Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Waukegan (talk | contribs) at 01:07, 29 August 2007 (→Actor photos). 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)


    Is the use of fan art permissible? What tags should one use?

    At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth#Non-free_use I followed up on an old suggestion of using fan art to replace inherently replacable art by professional artists such as John Howe or Ted Nasmith. Is this permitted under fair use? Apparently not for Commons. Uthanc 05:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In most Commons deletion discussions, fan art is considered a derivative work and, as such, not free. See, notably, Commons:Deletion requests/Harry Potter Fan art. Considering (1) everything on Wikimedia Commons is deemed "free" (with few exceptions), and (2) most things not accepted on Commons are not free, I think that we should consider these images as not free. (Note that the "free"-ness of an image is a bit more complicated, and the fact that an image is not free on Commons does not necessarily mean that an image is not free on the English-language Wikipedia. Certain copyright laws complicate things. But I don't think that we should consider derivative works differently than Commons considers them.) They would be tagged with {{Non-free fair use in}} and, in my opinion, should have a non-boilerplate non-free use rationale (since the use of fan art doesn't seem commonplace, nor the case for fair use obvious). --Iamunknown 05:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks... Now I forgot to mention the possibly of GFDL images. Now one professional artist, Tom Loback (flickr account, artworks), has already released his own Middle-earth art under the GFDL, [1] and another, Catherine Karina Chmiel, has allowed one work to be uploaded under the same. Are these examples of art (by professionals) fine if they're licensed under the GFDL? If they are, then we might use the GFDL for any more images instead of appealing to fair use. Uthanc 09:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that the artists probably shouldn't be releasing their work under the GFDL, because their work is (to varying degrees) derivative from Tolkien's works. The artists can licence their creative contribution, but they can't licence the creative contribution that derives from Tolkien's works. They would probably need to devise some sort of "derivative work" fair-use license, making clear, in the case of book-derived art, that their work is based on work that the Tolkien Estate hold the copyright to, or in cases of art deriving from (say) the New Line 'The Lord of the Rings' films, to say that Tolkien Enterprises holds the copyright to. They could say that they release their creative input, but there would still need to be a "derivative of a copyright work" tag on the pics, and thus the pics would not be free. Carcharoth 11:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is incorrect. When fan art is based on work in a visual medium then yes, it's clearly derivative. But when it's related to a literary work, there are no source images to base fan art on, and the images must arise entirely from the mind of the artist. The text of Tolkien's work is copyrighted, but the ideas expressed, even if they're original with JRRT, cannot be. Tolkien Enterprises therefore has no claim to any fan art merely for illustrating a scene from one of JRRT's books. They use none of the copyrighted (or copyrightable) material. It's perfectly valid to license that art under the GFDL or whatever license the artist wants.
    Possible trademark issues are another matter entirely, but that has nothing to do with copyright. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant only to repost a generalized version of my comments here over at Commons talk:Fan art, but ended up writing an essay instead. I really think this is misguided policy based on an overly-broad application of the definition of a derivative work. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Go for it, and keep us up-to-date on what happens. If Commons fails to agree, maybe Wikipedia will? Carcharoth 01:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Complex Image

    Here's a good one that probably deserves more attention than it would get at WP:PUI. It would also make a good Copyright Law final exam question.

    Two images:

    The first image was apparently compiled from two films, with some derivative authorship as well. The film on the left was made by the US Army, as shown here. So we're most likely public domain there, to the extent the content is original to that film.

    The film on the right is purportedly a 1928 USSR film. Most of the shots taken from the US film were edited from the USSR film, so there's a derivative issue there as well, plus the PD may not be PD, depending on the USSR film's copyright status, which I need help determining.

    Finally, somebody compiled the image, and there's definitely some creativity there. I've just asked the uploader for the identity of the compiler. (As an aside, this is a rather ambitious upload for a user with a total of only 4 edits.) It is possible that the image was compiled from an exposé found on Youtube, so there may even be another layer of derivativity.

    The second image was apparently compiled from the first. The uploader says he got the image from the uploader of the first image.

    Thoughts? -- But|seriously|folks  15:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Reeks of original research. We need a reliable source to do such compiling of montages. Carcharoth 15:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am the editor who had tagged Image:The Buttle of the China2.jpg for speedy deletion, and I also just tagged Image:Trimedfilm battleofchina.jpg for speedy deletion. From what I understand, both of these images are derivative works, which means that while we know that some of the screen captures that were used in those images are in the public domain, these images could have been created only recently and somebody may hold the copyright for them. Correct me if I'm wrong. The summaries for both images only provide copyright status and source for the film The Battle of China, the screen captures of which were used to make both images (and only half of both images consist of screen captures from that film). No copyright status or source were provided pertaining to the images themselves. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rabota claims to be the author of the Youtube exposé, that he extracted Image:Trimedfilm battleofchina.jpg from his film and that he has released the image into the PD. If so, that would eliminate the derivative copyright issue, but I still don't know the copyright status of the USSR film. Whether or not the copyright issues can be resolved, I'm now thinking the best course would be to list at IfD based on the WP:OR concern expressed by Carcharoth. -- But|seriously|folks  17:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Would be reasonable as fair use (but doesn't appear to be being used anywhere) since I assume the intent is to comment on the images themselves. Neither image should be being used in the user_talk space. Megapixie 13:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Close up of 2002 historical site marker

