Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2009/January

Ukrainian photos from WWII

I have a question about some photos taking in the modern-day Ukraine (then part of the Soviet Union) during World War II. They were taken by Soviet military photographers, and I'm not sure when they were first published. The place that I would scan them from is a book, Hitler versus Stalin: The Second World War on the Eastern Front in Photographs by John and Ljubica Erickson, published in 2001. It credits the images to the "Rodina Archive in Moscow and the Leonid Pitersky Collection in St. Petersburg." With that information, can someone help me pick out an appropriate tag to upload them? I haven't uploaded any of them yet; I don't want them to get deleted while searching for the right tag. Any help would be appreciated, and while I'll gladly try to help if I need to provide more information, I'm not sure if I can. – Joe Nutter 20:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If {{PD-Russia-2008}} doesn't apply (which you'll need to determine for each individual image), then you would need to use a non-free tag, like {{non-free fair use in|Article name}} and an appropriate rationale. Stifle (talk) 15:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would apply - it was taken in 1944, and the license mentions if they died before 1942. I also don't think I could apply anything fair use to it, because they're mostly pictures of tanks driving across the countryside, wrecked trucks, and guns going off. They aren't non-replaceable, I just would like them while I'm trying to get the article on the battle they were taken in up the assessment ladder with only maps and no pictures. – Joe Nutter 17:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

{{PD-Ukraine}} is another possibility. Does the book indicate by what right it used the photos? If an image is neither public domain nor licensed under a free license, and it doesn’t conform to WP:NFCC, we can’t use it. —teb728 t c 18:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it would qualify for that. The creator is unknown, or at least not said in my source, and I'm not sure when it was first published. Do you know what should be done about uncertainty regarding the first date of publication? – Joe Nutter 20:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If an image is neither public domain nor licensed under a free license, and it doesn’t conform to WP:NFCC, we can’t use it.

I'm not sure. It might qualify for the {{PD-Ukraine}}, but I'm not sure. Does anyone know what should be done when we are unsure about when it was first published? – Joe Nutter 15:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Basic image upload question

Hi, Perhaps a basic question, but I´d appreciate some help. I recently uploaded the image File:Andreas Öberg.jpg but haven't been able to provide information to prevent deletion in 7 days (see template). What should I do? Or on which page/URL do I find help? (I have tried to locate this info but I am not so sure I am on the right track...) Thank you, Dafos (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Clearly the Flickr image is copyright according to that page. If you have been given a licence directly from the copyright holder they will have to provide the appropriate confirmation to us. The instructions are at WP:CONSENT. He must understand that a Wikipedia only use is no good for us. ww2censor (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. No, I haven't been given a licence directly from the copyright holder (Flickr). In an email Andreas Öberg says that he is allowed to use this image. Just to make sure that I understand, a licence given from Flickr, is this the only way to prevent deletion and by using the email text on the WP:CONSENT page? (I haven´t contacted Flickr before so I don't know how easy this will be.) Or is there another way? Thanks again, Dafos (talk) 13:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Baalbek-GenPix.jpg

I have a question about this image- it has a {{pd-self}}, but then it says "Copyright (C) 2006 Capt JV Benjamin (14 MARATHA LI)". ??? Spencer^T♦C 20:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The uploader's username is basically the same as JV Benjamin, so I think it's safe to assume that the uploader is the copyright holder. And as the tag says, the copyright holder has released the image into the public domain (if applicable, if not rights are given for any use to any party). Seems like everything is in order.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

US National Archives photo

The last image of the website [1], I had see that it was US National Archives photo. Is it in public domain or GNU free license? If so, which copyright I should use? Aquitania (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure, but it seems very likely to be a work of the US Navy. It is identified as a National Archives photo taken by Robert Hurst. Most of the other Robert Hurst photographs claim more clearly that such works were official photos taken by the Navy. It's difficult to say with absolute conviction, but I would believe the photo to be a work of the federal gov't and therefore appropriately tagged by {{PD-USGov}}. -Seidenstud (talk) 09:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Cover to a discontinued bootleg of a demo tape

Hey,

I recently uploaded the file File:Bowel of Chiley.jpg and I don'tknow which is the licence.

It is a demo tape by band Mr. Bungle and it was released without any permission on bootleg by Playhouse Productions, on 1991.

The original is very hard to find. Which licence applies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvareo (talk • contribs) 13:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact it is a cover of a musical release would seem, at first glance, to allow it to be used under the criteria found at the policy on Fair Use. However there are several issues at play. First, in general, articles on demos and/or bootlegs are not allowed per the "Albums, singles and songs" guidelines for notability. If this demo/bootleg can not meet the General notability guideline and the subject specific notability guideline than no article would exist about the recording and that would disallow a fair use claim.

