), or the copyright could be held by the artist's sister, or the copyright could be held by anyone the artist designated in their will, or... --Carnildo 23:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    So I guess bottom line for that one is "forget it." Thanks for your help with all above!--Orygun 02:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Avoiding Lawsuits?

    Some of the administrators these days are attempting to limit the usage of non-free pics that feature living people by deleting those which they consider replaceable. What is the point really? Is it to avoid lawsuits which copyright holders of certain images might file once they see their pictures being posted here? Duke17 13:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, it is because we are a "free" encyclopedia, and therefore should aim at getting free content. I always quote our former lawyer's words: Don't seek sanctuary in the law. Make the law irrelevant. Provide free content everywhere you can. Hopefully one day agencies and studios will donate images and media to us with free licenses, but until then, I think we can live without them. -- ReyBrujo 15:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Rey, but additionally it does reduces wikipedia's (and other content re-users) potential exposure to copyright infringement lawsuits down the line. Megapixie 23:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Flint Indians scorecardf from 1941

    Hi,

    I would like to add an image (or two) from a scorecard to the "Flint Indians" page, but I'm not sure what media copyright to use. Actually, I'm not sure if a copyright for this even exists, since the team and the whole league folded about 66 years ago. I own this scorecard and just scanned it last night.

    Thanks, Brent —Preceding unsigned comment added by CMUBrent (talk • contribs) 19:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Does the scorecard have a copyright notice on it? If not, I should think the image would be a candidate for {{PD-Pre1978}}, being published in the US before 1978 without a copyright notice. --teb728 02:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Concerning two LOGOS that were uploaded

    Image:Corintians_logo.jpg & Image:Corintians.gif Were both uploaded as FAIR USE LOGOS. I used only low-res versions of the logos and was very careful to include both the {non-free logo} message as specified by Wikipedia:Logos AND the fair use rational, which clearly specified the logos use instructions. STILL, both logos are being considered for deletion? What did I do wrong and how can I stop the deletion? Tedzsee 22:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The images were tagged by betacommand bot because they didn't have a fair use rationale (he also left a message on your talk page). Between then and now some helpful individual added a fair use rationale (go to the image description page and look at the history). They do not appear to be in danger of being deleted at the moment. Megapixie 23:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Uploading copies of admission tickets

    We have purchased admission tickets for the annual Surin (Thailand) Elephant Round-up (2007) which include a schedule of the events. Would it be acceptable to upload a scanned copy of a ticket?

    Freebeerforyorky 02:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Obviously we can’t get a free license for that, which mean it could uploaded only under Wikipedia’s very restrictive non-free content criteria. I can’t imagine any use which would conform with them. What do you have in mind?
    If you just want the schedule of events, you could enter it in text form. --teb728 02:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you have uploaded it anyway at Image:Roundup2007.jpg. You will need a non-free content rationale for each use. Good luck with that. --teb728 17:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ancient Tarot card images

    What about images of a restored ancient Tarot cards. The cards are dated to the 17th century and held in a museum but there is a recent replica/restoration of these cards? http://tarot-history.com/boutique/index.php?Lang=EN

    there is a 2007 edition and an edition with no year associated. http://tarot-history.com/Jean-Noblet/pages/ll-bateleur.html http://tarot-history.com/Jean-Noblet/pages/la-papesse.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.139.119 (talk) 15:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The original cards would be in the public domain. So if you had access to them in the museum, and took your own pictures of them, you could grant a free license to those pictures. But replica/restorations made by someone else (such as those on that site) would be copyrighted to the person who made the replica/restorations. In order to use them, the person who made the replica/restorations would have to grant a license. Inasmuch as the replica/restorations on the site are offered for sale, there is probably no chance of that. --teb728 17:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    19th Century Philadelphia Map