    The copyrighted text on this sign can be clearly read. Do we have an exception that would cover something like this? Should we? -- But|seriously|folks  17:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I guess we don't. The US really needs a much more liberal freedom of panorama law... In any case, there shouldn't be a reason for us to display the full text of the sign, since it doesn't add any understanding. The picture can be reshot from further away just to show that a historical marker exists, and the text can be paraphrased and cited to the "Ohio Historical Society" or whoever wrote it. nadav (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC) It would also be more useful to have an image of the Tanks Memorial Stadium itself, no? nadav (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The US equivalent of panorama law is to say that the copying is incidental, insignificant, or de minimis. Courts and experts are inconsistent with their terminology and classification but the effect is the same. Sometimes they say it's not even considered infringement territory; other times they say that it's a special kind of fair use that doesn't require traditional four-factor balancing analysis. As with everything in copyright the boundaries are not clearly defined.
    However, whatever the limits are, this sign is clearly copying the text. The photo wasn't taken to show what the sign looks like, it was taken to copy the text on the sign. From a copyright perspective I would say it's the exact same as transcribing the words...plus the flower design.
    The photographer has a copyright he/she can give to GDFL. However, it is a derivative work so the underlying copyright to the text can't be granted. I doubt it would pass non-free use because it's more detail than needed to illustrate the existence of the marker or most any other purpose I can imagine.Wikidemo 20:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    What about this close up photograph of a marker in England: image here Snowman 20:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    According to the commons page commons:Freedom of panorama#United_Kingdom, even in the UK freedom of panorama does not apply to signs. So I don't think it's ok. nadav (talk) 06:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What about the blue plaque pics? I've taken a few of those. I'd like to see them stay, if possible. The way I read the link you gave me, it says that the law doesn't apply to 2D stuff because they are not creative. ie. copyright doesn't apply, so no freedom of panorama needs to be invoked. Of course, if the text is copyrighted, that is a different matter. But in the case of heritage plaques, I doubt the text is copyrighted. In the case of museum description signs, yes, the text will be copyrighted. Carcharoth 00:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Problem with this image

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bb2k8-145x200.jpg 

    I am having a problem here. A admin wont let me change it to creative commons. Someone from the sports mogul

    forums changed it to the creative commons license. He is very reliable on the forums. http://www.sportsmogul.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=&postcount=4. Clay Dreslough the creator of the game said this in the post "You have our permission to post Mogul-related artwork on the internet. This the box cover, screen shots, etc., and applies to Wikipedia, discussion forums, blogs, game reviews, etc.--Gustyfalcon 23:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yamla is correct in his analysis. Free content can be modified or sold. Dreslough didn't give permission for either of those things. 17Drew 23:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Problem with Rare FM image

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rare-fm-logo.png

    A bot has just notified me that I have not provided a fair-use rationale - I think I have...Please could someone check this out and advise me as to how to correct it if needs be... Wolf of Fenric 01:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The rationale should work. By the way, I suggest the image size be decreased a but. nadav (talk) 06:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I recently uploaded an image, Image:Cotterpindoozer.jpg, for use in the Fraggle Rock article. I found it at muppet.wikia.com, the Muppet Wiki site. I'm not sure what copyright info I should indicate for the image. Please advise...thank you! --Procrastinatrix 15:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The tag is probably correct to judge from the quality, although the source website doesn't say. The only other thing you need to do is add rationale showing how its use conforms to our non-free image policy, and name the copyright owner. (Probably The Jim Henson Company.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Image:Walcoutniansbadge.jpg

    Hi,

    My names Ben Carrell and i have just made a new wikipedia article called "Afc Walcountians"

    I have uploaded an image and some text but it says it is a copyright infringement from www.afcwalcountians.co.uk

    Seeing as i own www.afcwalcountians.co.uk and have created everything on there can the notices about sopyright infringement go away

    Many thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Supercazzer (talk • contribs) 15:50, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

    With regard to the image it doesn't say copyright infringement; it says you didn't provide any copyright information. You need to do that. If you created the image, you need to say so and release it under an appropriate free licence, then tag it accordingly so we know.
    But unless you yourself created the team badge (and it's not substantially an historical coat of arms and not subject to copyright) you don't own that even if you made this particular drawing yourself. In that case it needs to conform to our non-free image policy.
    The second note on your talk page that implies infringement wasn't about the image, but about the article. It was placed automatically by a bot designed to detect verbatim copying of text from the web. This is generally a copyright infringement. We cannot in any event have text here that's copyright "All rights reserved" as noted at the website, so we have to remove the text whether you actually own it or not. As it says at the bottom of every window, you must agree to license your contributions under the GFDL. You can fix this by replacing "All rights reserved" with a notice of a GFDL license. You still own the copyright, but this allows the text to be used in a way that Wikipedia needs. You can then safely delete the notice, and would be perfectly justified in replacing the text any time someone deletes it on copyright grounds. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Question on wrong page

    67.128.206.152 18:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Furniture Manufactoring in Portland, oregon.  ?? for a Morgan Atchley Furniture Company. Trying to find out about the craftsmen that worked in this furniture company.[reply]

    We don't deal with such questions here. Try the reference desk. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    physics

    what are the measuring techniqesin temperature –—– —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.226.242.50 (talk) 18:40, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

    We don't deal with such questions here. Try the reference desk. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Image:Jamaica Pond 1924.jpg

    The above image is on the page Jamaica Pond, Massachusetts. The map is dated 1924. I deleted it from the page, and someone else put it back up. Is there an easy way to deal with this without getting into an edit war? MarkinBoston 19:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Good catch. If you run across similar copyright violations, please list them at WP:IFD. This image is now listed for deletion. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Problem with a picture I've posted (Richie Sambora article) Richie_sambora_o2.jpg

    Hello,

    I've posted a new picture for the Richie Sambora article a few weeks ago;

    Image:Richie_sambora_o2.jpg

    It was photographed by a friend of mine, who gave me FULL PERMISSION to use it in anyway I want to. I uploaded the picture and a few weeks later it got deleted by someone (I'd usually think it was the Wikipedia administrators, but it seems this particular person doesn't even have an account and edits other musical articles similar to this one). I tried to fix it a few times, but it got deleted again and again, time after time, and the picture you see now (Dublin 2006) is the old one.