If you can not use a claim of fair use the second (and third) issue would be if the image featured on the cover was a free image or not and, if so, who did the layout and design of the cover. In other words you currently state the image is taken from a website and that the "author" is "Unknown" so that would automatically raise a red flag as a possible copyvio unless it was established that it was Public domain. Because the website that you took this from gives no indication of the copyright status it is doubtful, from looking at the site, there would be any legit claim of ownership to this, or any of the images on the site, if they were to "give permission" for it's use. And even if the image featured on the cover were established as "free" it would not mean the layout of the cover would also be free. This image aside for a moment, there are numerous "royalty free" and "stock images" that can be used in layout and design work, however the resulting derivative work may not be free. And as for finding images on the internet freely obtained does not mean free to republish. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Even though the distribution of the music itself may have been a copyright violation, someone (presumably Playhouse Productions) still owns the copyright to the album cover, which is all we're concerned about in this case. I would say treat it as any other album cover. Use {{Non-free album cover}}. As usual, it would need a fair use rationale, and {{Album cover fur}} should suffice. That said, I noticed that "Bowel of Chiley" does not seem to have an article, and I question if it is notable enough on its own to have one. So make sure that use of this image in another article is not decorative which would be a violation of WP:FUC.

By the way, I hope you don't mind that I wikified the file name in your post, for ease of reference. -Seidenstud (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was posting when you did this so I did not see it right away. We basically said the same thing. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Status of Mug Shots

What would the acceptability and copyright status of mug shots taken by local and state police departments and distributed to the public and press be? I'm spacifically talking about this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jeffrey_Epstein_mug_shot.jpg? I recieved a message on my "Talk" page disputing the copyright, and thus having it at Wikipedia. But look, it *WAS* distributed free of charge to the press and anyone who asked the Palm Beach cops for it. Proxy User (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

In general, distribution, not matter how widespread and free of charge, does not make a piece of media free or in the public domain. Also, while works by the US federal government are automatically in the public domain, works of state and local governments are usually not (with a number of exceptions). So, most non-federal mugshots, should be tagged with {{Non-free mugshot}} with an appropriate fair use rationale.

However, Florida is one of the handful of states whose works (most of them, anyway) are automatically PD. So, this image can be tagged as PD. However, being PD, it may as well be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, where there happens to be a template ({{PD-FLGov}}) for Florida government works. I'll go ahead and movie it to commons. -Seidenstud (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

As a follow-up, I have been bold and restored template:PD-FLGov (here on en). I have mentioned it at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags#template:PD-FLGov -Seidenstud (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

foto of Anti-Lynch Petition presented by the Southern Negro Youth Congress to U.S. Sen. Glen Taylor in 1947

It was removed from the Gwendolyn Midlo Hall Wikipedia page over copyright issues. It is in the public domain because it is 61 years old or if there is any question about that, I, Gwendolyn Midlo Hall, hold the copyright because it was given to me in 1947 because I am in the picture and it has been in my possession ever since. It has also been published on line on the website blackpast.org under Southern Negro Youth Congress. Please help me get it back up. Much thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghall1929 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually 61 years is not old enough for an unpublished photo in the US to be in the public domain. The copyright, unless it was assigned to you by the author of the photo, does not run out until 75 years after the death of the author. See: Wikipedia:Public domain#Current standard copyright duration in U.S. law. You claim the copyright was given to you. How? Being in the photo or having it in your possession does not give you the copyright to a photo, unless it was a "work for hire", in which case you would own the copyright and therefore have the right to release the image into the public domain yourself, or the copyright was specifically assigned to you. You need to show that you are actually the copyright holder and then you can put in into PD so that it can be used on Wikipedia. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 01:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Harsco logo.gif

Is the rationale in the File:Harsco logo.gif sufficient?--Kiyarrlls-talk 01:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

There are a bunch of fair-use rationale templates available that are used quite often. Your rationale looked fine, but I replaced it with the standard template:logo fur, thinking that editors were objecting to yours. I have mixed feelings about the use of fur templates, but in the case of very non-controversial files (e.g., a corporate logo in an infobox about the corp), they work well, and you might want to familiarize yourself with them for future use. -Seidenstud (talk) 02:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Integer Partition Table.png

I received the following message:

Thanks for uploading File:Integer Partition Table.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