    Could someone look at this image, Image:PhilaCnty1854.jpg and help with what the status of the image is? The dates in the bottom corner are blurry. --evrik (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I see you give www.library.upenn.edu (University of Pennsylvania Library) as an alternate source. Why not ask them the copyright status? --teb728 18:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I sent an email earlier today, but because the deletion tag is looming I'm not confident we'll get a response soon enough. I also called the city. --evrik (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The most recent date on the map is 1959, and appears to be the work of the Bureau of Engineering & Surveys, Philly. Not sure what local government copyright in the US is like - someone must know that. I'd guess they hold copyright and that it is not PD. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If it was published in the United States prior to 1978 without copyright notice, it could still be {{PD-Pre1978}}. Are public documents of this kind considered to be “published” when they are made? --teb728 18:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    sideeffects of glutathione,desired effects too?

    what are the desired effects of this drug?is it for whitening for the skin?any sideeffects? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.142.58 (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not a media copyright question. --teb728 01:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Image:Lair of the lion.jpg.

    This image has been taged as a disputed non-fair use. I'm not sure why this is so. It is image of cover art to a book. It's not for advertising, and it isn't used as a substitute of the book. What is the problem?

    Jahunta07 22:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    What the warning at Image:Lair of the lion.jpg is telling you is that you need to provide a non-free-use rationale for Lair of the Lion as described by WP:NFURG. --teb728 23:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeopardy questions

    Are these screenshots really copyrightable? The question itself I can possibly see, but the image is just text on a blue background. Don't they qualify for the Template:PD-ineligible tag? I ask in relation to this image: Image:Leeroy Jenkins Jeopardy clue.jpg --SeizureDog 03:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Renaming an image

    I don't know where to ask this but this area handles images.

    So there's this image of a racing driver in his car: Image:Luca_Badoer_Minardi_1994.jpg, but the name lists the wrong person driving the car. It should not be Luca Badoer, but instead Pierluigi Martini. How can it be renamed? Guroadrunner 07:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    According to WP:MV, “To change the name of an image, one needs to upload it again, and copy the image description.” –teb728 17:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Guroadrunner (talk) 10:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Image:MiguelFerrer_new.jpg

    Regarding the use of this image, I have e-mails from Bill Mumy and David Goudsward granting permission to use the image. Who needs to see these to settle this matter, and is there anything else needed? I'm very rarely on Wikipedia during college semesters, so please use leniency with "deletion dates" and time constraints. --Godfoster 23:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia accepts only blanket permission that includes reuse by anyone for anything. And the permission must come from the individual artist who owns the image copyright. I doubt that it is jointly owned by the site administrator and the webmaster you contacted, but they could tell you who does. The image link on your description page is broken; so I couldn’t guess the owner.
    When you know who the owner is, follow the instructions at WP:COPYREQ for getting permission and forwarding it to the communications committee. You also need to add a tag to the image description page, indicating which free license was granted.
    With regard to leniency: We just answer questions on this page; we have no more ability to grant leniency than you do. --teb728 01:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Company Information

    Good Afternoon

    My name is Fonda Manell I am employed at a company called Sabinet based in South Africa. We basically offer information services pertaining to Legislation, journals etc through subscription basis.

    I have been assigned the task of making our Company/Services more visible on the Internet and I thought it would be a good idea if I could upload a file onto the wikipedia site.

    I would like to upload our company profile onto the Wikipedia site and I am unable to since the information on your site is a little daunting and there is so much of it to sift through.

    Would someone be able to walk me through how to do it.