    At first I thought it was a copyright issue, so I finally renamed the pic, uploaded it on Wikimedia Commons and put it on the article again, with all copyright tags as they should be (like on other articles), but it was deleted again, a few hours ago!

    The picture I'm trying to upload is much newer, much better quality, and represents the artist in a better way and I don't think anyone should get angry about me trying to improve the article and start erasing my work.

    Can you please help me and straighten things out? I may seem to be missing the problem here.

    I'm not very experienced with editing on Wikipedia, sorry.

    Thank you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr. Bluesman (talk • contribs) 23:24, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

    Perhaps the image was tagged for deletion by an anonymous user, but he should have done you the courtesy of posting a note to your user talk page saying what he thought the problem was. Typically, we give uploaders a certain amount of time to fix problems where an improper tag has been placed or where the licensing is unclear.
    From the currently uploaded version, I can spot several problems. First, you give the source as "associate". We actually need the name of the copyright holder; his "web name" is not meaningful for this purpose. (A Wikipedia user name is another matter; we can associate that with a specific person. We can't do that in this case.) If he doesn't want his real name out in public like that, he can send an email to the appropriate folks in the front office so we know permission actually exists. It would be helpful if he would use the template so the permission given in unambiguous. The specific license he's allowing (GFDL, Creative Commons Attribution Share-alike, whatever) must be inserted into the template in the appropriate place. (It may not be "Wikipedia only", any license that restricts commercial use, or "for educational purposes" and so on. That will result in it getting deleted. We need a free license.) He actually needs to send that email anyway, since he made the photo and is therefore owns the copyright to it. We need some record from the owner that he has in fact granted the license in the tag.
    The second problem is that you name yourself as the copyright owner. This is incorrect. By international law, the person who took the picture owns it. So you should not use {{GFDL-self}}. Tag it with {{GFDL}} instead. The discrepancy between the tag and the source information may account for the earlier deletions.
    The third problem is that it's redundant. Image:Richie main plz.jpg which you uploaded on July 30 is identical. (Otherwise it has the same tagging problems as the Commons version.) You can get rid of the Wikipedia copy by tagging it {{db-author}}. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Confused about image 'copyright tag' stuff. Anybody to help out?

    Image:Niharika_Acharya.jpg

    http://www.voanews.com/english/About/talent-gallery.cfm

    If you visit voanews.com, copyright holder i.e voa just want to give credit to Voice of America while using photo. Hence this photo is legal.

    My mobile put restriction and I could not read whole sentence while uploading. I could read only, 'copywriter holder has given'. I used opera browser 8.65 s60 2.x version. You can confirm how text desplay in browser window on nokia 6600.

    VoA has NOT given permission only for wikipedia use. But VoA has given permission for photo use provided that photo credit is given to voice of america.

    This image does not meet wikipedia deletion criteria. It is legal and I have given source link for confirmation.

    I don't understand how to put tag with this image. Will somebody help me out?

    I am new user and uploaded picture on wiki for first time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abhishka (talk • contribs) 03:23, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

    Might I suggest you use a computer next time? Much of this is self-explanatory if you can read all the text.
    Since the photo is from Voice of America it's public domain, as are all media created by the US Government. The correct tag is {{PD-USGov-VOA}}. Given that, there's no reason to use the low resolution thumbnail, so I replaced it with the high-res version. There was no need for your elaborate justification; all we really need in cases like this is the source and the right tag.
    The Summary section is supposed to contain a description of what the image is showing us, so I removed what you had there and added a brief caption. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Functional Specification document effort estimation

    How do we estimate the effort for preparing the functional specifications document based on the requirements ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robinrk (talk • contribs) 03:34, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

    This page is for questions related to copyright of media hosted on Wikipedia's servers. Try posting your question on the appropriate Reference desk board. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    i'm totally LOST on this copyright tag bit. i added CAJJMEREPRESS.jpg to Cajjmere Wray's profile and don't know what to do. I'm super new to wikipedia so if you can tell me what to copy and paste into there that would be great. thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 7pm (talk • contribs) 03:38, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

    Basically, we need to know where you got the image, who owns it, and how we are able to legally use it here. If you can let me know that, I can give you a bit more help.
    If you didn't take this photo yourself and whoever owns it hasn't released it under a free license, then we cannot use it. This is a photo of a living person, which absent extraordinary circumstances we consider to be replaceable free media. Wikipedia's policy on this subject is designed to encourage the creation of free media, which is one of this project's main goals. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I notice you uploaded a couple of different images right over each other. If one of them is free (or yours, and you're willing to license it as Wikipedia wants you to) and the other one isn't, then we should use the free one and not the other. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Free Image