I'm having trouble understanding the Wikipedia software and I'm not a patent lawyer, so I probably don't fully understand the copyright language. I suppose that my first question should be whether or not there is a user manual for understanding the terminology and how to use the Wikipedia software. I keep trying to tag my files and they seem to be tagged correctly from my view, but they keep coming back as untagged or as an orphanbot. Any help would be appreciated. The file in question is a table that I generated. The values and methods used to generate the table are supported by a new reference that I will include with the reupload of this file. I provided a reference with the last upload, which I found on the internet, but the new reference will be better.--JNLII (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:ICTIC. If you are the sole creator of the content, you need to decide how you want to distribute your content. After that, you need to simply add, for example, {{PD-self}} (or what ever license you choose) to the image page. Also, when you upload the file, there is a drop down menus box titled "licensing" which allows you to choose your license (and if you choose a license from the drop down menu, it will automatically add the tag to your image when you upload it). Let me repeat that. On the upload page, you have the option to choose the license you want. You must have been leaving it blank every single time you uploaded it, or we have some strange glitch in our software ;) Finally, if you are uploading free images, please consider uploading them directly to Wikimedia Commons as all free images are eventually moved there anyway. If you have further questions, feel free to ask. I'd be glad to try and help you.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I tried it again. I noticed that if I remember that I need to add something and then return to the upload page, my license selection goes back to none selected, so this may be my problem. This time, I made certain to include in the textbox a line that says

and I selected as a license "Own work released to public domain". The file was originally uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, so I reloaded it in the same place. I also added a short description for references, but the textbook citation will have to wait until I get home, where I have the book.--JNLII (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Colossal Cave Adventure Screenshot (Freeware, 1970s)

Some time ago I managed to track down a copy of the source code for Will Crowther's original Colossal Cave Adventure (the 1970s game that coined the magic words XYZZY and the infamous maze of twisty little passages). After some other people compiled that source code and released the exe files, I fired up the exe file in a Windows cmd window, adjusted the font and color scheme for aesthetic purposes, and then uploaded a screenshot. Yet the image has been tagged as non-free content and flagged for removal.

It's a text-only freeware program, there is no box cover art, and a screenshot of the interface is vital to explaining how a command-line parser-driven text game works.

I'm at a loss as to what to do... the software was freeware (so I don't see why it's been tagged as non-free), the screenshot is just text (and I'm not sure what to make of the request to reduce the file size -- if the text is still legible, then a reduced image wouldn't change the percentage of the program's content that's being reproduced, especially since I adjusted the typesize and color scheme on the Windows cmd utility myself, so it's not as if a larger image would reproduce more of the software's content). I could adjust the command line window's settings so that the typesize is really big, take a screenshot at that resolution, and then reduce the image, but that would be... well, that would be stupid. There is no box cover for this version, and even if there were, the box art would not actually show what the program interface is like.

I'm not experienced with Wikipedia templates, but I presume there is some way to keep the copyright-bots at bay, so if someone could add the appropriate templates, I'll be happy to fill out what I can.

Thank you for your time.

File:ADVENT_--_Will_Crowther's_original_version.png

Dennis G. Jerz (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You need to use the proper licence for this image. Try using {{Free screenshot}} that covers free software; you used a copyright software screenshot licence tag. ww2censor (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears the March 11, 1977 version of the FORTRAN source code does not have a copyright notice. The corresponding data file also does not have a copyright notice.[2] Material published or distributed in the U.S. before 1978 required a valid copyright notice or it is the public domain. The File:ADVENT -- Will Crowther's original version.png image is likely a quotation of public domain text.

Screen shots of utilitarian text from command line computer programs, such as a directory listing, do not merit copyright protection.(See File:PC-DOS 1.10 screenshot.png) If the program output from one computer vendor is similar to every other computer vendor of the era, there is no creativity. A book publisher or a movie producer can not claim a copyright for using the term "The End" at the end of a story.

The Wikipedia "Free Software" copyright tags assume the Richard Stallman definition of free software. Screen shots of textual output from computers from the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s can be totally free as in public domain. We need a Free Screen shot license template for public domain software. – SWTPC6800 (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This photo

Resolved

Hi. I need help. User talk:GeoffBarrenger has asked for my help in uploading a photo for the Den Schliker article. Apparently the user and the subject are contacts. I need to know if this photo is acceptable as is (I don't know much about photo stuff on Wikipedia). If that picture isn't good, is there a way to use this picture from his biography page? Its essentially the same picture, but a different size. Would the later picture be okay to use as a "press release"? Please help, I have no clue how to go about this... Thanks! Killiondude (talk) 10:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, assuming the subject is the holder of the copyright of the image (this is not always the case), it is nice that he is willing to release it under the GFDL 1.3 (per [3]). However, the releaser does not seem to understand what he is doing. Releasing the photo under the GFDL is allowing permission for re-use, re-distribution, and modification (as long as such actions are compliant with the terms of the license). To then specify as he does that the image may only be used on wikipedia.org, is a demand contrary to the permissions granted by the license.