    Thank you and Regards Fonda Manell fonda@sabinet.co.za —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fonda33 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like Sabinet is a notable company; so it would be appropriate to have an article about it. Bear in mind though that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. So the information in the article must be neutral and encyclopedic; it must not look like a public relations release or an advertisment. Inasmuch as you work for the company, you may be perceived as having a conflict of interest; please read WP:COI. Also although the article would be about the company, it does not belong to the company; anybody can edit it.
    I agree that Wikipedia is a little daunting for newcomers. A good starting reference is the Welcome Page. If you already have the start of a neutral encyclopedic article, you can click here on Sabinet and start editing.
    One further tip: On help pages such as this one (and also on talk pages) but not on article pages, you should sign your post with ~~~~ (4 tildes). This will add a signature—like mine: teb728 18:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Car picture from website

    I found a picture of a car (1942 De Soto)on a website (http://oldcarandtruckpictures.com/Chrysler/1942DeSotoCoupe-may16b.jpg) that I would like to include an a article, but I'm unsure of its copyright. I need some help. Thanks, WHRM3 19:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    image:1942DeSotoCoupe-may16b.jpg

    The site says "These pictures came for a number of sources including web pages of the manufacturer, news groups and my own.". We can't use any of them. Secretlondon 22:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I want to add this image from an Uk MoD website.

    I think the article on the FV430 series APC used by the British army could do with an image of the latest version currently deployed in Iraq as images show the significant differences clearly. Anyway, I found a few images on an MoD website which are covered by Crown Copyright. Reading the terms of use (see [2]) seems to suggest that wikipedia can use images off their website for free as long as for "research" or "reporting current affairs". I'm guessing wikipedia could use images off of the site then.

    I thought I'd check here anyway, just in case I'm wrong.

    These are the images in question: [3] [4]

    Please post in my talk page to answer me as I might forget to check here for answers.

    --Tom of north wales 21:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    We can't use it "This material may be reproduced for the purposes of non-commercial research or private study and for the purposes of reporting current events only.". We are not current affairs and we are not non commercial. Secretlondon 22:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And even if we fit their restriction, as a matter of policy Wikipedia accepts only licenses which allow reuse by anyone for anything. --teb728 23:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    taxes

    i have unfiled tax returns for 2001 and 2002 that the government owes me money is there anyway to recoup that barring the three year limit the government preposees —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.91.10 (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not a media copyright question. --teb728 01:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Copyright dispute about image use in info box

    In an issue tangentialy related to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Hand drawn image of copyright logo, the copyright images Image:Zaft2.jpeg and Image:Rengo2.jpeg appear to be used in violation of WP:NFCC#8 in a number of articles where they appear in an infobox to indicate the fictional characters' factional alliance - uses where simply the name of the alliance will provide the same information. The {di} tag keeps getting removed without addressing the fair use issues. What is the proper method of dealing with this situation? 207.69.137.7 03:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This is in fact a content dispute and part of a WP:POINT campaign by several anonymous IP addresses. -- Jtrainor (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My take (for what it’s worth) is that these images are used according to our non-free use policy on List of Cosmic Era factions but not on the other articles. ---- teb728 (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Public School Logos

    I uploaded the image Image:OBHS_Logo.jpg to use on the entry for my old high school. I got the image off of the district website[5] and cropped it down to size.

    Is this fair use? It's a small logo of a public school's mascot, used simply to show what the mascot looks like. Thanks.

    AdamKidabra 10:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    copyright tags

    I'm trying to add a copyright tag to a satelite image taken from local.live.com. The copyright would go to (c) 2007 Microsoft. How do I add this tage to a photo? What is the proper tag to add to the photo?

    Thanks,

    jda — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuatrees (talk • contribs) 17:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, but Image:League park today.jpeg can’t be used. As non-free content it could only be used under WP:NFCC. But someone could get an airplane and take an equivalent free image; so it fails WP:NFCC#1 ---- teb728 (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Question from my talk page

    This question was left on my talk page and I'm not really sure how to reply:

    Dear Marsh,

    I would love to put an image in one of the topics in wikipedia. It is a 'first day cover' or a cover with postage stamp that is available for sale generally on the day of release of a postal stamp. I have one such first day cover and I scanned it and tried to upload it to the page. First I got stuck in the sandbox or something of that kind, being inexperienced in the ways of the wiki. I finally managed to put it there. Alas! It was deleted by another user, with some gobbledygook about 'fair use image'. I tried to read about this fair use stuff, but it led me deeper into legalese, and in the end I am pretty confused.