    If an image from an official website has been released under a free liscence, how should it be tagged? Jcpizzadude 13:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Exactly according to the license granted. If you link to the image you have in mind, I can help you pick a specific tag. It is also essential that you link to the page containing the grant of license if it is not the same as the page on which the image is found (which you should already be linking to.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've noticed several nonprofit organizations similar to my own listed on wikipedia and because people often google us or ask about who we are, I thought it would be good to add info about us to wikipedia. I copied some text about our mission and what kind of things we do from our own website. But the page was deleted because of self promotion and copyright infringement. I'm a little confused as to how what I did was different from other organizations and am interested in if/how I should note that it's not copyright infringement (we own the copyright) and that I'm just describing who we are and not simply promoting us. Thanks for any help! --IREXDC

    These days we have an automated process (a "bot") that looks at new articles and then searches the web for the text so as to detect copyright violations. In this case it found a match. Even if you wrote the text originally, as as a non-employee of the organization, so they themselves have no claim to the copyright, if the text is noted at the source as "All rights reserved" or something similar, we can't use it here. Any text included in Wikipedia must be licensed under the GFDL.
    Chances are the organization is the owner of the text on its own website, and that this therefore was a copyright violation. You need to write your own text.
    The self-promotion aspect comes into it when you're affiliated with an organization, write an article about it, but cite no external sources. Our notability guidelines aren't policy, but people are most inclined to delete an article on notability grounds under these conditions. If you want the article to be kept, cite a source other than the organization itself. (Stories appearing in newspapers and so on establish notability nicely.)
    As I don't know what other NPOs you have in mind, I can't tell you what they did differently. It may just be that the bot hasn't located them yet, or they do cite external sources, or many in the community recognize them as notable even without such citations, or the source text was already freely licensed. It could be almost anything. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Question

    Can I get help getting a license for my uploaded picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BCxEagles (talk • contribs) 03:59, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

    The image is copyrighted and does not appear to meet the criteria for using copyrighted media on Wikipedia. 17Drew 04:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleting an image

    How can I remove or delete an uploaded image? --Pittmajc 05:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)pittmajc[reply]

    Tag it with {{db-author}}. I found in your contributions an image that you seemed to be trying to delete and have deleted it. If you would like any of the other ones you uploaded deleted, just use {{db-author}}. --B 05:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Deprecated tag on Image:Tom benton.jpg

    Above mentioned image is tagged as {{PD}}, with a note that says:

    Per discussion of the collection's rights [2]: "Upon review of the relevant materials, the Library continues to believe that the photographs are in the public domain."

    However, on that page there is also this:

    However, patrons are advised that Mr. Kellner has expressed his concern that use of Van Vechten's photographs "preserve the integrity" of his work, i.e, that photographs not be colorized or cropped, and that proper credit is given to the photographer.

    which is not consistent with public domain status. Is there some other tag that would be more appropriate? --Branislav Jovanovic 05:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably just PD-US. If the copyright has expired, then the descendants can complain, but it doesn't matter. --B 05:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be moved to the Commons, where they have the {{PD-Van Vechten}} template to specifically deal with the LoC images by this photographer. 17Drew 06:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thanks - I moved it to Commons now, as per 17Drew's arguments. --Branislav Jovanovic 17:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    How to properly add the copyright to an image?...I mainly uploaded logos, mostly created by me...I couldn't find the correct tag or let's say the wikipedia help pages are not clear enough.

    Here is an example: Image:ESHS_b.gif

    BYF079: "Faïcel Ben Yedder" 07:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This image is a logo, so the copyright holder is still the organization that created it. Most likely it is non-free content and the tags could be found here. The use of images like this in articles is controlled by the non-free content criteria so please read this and if you have any questions let us know. Thanks :) - cohesion 15:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Suicide letter

    Would a screenshot of a suicide letter taken from a television broadcast be eligible for copyright? I know the fact that it's from a broadcast doesn't make a difference on its copyright status, but I'm not sure if the text and handwriting would be considered a creative work. If the text would be copyrighted, would a screenshot of the end of the letter saying "I'm sorry Good-bye" be {{PD-ineligible}}? 17Drew 07:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, the image may be copyrighted as usual. The creative work would be the photography, angle, lighting etc. The text can also be separately copyrighted. Maybe the handwriting itself wouldn't be sufficiently creative, but the content of the letter would probably be. I wouldn't think any part of that would be PD-ineligible though. If the text was in PD, and the photography was non-creative it might be PD, but not PD-ineligible. - cohesion 15:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was under the impression that pictures of two-dimensional works were considered Wikipedia:Public domain#Non-creative works. 17Drew 20:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. decision may be applicable if the letter was photographed straight on for the sole purpose of accurately reproducing the letter. Anyway, the suicide letter itself is probably copyrighted if it's longer than a few words. nadav (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm, that's true. The phrase "I'm sorry Good-bye" is too short to be eligible for copyright though, right? So a shot of the end of the letter with just that part wouldn't be enough to be qualify for copyright? 17Drew 20:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The Bridgeman Art Library decision relates to photographs of 2D images in which the photographed subject is already public domain. For example, If I take a photograph of a painting that is 200 years old, the photograph is not copyrightable by myself because there was no creative input by me. This is not a way to de-copyright something. For example, if an artist painted something last week and I take a photo it is not PD-ineligible. The subject of the photograph is important. Also this only applies to photographs of 2D artwork that have no creative component. An photograph of a scene including, for example, an art historian looking over an old PD painting could be copyrighted, because there is creative work, the lighting, the angle etc. Does that make sense? - cohesion 16:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Scanned, typed list