In any case, I have emailed the subject, and will follow up here on this page after we have had a discussion. -Seidenstud (talk) 11:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your help in this matter. I really appreciate it. Killiondude (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The author and I have been in touch, and we have straightened out. The photo is at File:Den_Schliker.jpg and while it is still awaiting OTRS approval, I went ahead and added it to the article. -Seidenstud (talk) 07:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ships Nostalgia

I want to upload the image from [4], [5], and [6] but the website said that the image was from [7]. Is the image free? If so, are all of the images in Ships Nostalgia free and what copyright tag should I use? Aquitania (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I doubt they are all free and you would need to ask the uploaders for more details about their origins.Geni 13:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Image:Australiabaseballfederation.jpg

I didn't upload this image, but I'm unsure what the dispute on it being non-free content is. It's a public logo used for the Australian Baseball Federation. Do we need written permission from the ABF? I can try and obtain some, I know a few people - JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 04:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

All you have to do, is make a separate rationale for each article it's used in. It'll be pretty much exactly like the one already there, so just copy it. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Problems with deletions of converted image files

WillT.Net created a bunch of images from gif or png formats to svg. At least some of the these were existing images on WP or Commons that had good fair use information, such as the gif that he replaced with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AHS_Eagles_Logo.svg He made claims that he had created some of these images himself, which were in some cases not true, but probably in good faith (meaning that he had converted them himself). As he replaced the previous fair use images with his, the originals became orphaned and were deleted by bots. Soon after I warned him [8] this would happen, after he put his image back on the American High School (Fremont, California) twice, and after several other editors had also givrn advice, he stopped posting. Now his converted images are being tagged for deletion. This will result in several articles tha had valid fair use logo images no longer having one. For American High School, the original gif is no longer available online and the Commons file is deleted. If there is any way that the editors who work in this arena can clean this up without simply deleting all the images, I think that would be good. If any deleted images with good fair use rationales can be revived or if their rationales can be added to the existing svg image files, perhaps they can be kept.--Hjal (talk) 07:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the case you cited of File:AHS_Eagles_Logo.svg, what is wrong with the fair use rationale there? It uses {{logo fur}}, which is pretty easy to apply to other files. -Seidenstud (talk) 09:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Allen Clarke (educationalist).jpg

A bot has flagged the fair use rationale of the above photo as inadequate. It looks fine to me though. Also how would a bot have the intelligence to know what I write anyway? It's all a bit wierd. Can anyone suggest how to handle this?Bletchley (talk) 09:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• You need to cite the article it will be used on in the rationale Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

  Yeah, you'd said that you were using it in the article Allen Clarke, which is a disambiguation page. In fact you've used it in Allen Clarke (educationalist), so the bot had noticed that the image was linked on a page not mentioned in its fair-use rationale. I've fixed the rationale's link which should solve the problem; so I've removed the deletion tag. ~ mazca ^t|c 13:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Status please

Could you please kindly inform me about the the copyright status for The Modern Home Physician, A New Encyclopedia of Medical Knowledge? This was edited by Robinson, Victor, Ph.C., M.D., published by WM. H. Wise & Company (New York), in 1939. Thanks. Happy 2009! - AnakngAraw (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello there. Anybody there? - AnakngAraw (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It depends on whether the copyright was registered or not. Check out this page which shows many different scenarios for US published books and others. You need to do some work, but neither GoogleBooks not Worldcat gives any indication; while google lists it there is not even a snippet view so most likely is still under copyright but we can't be sure. You could use the book as a source for edits but the text may not be a direct copy. ww2censor (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. - AnakngAraw (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

picture copyright

The picture I used was sent to me by the subject himself--there is no copyright. Is it useable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleobatra (talk • contribs) 18:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are talking about the image File:Dennis.jpg which you then used in the Dennis O'Rear article, you have screwed up things. You uploaded the image with the same name as an existing image causing your image to overwrite the existing image and then be displayed in the other article. I have fixed that and removed your image from the Dennis O'Rear article for now. Just because someone gives you a photo of themselves does not mean they own the copyright but someone does, often the photographer. You need to find out if Dennis O'Rear owns the copyright or someone else and if he owns it, you need to get him to provide Wikipedia with a suitable licence we can use. He may even allow it to be in the public domain but that then means anyone can use it for any purpose. Check out WP:BCI before you proceed to upload it again and make sure to use a unique name for the file as well as providing an acceptable licence. If you mean the File:DJOREAR.jpg image you still need to find out who own the copyright per the above. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Correct copyright tag for recently uploaded images

I am the copyright holder of the game Plateau. These images contain trademarked logos as well. I am fine with the images themselves being used/copied but I don't want to cloud the copyright/trademark of the game.