    My simple question is, Can I upload an image of a postal stamp/ first day cover (released in India) to the page 'Tenneti Viswanadham'. It is a great honour bestowed upon this gentleman who is my grandfather, I felt that it is only right that I share this image with the community through wikipedia. Kindly reply at your convenience to me at ansrao@gmail.com.

    Thanks ANS Rao

    I'll direct him here in case someone has an answer. --W.marsh 21:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Andrew Weil

    The entry on Dr. Andrew Weil currently contains the image of a 1997 TIME magazine cover. This reference is out of date: Dr. Weil was featured on the cover of TIME magazine on Oct. 17, 2005. I have tried to upload this more contemporaneous image, but it does not seem to take, even though someone managed to successfully upload an image with the same copyright issues, but from an older issue of the magazine. Can anyone help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scienceman11 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don’t know what you mean by “it didn’t take.” You have three images:
    Inasmuch as they are duplicates, at least two of them will be deleted. --teb728 (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    How do I change the copywright status of an existing article?

    How do I cahnge the copywright status of an existing article?-- I'm so perfect I'm jealous of myself (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't imagine what sort of thing you are referring to. If you are referring to a Wikipedia article, they are unalterably GFDL.
    Are you perhaps trying to inquire the copyright status of Image:Cooltext71425023.jpg‎, which you uploaded? In order to help you with that we would have to know where you got it from. --teb728 (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Side note: If you got it from the Cool Text generator ( cooltext.com ), then you can use it. But again, where did you get it? Guroadrunner (talk) 10:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Photograph of Nazi War Criminal

    Hello - I am requesting assistance in determining the correct copyright for this picture of a Nazi war criminal, Edward Roschmann. I obtained this image from this site - [6] - but I feel sure that owing to the subject and the era, it is free for public use. K a r n a (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think the subject affects its status. And I'm sorry to say that you can't assume from the era that it is PD. Depending on the lifetime of the photographer and/or when and how it was first published, it could still be copyrighted for years. --teb728 (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, but then, is this particular image usable? How do I ascertain that? K a r n a (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    License tagging for Image:Tatw-logo.gif

    I am trying to respond to this tag on my user talk page:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Account9000

    that tells me to have an image tag for my logo that I used for my article:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tatw-logo.gif

    I don't understand this or how to do it. Can someone do it for me (preferred) or explain to me which tag to use and how to do it?

    The original source for the image was found here:

    http://www.anjunabeats.com/

    Thanks.

    Account9000 (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The tag you want is undoubtedly {{non-free logo}}. In addition to that, the logo image will need a non-free use rationale for its use on Trance Around the World. You could use the {{logo fur}} template to produce a rationale. (See template:logo fur for how to use it. --teb728 (talk) 03:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    my picture

    I got a message that says that I should look over the copyright for the image that I uploaded of myself. I don't know what to do. Tigersfan1992 (talk) 03:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    What that message is telling you is that in order for you to upload an image you can use on your user page, it must be freely reusable. That means, you must tag the image description page with a template that grants free reuse. For your photo the two most likely tags would be {{PD-self}}, through which you would give up your copyright on the photo, or {{GFDL-self}}, through which you would keep the copyright but allow anyone to reuse it for anything. There are other free copyright tags listed at WP:ICT/FL. So what you need to do is select the tag you want and edit it into the image description page. --teb728 (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    OK Thanks Tigersfan1992 (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Can't upload pdf from my computer

    I have a file beneficial to Red Deer, Central Asian Red Deer, and Elk wikipedia pages...

    The author mailed me a CD on the Symposium on Red Deer Taxonomy and allowed me to use it on wikipedia.

    I have saved the pdf file onto my desktop, and have been trying to upload this file to wikipedia.