    I'm working on a potential Board of Trustees of Dartmouth College article. I obtained at a Dartmouth library a photocopy of a typewriter-written list of all the past trustees, their graduation years from the College (when applicable) and their years served as a trustee. I want to upload it to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons as a resource, but I'm totally in the dark on copyright status. It isn't attributed to anyone, it's literally just a list of names and years. I figure that since it is purely factual information, there can't be a copyright claim because it contains no originality, but (1) that still leaves me in the dark on what to put for a licensing tag and (2) I wanted to check here first. Please advise. Thanks! Dylan 07:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The licensing tag for something ineligible for copyright would be {{PD-ineligible}}. It sounds like a list of purely factual information like that would not be eligible for copyright (see Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service). 17Drew 08:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Image:BFRS cover.jpg

    I uploaded Image:BFRS cover.jpg recently, I posted a Source & a Licensing. Is it ok to take off the no fair use rationale tag? What more do I need? -- King Pika 08:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Image:2007-CGS-Fact-Sheet-AUG-07-SMALL.pdf

    Dear Wikipedia, After uploading to Wikipedia an image and text on the Centre for Groundawter Studies, where I am the Business Manager, the following message appears.

    Image copyright problem with Image:2007-CGS-Fact-Sheet-AUG-07-SMALL.pdf Image Copyright problem. Thank you for uploading Image:2007-CGS-Fact-Sheet-AUG-07-SMALL.pdf. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 11:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

    Can you please advise how I solve it to ensure the file and image are not deleted. KInd Regards, Trevor Pillar - (email removed) -- Pill0031 (talk · contribs · logs) 12:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Trevor. Basically, you need to contact the copyright holder of that document, get permission, then follow the procedures at When permission is confirmed. However, even if that document is kept on Wikipedia, it is likely that the links you are providing in articles to that document will get deleted. A better way to go about this is to add information to the articles based on that document and footnote those article additions. In the footnote, you can link to the document as hosted by Centre for Groundawter Studies. This is a much better way to get Wikipedia secondary publicity for Centre for Groundawter Studies than the approach you are taking. -- Jreferee (Talk) 00:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Pub photos from phone

    Hello, Image:Redender.jpg is just a photo from my phone in the pub... i dont know what to do to add a copyright to it... Jonathan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrmedia (talk • contribs) 14:16, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

    Sorry, but I'm actually finding that rather hard to believe. That image is certainly not taken directly from a camera phone, and I doubt most pubs actually have such professional-quality lighting and backdrops. If you really did take that photo, show me the original, unedited image from your phone and I just might believe you. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have the permission of the subject of the photo Image:TomV.jpg (who has told me he bought the rights to it) and the photographer to use this image on my website and to publicise the subject on the net (not just Wiki) but all of the options I pick (as I don't actually own the rights myself) say that the photo will be deleted after 7 days.

    What do I do ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TVFans (talk • contribs)

    Unless you can convince the copyright owner to release the image under a suitable free license, it's probably not eligible for inclusion. --Clubjuggle 17:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You should follow the instructions at this page to establish permission, once you have it. -- But|seriously|folks  17:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Heeelp!

    I was recently sent a couple of really nice images of the Algonquin Radio Observatory by someone at Natural Resources Canada. He scraped up a few images taken by some co-workers (actually I believe he's their boss) and sent them along... one is really great.

    He's perfectly happy with them being used on the wiki, but as they were taken by people working for the Crown, does that automatically imply Crown Copyright? Or does that only cover images taken as part of official duties? CC in Canada has a non-commercial clause. Is Fair Use the simplest solution here?

    In any case, any advice on how to proceed?