What copyright notice should I put with the images? Jwplwiki (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If this is a photograph of a board game (which it appears to be) and you are the photographer, you can choose to license the image however you want. Any of the free licenses (GFPL, CC-SA, etc) should be ok. Then you can also tag the image with Template:Trademark to make it clear regarding the logos and other material depicted within the free photograph. I'm not positive on this one, but I'm pretty sure.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of official seal of state and local governments in the US

As yet there seems to be no consitent treatment of how seals of state and local governments in the US are treated. What is the rule? I am specifically concerned with the use of the official seal of the City of Manhattan Beach, California, which is used at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Beach,_California -- I checked and learned that the seal as shown was changed and adopted in 1961. Can it be used here under the fair use doctrine? If so, how should the fair use rationale be completed? Thanks Oconnell usa (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately (for us), there can be no single, consistent rule for the treatment of state and local seals. The reason why is because their copyright status is judged on a case-by-case basis: for some states and locales, works created by government employees are in the public domain by default. However, in most areas copyright applies to government seals just it does for any other creative work. I don't know the status of works produced by the City of Manhattan Beach, CA, so you'd have to check. Alternatively, if it's a non-free image and you want to use it in a manner that is consistent with the non-free content criteria then see WP:FURG for information about how to create the appropriate non-free usage rationale. -- Hux (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Be aware that copyright is not the only issue relating to state seals. The Oregon State Seal, for instance, was produced in the 1850s, and is not eligible for copyright protection in the U.S.; however, there is a separate law governing its use. The seal may not be used (paraphrasing from memory, here) in any way that falsely implies official state endorsement of something. See the linked article for more detail.

In my personal, NON-LEGAL opinion, it's unlikely that any use on Wikipedia (illustrating the article on the state, for example) would violate this law; but YMMV. -Pete (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

University logo removal

Marylhurst University requests removal of its logo at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Marylhurstuni.png

There are many other images that may be used to represent the University. The University wishes to prevent misrepresentation and unapproved use of its logo. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarylhurstWeb (talk • contribs) 02:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I am under the impression, unfortunately, that the use of the logo in this encyclopedia qualifies as fair use, and is therefore allowed under U.S. copyright law without permission from the rights holder. If you feel the article is misrepresenting the University, perhaps you can point out the aspects in which it is doing so, and I (or you) can change the article to better represent the school in an unbiased way. Also, can you give any specific examples of the other images that may be used? Perhaps we can agree on a better alternate image. -Seidenstud (talk) 03:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

While it may be permissable under fair use, it puts our institution needlessly at risk ... and makes our logo available for free use through Creative Commons, which is not the University's intent. There are sites popping up on the Internet selling fake diplomas using institutions' logos; we must be vigilant in protecting the University's name. A better alternate image for Wikipedia use would be a photographic image used in University advertising. I would be happy to provide an alternate image. MarylhurstWeb (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you will protect your University by pulling down images of your logo. If websites are selling fake diplomas, you should be attacking those sites and the people who use them. A logo is something you should be proud of. You should be glad it is being displayed as when people read the article and see the logo in the future, they will think of you. Under your reasoning I should have my institution logo removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathbob (talk • contribs) 22:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Marylhurstuni.png has been marked only with a {{Non-free logo}} tag. It does not make the logo available under Creative Commons or any other free license. And it does not affect anyone’s ability to make a fake diploma. With all due respect, I can’t help suspecting that your posts here are a hoax: For I would expect that a representative of the university would come up with better reasoning than you have shown here and furthermore would have already proposed an alternative image. —teb728 t c 04:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No organization besides Marylhurst University has the power to re-license the logo. While most of the images on Wikipedia are freely-licensed, there is no intent or ability to give the world at large the right to use the image in violation of your copyright. Fair use is not a license.

It occurs to me, though, that it's possible a blog post I published might be the source of your concern. That blog post is unrelated to the (relatively few) images that are used under fair use on Wikipedia. If I'm responsible for this confusion, please accept my apologies.

Also, please be aware that Oregon has a pretty active community of volunteers who would be happy to work with you. You could contact us here, or if you'd like to speak to someone, call me at 503-453-9766. Not that there's anything wrong with posting here, that was a good step; just offering another avenue. -Pete (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Matisse-The-Dessert-Harmony-in-Red-Henri-1908-fast.jpg

Should we tag subject image by {{PD-art-US}}? Later one (File:Matissedance.jpg circa 1909) is already tagged as {{PD-art-US}}.

If not, is it OK to have 1,476 × 1,216 pixels image tagged as fairuse?