    Everytime I try and upload this file, I get two errors:

    1. Computer tells me that I am possibly not connected to internet (which is false) 2. My firewall settings...may be prohibiting me doing so...

    Anyhow, can someone PLEASE!!!!!!!! help me.

    Thanks

    dlc_73 (dlc_73@hotmail.com)


    What sorts of reasons should I give to justify fair use?

    I uploaded an image, and it's a screenshot from a tv show. I classified it as such, and then recieved a message saying that I had to justify why it was "fair use". [7] That is the image in question. Please help. Matt 00:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    See WP:NFURG --teb728 (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User-friendliness - the wave of the future!

    PLEASE! look up "User-friendly" and apply it to this website!

    Case in point - here is a copy/paste from the link that brought me to this page:

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


    Would it not make a LOT more sense to include this note at the top of the page I am using rght now to make ask this question?

    As it was, I had to hit the back arrow, copy/paste the quotation to notepad, and then hit this link again just so i could remember the format you wanted this in!


    Now to the real question: I uploaded: Image:CaseWiki1.jpg and a bunch of other pics which can be referenced by first clicking on the following link; going to the top menu option; standing on your head; singing the "Star Spangled Banner" while eating a peanut butter sandwich; and right clicking your home folder :)

    seriously - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lbrewer42&diff=cur

    These pics were made by me, of my own material, and, like it APPEARS to say ont the upload page, were listed as my own work being released for anyone to use anywhere for any reason. Yes, there were some that are from a couple different websites - and I slao stated they were being used with permission. The options that you gave as tags did not wholly fit the actual situation involving the pics so I thought the included explanation was what was needed. Please consider making the tags being built from single-option checkboxes, rather than combining multiple conditions into one check box.

    BTW - it took me quite a while to finally sort out where this message goes - and I am not sure, even now, if this is the right place. I do not have time to wade through pages and pages of instructions - few people do - thus fewer (than what could be possible) people will be happy to make submissions (I know I have been duiscouraged as information that I put into the "Glass Insulator" category from even 2 years ago was totally wiped out along with the new page I submitted. Have somone outside the system take the time to ghep you simpliy/majke things more logical. It should not take 3 links to get to this page to post a reply! One link at the end of the original article saying the pic was unnacceptible is easily all that needs be done! Its as if a Microsoft-manual-writer designed your website! :)

    Lee BTW - here is a quick, user-friendly, no-nonsense way of answering why the pics I had were not deemed applicable and the entire historical article I wrote was deleted (as was all of the other 2-year old references to glass insulators from the "insulator" category - why???):

    Lbrewer42@embarqmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbrewer42 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You know, the editors who answer questions on this page don’t get paid for doing so; so you are lucky you found one who was willing to read through your rant.
    You have been getting image messages on your talk page since 7 September, and three of them, including the first directed you to this page. If you had come here before those images were deleted, we might have been able to advise you.
    At least one of the messages on your talk page complained that the permission on the image was for “for non-profit educational purposes.” Wikipedia does not accept permission unless it permits reuse by anybody for anything. Perhaps the reason no option was offered for what you wanted to do is that what you wanted to do is not permitted.
    If a copyright owner is willing to license reuse by anyone for anything, see WP:COPYREQ for how you can handle that. --teb728 (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    My creation?

    An old friend drew a portrait of a well known musician, Andres Segovia (d1986) in the 1960s from an unknown photograph. This pencil drawing was later freely given to me. I have scanned it and wish to upload it to the Article Andres Segovia currently containing no image of subject. I have no contact with the artist nor original photographer. What is licence status should I do so? please reply on my talk page RichardJ Christie (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Forget it, I'm going to assume that the gift of an original drawing grants permission to me me to do with it as I please including permission to place it on Wikipedia RichardJ Christie (talk) 06:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, but that is not right. Unless your friend has explicitly stated he was releasing the drawing to the public domain, or granting you a free license, he still retains the copyright to the image. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Santa Baby DVD Cover