    Maury 19:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Crown copyright applies to anything "prepared or published by or under the direction or control of Her Majesty or any government department." I assume that if they took pictures of the Observatory in their own time and for their own purposes, then it wouldn't qualify as being under the "direction or control" of the government. So that would mean the copyright still belongs to the people who took the picture and you'd have to ask them to freely license the pictures (via directions at WP:COPYREQ). If, however, the images were created in an official capacity, then Canada's Crown copyright applies. This kind of copyright protection is probably not free enough for Wikipedia (it may forbid commercial use, for one).
    As for the possibility of using the images via fair use: this won't work, since the images probably violate WP:NFCC#1 (free images could be created in their stead) nadav (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for clarity's sake: Canada's Crown Copyright is not only not free enough for Wikipedia, it's not free at all. The Crown possesses the same rights as any other copyright holder for a period of 50 years after publication. It's true that Crown Copyright material is very often licensed, but even where this is true it is, as you say, non-commerical. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also worth noting that if these individuals did create the images on their own time, then the individuals who photographed them own the copyrights -- and you would need their permission to release the images under a free license. While the person who sent you the images may be ok with you doing so, he actually has no authority to make that decision, since he's (apparently) not the copyright owner.See WP:COPYREQ for information on gaining permission to redistribute. --Clubjuggle 20:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well the problem is that we may not be able to track down the original photographers. I'll ask though. The free-use question is sort of round-about; the person in question is absolutely happy with us using the images for any purpose, but he's afraid that if anyone asks anything officially, all beurocratic hell will break loose. Is there nothing that can cover this case? Or perhaps someone could suggest a license that he might be able to approve? Maury 21:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think there's anything that can be done. The person who who handed you the pictures has no say authority in this regard, as far as I can tell. The only way these images can be used is if the copyright holders (i.e. the photographers) agree to permit use under free licenses. nadav (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I recently uploaded an image to Wikipedia, but am unsure of the copyright information. It is a picture of a living person, as taken by a fan. -- Acne Wash (talk · contribs · logs) 20:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The fan who took the photograph owns the copyright. --Clubjuggle 21:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Acne. Basically, you need to contact that fan, get permission, then follow the procedures at When permission is confirmed. -- Jreferee (Talk) 00:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I deleted the image because it has a "Wikipedia only" license tag. Did you choose "The copyright holder gave me permission to use this work only in Wikipedia articles (no other terms specified)" option from the drop down list? If so, it will automatically be flagged for speedy deletion. The creator of the image needs to release the image under a suitable license like "Creative commons sharealike attribution license". Let me know if you need a hand. Papa November 22:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's fine, but he must choose which rights he wants to release as there's no "usual license" for Wikipedia images. Unless he specifically states which rights he is releasing, he reserves full rights on the images. Unfortunately, it's not enough for him to just say he is happy for the image to appear on Wikipedia. This is because ideally all images on the site should be free for anyone to use (not just for them to appear here). If he is happy to release the images under a free license, I think it would be enough for him to write on the his user page: "I, the creator of the images <enter image names here>, release them under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license and give User:Anthony Appleyard permission to upload them on my behalf". You would then need to place {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} on each image page, and provide a link to his statement. I'd appreciate other editors' view on this though. Alternatively, you can request his permission by email. It would be a lot easier if he uploaded them himself though. I'll happily guide him through the upload if you are able to change his mind. Thanks Papa November 22:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Anthony. Basically, when the photo owner gives you images to upload, you need to follow the procedures at When permission is confirmed. -- Jreferee (Talk) 00:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Elected Public Officials

    I don't know if this topic has been covered yet. I just uploaded two images, the "official state photos" of Florida Governor Charlie Christ Image:FL-Gov_crist.jpg and Lt. Gov. Jeff Kottcamp Image:FL-ltgov_kottkamp.jpg. I cited "fair use" of the image of an elected government official; and obviously the release of "official photos" indicates that the State of Florida WANTS people to use the photos. Available for download from a State of Florida website: http://www.flgov.com/downloads The creative commons license does not seem to cover this. Any opinions? Gamweb 04:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, this has been covered. Unfortunately these are non-free images just like any other non-free images. The State of Florida reserves all rights to materials downloaded from its website, and states that "For purposes of this Agreement, the use of any such [downloaded] material on any other Web site or networked computer environment is prohibited."[3] Non-free images of living people are not allowed on Wikipedia by WP:NFCC#1, since someone could take new, free photos instead. nadav (talk) 04:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    License tagging for Images

    I uploaded an image but forgot to include the "GNU Free Documentation License" in it and now I don't know how to add it. The image is Image:Projects 85- Dan Perjovschi.JPG.

    Thanks for the help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Breakyunit (talk • contribs) 05:26, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

    I'm sorry, but I don't think this can be considered a free image. It's a photo of an artistic work by Dan Perjovschi, so he (partially) owns the copyright. You may be able to use the photo in the article about him in accordance with WP:NONFREE. Make sure to include a detailed fair use rationale on the image description page. (Just click on the "edit this page" tab at the top of the image page to change any details/licensing) nadav (talk) 05:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    multimedia tecnology and application

    why is copyright law so problematic for multimedia technology and application —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.231.2 (talk) 07:50, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

    It isn't. Pretty trivial compared to say tax laws.Geni 14:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Tax law is much more deterministic and rule-based. Thousands of pages of code, regulations, and commentary to every possible circumstance. Copyright law has only a few pages of code; you get into the thicket and emerge from there to the reat unknown rather quickly. Wikidemo 02:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Mostly because people wish it wasn't there, so they try to twist it to make it not apply. But it does. If you just leave it alone and let it mean exactly what it says, it's fairly straightforward. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Image:Crustacean barnstar.png

    I have recently uploaded Image:Crustacean barnstar.png, created from two images, Image:Barnstar.png and Image:Crab-icon.png, both not covered by copyright. What copyright tag should I use for it? It would not likely be considered (entirely) my own work... Many thanks. --Crustaceanguy 13:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Up to you I would probably go for {{PD-user}}.Geni 14:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your two source images are in the public domain and therefore are not protected by copyright. Your compilation of them is protected by copyright. I would personally use {{pd-self}} in this case, but you can also use and of the ones listed at WP:ICT#For image creators.. --Clubjuggle 15:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    increased hurricane intensity

    how hurricane affects human society —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.171.90.25 (talk) 19:33, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

    This page is for questions related to copyright on media uploaded to Wikipedia. The place to get this question answered is as the reference desk. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Image

    The image on The VonFrederick Group site is the Crest of The VonFrederick Group. If you visit www.vonfrederick.com, you will also see the image of the crest. I hope this clarifies the conundrum, or please ask me any further question. Thanks.

    Dr. Lionel von Frederick Rawlins

    --Charlema 21:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Replied on user's talk page. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Uploading an Image

    Greetings,

    I've been using Wikipedia for about one year now, and have just recently thought about editing pages. I was navigating through Olympics pages one day, when I came upon the Mark Spitz page. I noticed that there was not a picture for the Mark Spitz page, so I thought that I might edit this page into having a depiction of the athlete. So after that, I went to the upload wizard to find out how to add an image to a page, and found that it was much more complicated than I had expected. What I was mostly confused about was how people were able to obtain such information like the, photographer, copyright, place the photo was taken etc., when you find the image from a site that does not give any information on the photograph.