Thanks, 4649 01:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Depends on publication date.Geni 01:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

How do we know if it was first published prior to January 1, 1923 or not? 4649 00:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

File:FaceKooLogo.png

This is the logo of the website www.facekoo.com. Should this file be tagged as public domain?--Wcam (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

maybe. Depends if you belive Davidyan74 and if you think they actualy have the right to make the release.Geni 13:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Does he have to do anything to prove it?--Wcam (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please keep this conversation in one place. I'm going to reply at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2009_January_5#File:FaceKooLogo.png.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

uploading a logo

I have tried uploading a logo for a company and it has been removed. This logo was produced internally and is used across all advertising and information. What should I select for the type of copyright? i have permission to use it, but don't understand the different choices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Online Team (talk • contribs) 13:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Brightside logo.gif was deleted because it didn't have proper licensing info, and File:Brightside Group Logo.jpg was deleted because it was not being used. All images that are not free (such as a copyrighted log) must have an accompanying license tag (such as {{Non-free logo}}) and a WP:RAT, a fair use rational. You must explain why the image is used and how it qualifies for fair use (and we have helpful templates that you can fill out such as Template:Non-free use rationale. Finally, the image has to be used in the main article namespace, and nowhere else. Right now there is not Brightside Group article. You have a draft going in a user space User:Online Team/draft, however since the user space is not the main article namespace, non-free images cannot be placed there. A bot removed the image from that draft for this reason (see here). And that made the image unused. Unused, non-free images are basically automatically deleted after 7 days, so that is why the image was deleted. So, in summary, the image needs to be licensed, it needs a fair use rational, and it has to be used in an article in the main namespace (not the userspace or elsewhere). Hope this helps.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Postcard image

This postcard image of the Carson City Mint [9] is said to be in the public domain. I do not know what copyright tag to use for it. --Coingeek (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

1866 is a long time ago. I put a pd-old on it. Might be one more specific than that (first pub prior to 1923 is always PD by US laws), but it should work as is. DreamGuy (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Satellite and aerial photos by state government

I was wondering if orthoimagery from http://www.nysgis.state.ny.us was free-use. There is no cost or restraints on downloading or using images from the site as far as I can find. If images can be used from there I was wondering what the correct templates would be.Camelbinky (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because something is freely available does not mean it is public domain. I could not find anything one way or the other about copyright on the site, and all images are copyrighted by default. (Unless the map is so simple that it does not qualify for copyright, but that would be rare.) A few states release imagery into the public domain, but I don't believe that New York is one of them. So in sum, this image is unusable unless you can find some explicit release saying it is freely reusable. It might be worth emailing the site and asking if they would be willing to release the images under a creative commons license--see WP:COPYREQ for instructions. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

While not the orthoimagery program, I found some information related to this topic here on the GIS Clearinghouse Coordination program. They specifically say that that data is NOT public domain and explain why they think it's better that way. I really don't know enough about these programs of this topic to say whether hit is even relevant or not. But I'll echo Calliopejen1. If we have no explicit reference to the license of those images, we have to assume they are not free. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Zoological Museum of Amserdam pics: only with attribution

Ok, I have an image of the ZMA but they only allow usage with attribution. (like this one) Are we doing that? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This image on the page you linked to, when clicked larger, has a clear copyright symbol on the page. It also has a link to more legal information, which states that data can only be used for educational purposes, non-commercial, etc. All of these things are not compatible with wikipedia's image use policy, so the image cannot be uploade here (unless uploaded as a non-free image with a valid fair use rational). I hope I answered what you were asking.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I asked them, and I was told that we can use the image for wikipedia but only with attribution (U kunt de foto, met bronvermelding, gebruiken voor Wikipedia. -> "You can use the photo with attribution for wikipedia"). That was why I asked as I asked it. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires that photos be freely reusable by anyone, including derivative works and use for profit. Permission for Wikipedia alone is not enough. Please see WP:COPYREQ for sample letters asking for the required permission. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, clear now. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Since this is an extinct bird, it seems highly unlikely that someone could take a picture of it, so there could be a strong claim for fair use of that image. Alternatively, that image looks like a stuffed bird, and it may be part of the museum's collection, so if it is publicly viewable, we could try to find someone who could visit the museum, take a picture of the display, and then upload the image under a free license. Even if the stuffed bird isn't on public display, they may allow someone to come photograph it. Hmm... just some ideas.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

LIBELOUS POSTING NEEDS TO BE REMOVED

i just noticed that one of your editors posted something about me personally that is libelous and untrue and needs to be removed. What steps does one take to remedy this and file a complaint against the editor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FADEINMAG (talk • contribs) 02:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC) {{subst:uw-spa|FADEINMAG}}

nb: I've replied to this at the editor assistance page. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This role account has been blocked. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Permission

Alpha takes a photograph of (Canadian) Beta. Beta dies 2008. The photograph is on the internet. Gamma gets a copy of the photograph from Delta. Gamma uploads it to wikipedia, understanding from Delta that Alpha is cool with this. Alpha doesn't want to upload it himself. Gamma thinks Beta is notable. What is the appropriate image licence and how does Gamma set about proving it? Kittybrewster ☎ 13:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Gamma should read WP:COPYREQ and have Alpha send an email to WP:OTRS licensing the photo under under a free license. —teb728 t c 23:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Additional input needed on a ticket at PUI