    Hello I am new to this. I added the Santa Baby (film) DVD Cover, becasue I seen it on google images and on amazon and I tried to add the copyright tag but it will not let me. Can someone put the copyright info on there for me so I don't lose the image. Thanks if you can save it! please help me save this image. you can get in contact with me at masmith123@aol.com or my user name on wikipedia freakshow123

    I tagged it as a non-free DVD cover. Maybe a fair use rationale is still needed. Kraxler (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s the correct tag, and a non-free use rationale is certainly required.
    But I suspect that a DVD cover might not be permitted to illustrate a movie as opposed to the DVD of the movie. For the tag claims fair use “to illustrate the DVD in question.” Can someone please confirm? --teb728 (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Transcription of a 1948 pamphlet.

    I am currently transcribing a pamphlet published somewhere around 1948 by the Plum Valley Homemakers, Plum Valley Wisconsin. It is a photocopy, not an original. I have no title page information or copyright information. I hope to publish it to your Sauk County, Wisconsin page as it contains histories of many familites from that area.

    Any suggestions as to copyright permissions?


    69.215.142.159 (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC) C. Thomas (bennec@gmail.com)[reply]

    If you had the title information, you should rewrite the relevant parts in your own words and cite the pamphlet as a source. But without the title you may be out of luck, because Wikipedia requires information to be sourced. --teb728 (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Max Baer image deleted

    I noticed the following edit: 15:00, 17 November 2007 Nv8200p (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Baermaxcutkirkpic.jpeg" ‎ (Remove image per WP:IFD) where the image File:Baermaxcutkirkpic.jpeg is deleted.

    Could someone explain or refer me to the stipulations covering allowable images so I can get one or more images on the page. I have over 250 images of Max Baer from a variety of sources, both commercial and private and want to include photos on his page.

    Thanks Maxies Gal (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Maxies Gal[reply]

    For what it’s worth, the IFD listing on that is at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 November 9#Image:Baermaxcutkirkpic.jpeg. It says that the uploader had claimed that the copyright owner had released the image to the public domain but didn’t say who that copyright owner was.
    In any case, images in Wikipedia have to be reusable by anyone for anything. This means that either they have to be licensed by the copyright owner under a free license like GFDF, or they have to be in the public domain (which is very hard to determine for subjects in Baer’s era). If you have a photo you took yourself, that would be your best choice, for you could license it under a free license. The next choice would be a photo taken by someone you know; in that case see WP:COPYREQ for how to handle the licensing. --teb728 (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Official portrait images

    I have uploaded an official portrait of the Australian Chief of Defence Force, Air Marshal Angus Houston here: Image:Angus Houston.jpg. I have been told through tags and at the Image talk:Angus Houston.jpg page that this image does not meet Wikipedia policy for inclusion. I will admit to feeling frustrated at the overly negative attitude towards image copyright questions displayed by many editors on here - negative in the sense that they normally seem very focussed on saying 'no', and not so focussed on working with people to get images included. Hence my post here.... can anyone suggest a way to include the image in question, using an appropriate licence/permission? Given the explicit permission granted by the source of the image for its use, I am confused by what else is required. Many thanks PalawanOz (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The only way to keep this image is to contact the copyright holder and ask them to release the image under a free content license Wikipedia accepts. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for help on doing so. Quite often that works out quite well. Garion96 (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The explanation is that as a matter of policy Wikipedia accepts permission only if it allows reuse by anyone for anything. So the permission on the source site is irrelevant to its use here. (Beside that: The source grants only fair use, and we have a right of fair use without their granting it.) --teb728 (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Photoes of sculptures

    Who holds the copyright of photoes of sculptures that are shown at a museum? The photographer, the sculptor, or both? Does it make a difference if the scuplture is put in a public square, like monuments? Kraxler (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions&oldid=172381664"