    Just wondering, is it mostly people who take their own photographs and put them on Wikipedia, that post the photos, and if not, can you advise me in how Wikipedians get hold of copyrights, photographer names and the other required information for uploading an image.

    Thank you, --Í'ɱ Рřʘ 00:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    you should not be uploading pics of living people that you do not hold the copyright on (ie only upload ones you took yourself).Geni 12:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is one of those cases where a fair use image is justifiable, if the point is to illustrate him in competition. Since he no longer competes, a free image cannot be made showing this. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If the point is to show him as a person, what he looks like, and who he is, a free use picture of an older Mark Spitz is good and a non-free use is unjustified. He is just as much of a human being now as before. If there is a need to show him in competition for purposes of illustrating the article, that adds substantially to the reader's understanding of the subject, and could not be served by words alone or a free use image, then a non-free image of him in competition may be justified. But ask yourself, do you really need a picture of him swimming to illustrate that he won a swim meet? A picture of a gymnast in the middle of a 10.0 olympic performance might be justified because their form, poise, etc., at the moment, could help the reader understand how they got a 10.0. Is there anything so iconic about Mark Spitz in performance? Something about his technique, etc? That's what puts this at the borderline. Wikidemo 02:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Actor photos

    Hello,

    Like the rest of the people on the page I'm a new contributor to Wikipedia and am learning things the hard way by ramming my head up against things.

    I have illustrated a couple articles (ones I did, ones already written that I expanded) with stills of a still living actor but of ones that were from lobby cards or a studio photograph sent to fans around late 50's early 60's. I asked the website of the actor (not run by him, just by fans) for their permission to use some of their images to illustrate pieces. They enthusaistically gave their permission for it to be used in Wikipedia, but now I'm being attacked by a 'bot' (just learned what that word is!)

    Now, number one, though the actor is still alive, the art work necessary is from the late 50's and 60's, so there's no way I could go back in a time machine to take my own photos. Number two, current photos of the actor would in no way do justice to the articles. In the case of stills from lobby cards and all, the artist at that time had no rights, they just worked for the studio. In time the studio that releases the films is taken over several times by different media conglomerates. Though an actual photo taken off the film availble on DVD would be an admitted violation of copyright, I don't see how late 50's early 60's artwork or fan photos would come under this.

    To add some more information, when I contacted the organisation they say that star and about every other star attends various conventions where they sell old stills and artwork of them and they say stuff that old is in the public domain.

    Could you provide some simple information on this please, to give the details this is concerning-

    Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:2peterbrown.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:2peterbrown.jpg has a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission,

    The image has been granted permission, it is for educational and non-commercial use (I am not making any money or favours out of this). Is it possible 'another Wikipedia user' just might be a vandal or the internet equivilent of the pre-schooler drawing in books with his or her crayons? Thank youWaukegan 06:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you

    wikipedia does not accept permission for educational use or non-commercial use only. Wikipedia needs images to be released under a free licsense. In this case since you do not hold the copyright that would not appear to be posible.Geni 12:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't a fair use claim be made here, since a useful free alternative is not available, and cannot be made? --Clubjuggle 17:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In nearly all cases a copyrighted image of a living person is considered replaceable (and therefore is inappropriate) because a new free image could be made. The times when that is not the case is an active subject of discussion for the guideline page WP:NONFREE. The current wording, which I added last night and is therefore too new to rely on completely, suggests that an old non-free image may be irreplaceable if it illustrates the career of a person whose notability rests on their appearance, and they no longer appear that way. Under this theory, in the scenario where RuPaul stops cross-dressing and we find that there's not a single free image of him/her appearing in costume as a woman (unlikely but this is a hypothetical), then a non-free image may be necessary to illustrate his/her career. By contrast, in an article about Mel Gibson the man, we can assume that if there were not a single free image to be found, it's still not okay to use a copyrighted image because someone could always go take a new photo. The fact that he may be un-posed, older, and not as strapping as in his max max days, is not pertinent. The new image isn't as pretty but it does the job we need. There's a line to draw there on replaceability, whether a new free image would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Note that Wikipedia has concerns to limit the number of non-free images that go beyond just what's allowable under fair use law. Using the copyrighted image is probably legal both under fair use and because it's okay with him. But we say thanks but no thanks to that, we would rather use a free image. To see how this plays out in your situation it might help to know the details rather than discuss in the abstract. Wikidemo 17:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you Wikidemo, for your prompt and informative reply (are you with Wikipedia? I can't tell the colour of your uniform). I like your examples and they make sense, however let's use your example of Mel Gibson.

    If I did an article on Mel, and I then flew to Hollywood or where ever he lives, throw gravel at his window, and snap his photo when he looks out the window shouthing 'Hey you punks!' I think I've committted a violation of his rights by snapping a photo and using it (like the Paparazzi do I guess) without his permission. On the other hand if I write to him and say could you please send a current photo for an image for Wikipedia and he sends one, we might have the problem of Wikipedia accepting advertising for his image, in that our hypothetical Mr G knows he will be appearing in Wik and sends an image that will be designed to present him in a flattering light that may be seen by casting people.