A ticket at PUI has been stale for several weeks now and is causing a delay in processing the page on which it is listed. Please contribute to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 December 11#Image:Trans World Airlines N306TW 1997 1.svg if you have feedback to offer so that we might get this one closed. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Calendar Cover

I am in possession of a calendar released by St. Francis Preparatory School with images of the school in the past and a photo of the existing building. I believe these images would help in illustrating the school in its various locations during its history. However, I don't know the proper license under which to upload it or whether or not I can. I cannot find the name of the photographer anywhere on the calendar. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 22:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

We'll have to assume that the images are copyrighted. And since anyone could walk up to the school with a camera, it seems very unlike that there would be a valid fair use rational to explain the use of such non-free images. Perhaps we could find a wikipedian in that area who could go out and take a few shots.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could contact the school (or other publisher of the calendar) to identify the photographer(s). Failing that there seems no way of getting a free license for the photos. So there would be no way of using the photo of the existing building; for as Andrew c said it could be replaced by a free image. If images of the school in the past are essential to understanding the article, we might be able to use them under the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. But WP:NFCC#8 is a pretty high hurdle. —teb728 t c 23:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I live in the area of the existing building so I could do that myself. I don't know why I asked about that part. Thank you for the answers. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 01:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Question about "Bumblebee Mustang.jpg"

Hello,

I recently uploaded a picture of a yellow Roush Mustang (File:Bumblebee Mustang.jpg) and was told to find a the correct license status for the picture. However, I am unsure as to which license to choose for the picture, as I took the picture myself on my camera phone. I would greatly appreciate some help with this. Please contact me on my talk page.

ZackTuren (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to release the image into the public domain then add {{PD-self}}. ww2censor (talk) 05:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate the help.ZackTuren (talk) 05:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Why am I getting an image fair use message from Fairuse Bot for a sound file?

I added a couple of short sample ogg sound files to the articles for Al Hirt and Doc Severinsen. A couple of weeks later I find boilerplate messages on my talk page from Fairusebot specifically referencing use of images. They're not images, they're sound files. When first uploading them, the system even adds a copyright rationale to the file's page, such as here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Doc_chimes_festival.ogg

Any input will be appreciated. Thanks. Docsavage20 (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You need to add a fair-use rationale to the file description page. See WP:FURG. Megapixie (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The bot probably wants adjusting to mention "files" rather than "images", but its point is still valid. All media are subject to the same copyright policies as images. ~ mazca ^t|c 20:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

42 year old photograph from an unknown newspaper

The following photograph was taken from a website with no attribution to it: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRImarcelloTrafficantiRagano1.jpg It comes originally from a 1966 newspaper photograph of unknown origin. The photograph was used as evidence in a trial 36 years ago. A portion of this photograph has already been used in a Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santo_Trafficante,_Jr.) and listed as "public domain." I want to use the entire photograph in a new article. Are there copyright issues? If I can use it, what information do I give for it? Please notify my TALK page of any answer.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrio (talk • contribs) 21:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Dannii Minogue picture

I have been granted permission to use this image from this website, which tag do I need to place on it? I asked this question on the Help desk and I don't feel I got the right answer can somebody please help me out?.--intraining ^{Jack In} 03:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Your second link doesn't work. Nonetheless, do you have written permission? Tan | 39 03:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh that site was working fine a few hours ago (I think we have to wait for the maintenance to be done). I do have written permission.--intraining ^{Jack In} 03:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Email me; I can best explain it there. Tan | 39 03:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

O.K. I will email you as soon as the site is up and working again.--intraining ^{Jack In} 04:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Images from ATOC

Can images be used from ATOC website. The website issues this :-

Conditions of use: You may download and print pictures from the ATOC picture library from this site for media related purposes or for your own personal use only. This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. Where this material is reproduced, published, broadcast or otherwise issued to others the source and copyright status must be acknowledged. For commercial applications there is a reproduction charge. If you are looking for a specific photograph or wish to use photographs for a non media related purpose, please contact the ATOC press office or call us on 020 7841 8020.

Also is there an appropriate image license tag for such photos? Thank you --STTW (talk) 12:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Such terms do not constitute a free license, and therefore such images can only be used here under a claim of fair use. See WP:FUC for more details. -Seidenstud (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks Seidenstud, so I'll better look for an other option. cheers. --STTW (talk) 10:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"Where this material is reproduced, published, broadcast or otherwise issued to others the source and copyright status must be acknowledged. For commercial applications there is a reproduction charge." Does Wikipedia count as a commercial application? Surely it's not making any money. I would interpret that as saying there is no charge provided that we acknowledge the source and copyright status, which sounds pretty close to a Creative Commons attribution licence to me. Of course, I'm no expert.  :-p You could always contact them to ask for permission under such a licence, in any case. leevclarke (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No, this is definitely not ok here. Wikipedia requires that images be available for reuse of any kind, including commercial reuse. (Limited exceptions are provided for in WP:NONFREE.) You might want to request permission for free commercial use, though it's unlikely they'll grant it. See WP:COPYREQ for more information. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Pictures of product packaging

If I recall correctly, it's prohibited to upload/use pictures of product packaging. Does anyone know where this is stated in our policies or guidelines? Tan | 39 21:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the answer, but I see images like File:Sierra mist orange lemon.jpg a lot, with free licenses (often tagged with the trademark tag as well). I'd be curious to know the answer to this as well, because it seems like freely licensed product packaging images are ubiquitous. -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

jessica

i want to start my own radio station for my area i want to kn what and how i start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.7.69.11 (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This page is for media copyright questions only. ww2censor (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Using Text from Wikipedia on other website

I am building a website and am wondering exactly what I need to do to use the text from Wikipedia on my website and stay within the copyright guidelines.

Thanks, IkeL —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilhoskins (talk • contribs) 00:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You might want to check the FAQs, see here.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

See also WP:REUSE. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Image size

Hi. WP:ALBUM indicates that album covers should not be larger than 300px to meet WP:NFC. Is this based on a hard and firm rule, or just a rule of thumb? If an editor were, say, replacing smaller images with larger (File:Lil'Kim-LaBellaMafia.jpg and File:LaBellaMafiaclean.jpg) how would this be handled? Ordinarily, I'd tag it {{nfr}}, but that's an odd tag to use when the image is already on wiki at a good size. Wanted to check and see if WP:ALBUM knows what it's talking about, particularly since I've already addressed one of this contributor's articles as WP:CSD#G4, and I don't want to seem bitey. Frankly, if WP:ALBUM is right, I'm still not quite sure how I'll raise the point. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a 100% hard and fast rule but we not use bigger non-free images that what is strictly nessesary to get whatever information the image is supposed to convey across in the article. In this case I'd say put the smaller image will do just fine, so just put the original image that actualy have a rationale back and tag the redundant one with {{subst:orfud}}. --Sherool (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Or would do, but you did already. :D Doubly thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Image submitted to the Wikipedia entry regarding William Fetter

The image I submitted was given to me personally by William Fetter. I have enhanced its contrast and filtered it for clarity in its .jpg form. As far as I know, there is no copyright on the image. It may be the first example of computer drawn three dimensional objects.

Steve Ellis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen.R.Ellis (talk • contribs) 21:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

A work with any kind of creativity is automatically copyrighted simply by being created. From the fact that he gave the image to you, I would say that you could reasonably infer only a right to use it personally not a right to publish it on Wikipedia. His heirs or the original publisher probably own the copyright. —teb728 t c 08:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Image Use

[10]

[11]

Can this image be used? If it can, what would the license be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinosrawr (talk • contribs) 08:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I couldn't figure out for sure if it's public domain or not. Your best bet is to find out who the photographer was and the date it was taken. The other possibility is to use it under fair use, which would probably stand since he is no longer alive, but may still get deleted. For that you would use {{Non-free fair use in|Article}} and a Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinosrawr (talk • contribs) 15:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Image: A Side Productions company logo.jpg

Hi, I just uploaded the logo Image:A Side Productions company logo.jpg to A Side Productions. I would appreciate if someone could have a quick look at it and tell me if there is information missing, and if so, which? And where do I find this information? Thank you, Dafos (talk) 11:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I added the file's original source location and changed the licence from {{Non-free logo}} to {{Non-free commercial logo}}. ww2censor (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Picture of the Health Museum

Hello, I have some picture of The Health Museum I would like to add to their wikipedia page. The last time I added them, they were deleted. What do I need to do I get them accepted? They're part of the press kit from the museum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thm wiki (talk • contribs) 22:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears, based on your username, that you are affiliated with The Health Museum. (FYI usernames that imply affiliation with a company are discouraged; since it's a somewhat cryptic acronymn, though, I don't think it's so bad you'll be blocked and forced to choose a new name.) For photos to be included in Wikipedia (with few exceptions), they must be available under a free license. This means that they must be available for anyone to use for any purpose (including commercial use and derivative works). A list of suitable licenses is available at WP:ICTIC. Since these are press kit images, we would need confirmation from an official email address that this is authorized by the museum. See WP:COPYREQ for instructions on this. I would advise choosing a license, uploading the images, placing the chosen license tag on the image pages (e.g. {{cc-by-sa}}, see instructions at the top of the page if you need help), sending the permission email, and tagging the images {{OTRS pending}} which indicates that permission has been sent. (If this tag remains on the image for a long time without someone who staffs Wikipedia confirming the permission, the image will be deleted.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance, I'm just trying to help out. =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thm wiki (talk • contribs) 22:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)