    Surely there must be some sort of date we can accept of photos and artwork that is not licensed or required to be licensed?

    Thanks againWaukegan 22:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No, not with Wikipedia. I say "we" and you can too, we're all part of this noble project. Yes to throwing rocks. Even if it may be difficult, expensive, or dangerous for you, somebody could take a new snapshot. Neither Wikipedia nor the law has seen fit to ban phtogoraphs that are aggressively obtained. So you can use a picture you take at a concert or in a museum despite a sign saying that's not allowed, I don't think Wikipedia has banned that (yet). If you invade someone's privacy by sneaking into their house that's a different matter with the law at least. Not sure whether that's come up on Wikipedia. You would be surprised. Some professional portrait photographers have donated high quality pictures they own of celebrities from photo sessions. Also, many people appear at lectures, concerts, signings, on the street, etc. Wikipedia wants to encourage people to go out and take these pictures rather than just sitting on their computer and complaining that it would be too much bother. So if a paparazzo can do it you can too! The exception might be someone who is incarcerated with no visitors, in medical isolation, running from the law, hostile foreign head of state, or otherwise almost completely inaccessible (these are my silly examples...in fact, I'm just reasoning here, not stating anything official) Wikidemo 23:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No to throwing rocks. That would be trespassing, and possibly vandalism. Yes to getting a photo in public. The reason celebrities can't stop paparazzi is because it's not illegal to take pictures of people when they're somewhere publicly visible. Stepping onto someone else's private property is another matter entirely, and we do not condone illegal actions.
    And if I catch you taking flash photos in a museum, I will hunt you down and give you the deepest wedgie of your life. They're banned for a reason: repeated exposure to bright lights like a flash is potentially damaging to artwork. Not even the Met banned non-flash photography last time I was there, but in that case you have to take what you can get.
    Yes, there are cases where fair-use photos of living people are allowable, in cases where it's not reasonably possible for a free photo to be made. Mel isn't one of them. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just pointing out that certain things are not Wikipedia's concern. If you throw rocks at a window that's between you, Mel Gibson, and the local police. Similar issue with museums and rock concerts. Many museums have historically banned all photography so they could control all the extant photos of works that would otherwise be public domain or fair uses. Courts have recently ruled otherwise but in the past they thought that by having the only good picture of an old painting they could use copyright to prevent others from reproducing the picture for books, posters, etc. The flash thing sounds like self-serving nonsense on the museum's part and is dubious in terms of the overall number of photons impacting a work of art over its expected life but science is a complicated thing and I'll keep an open mind. Nevertheless, it's not Wikipedia's concern how many torts, contract breaches, crimes, and social offenses you might have committed to get your picture. The fact that you would have to commit a tort or crime to get an image is a good argument that it's not replaceable; the fact that you would have to know someone, get lucky, be patient, or travel to a foreign country is not a good argument. Wikidemo 03:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's true, but let's not say things like "yes to throwing rocks". If someone breaks the law on his own to get a photo that's one thing, but if he did it because you told him to, that's quite another. Waukegan probably takes your meaning correctly since its his example, but he's not the only one reading this.
    The literature seems divided on the subject of flash damage to art. On the one hand I find institutions like the Smithsonian prohibiting it on those grounds where old fabrics or pigments are involved, but not generally otherwise. Since they're a US government trust, all gift shop material produced by them is PD anyway, so marketability shouldn't be an issue. On the other, it seems that there's research claiming the opposite. So it's probably true in some cases but not others. If a museum prohibits flash but allows tripods, allowing a good photo to be taken with longer exposure times, it's a safe bet they're acting in the interests of conservation. In those cases ambient lighting will be carefully controlled in general, and indeed at the Met exhibits involving fabric always had much more subdued lighting than the painting and sculpture galleries. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was peripherally involved in an issue involving one building in DC where the feds basically allowed direct sun from a skylight to fall on some murals that were a national treasure. The skylights leaked. Guess what? Then they painted them over, punched holes through for wiring, and totally forgot them for 50 years. You should see the conservation bills. So much for the public trust. But yse....of course I'm not advocating for breaking the law, and if anyone uses my comments as an excuse for stalking a celebrity heaven help them. The "yes" part is meant as a slightly humorous way of confirming the original poster's earnest question, whether Wikipedia requires people to go to great lengths to produce a free picture when a copyrighted one is readily available. Thanks for the great conversation, btw. Wikidemo 03:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Gosh, thank you for your comments all of you. I'm rather new to all this and home with the flu, so I see what I'm missing by working. I was interested in your photo by surprise comments. My second part of the question was the part about the celebrity only allowing a photo that he or she had endorsed (i.e. one taken by a professional or they and their agents inspecting your work and approving or disapproving it). From what limited knowledge I have of celebrities and other people as well is that when some people get on in years they don't want to be remembered with a photo taken in their nursing home. Some stars are only allowed to be photographed from certain angles or with certain lighting and if a picture of say, Sean Connery snapped sleeping outside, whilst being taken by a Wikipedia contributor may draw that celebrities ire and threats.

    Would a caption such as "Maureen O'Hara (for example) in the film 'Mr Hobbs Takes A Vacation' 1962" be valid for an article on Ms O'Hara? You are stating the year and the artwork or still may not be the property of someone as opposed to a still from the film itself that would be. Someone like Ms O'Hara (just an example, I haven't been in touch with her though she's my favourite actress) may not want to have a photo of her at her age, especially when she's remembered for films from quite some time ago...

    SO A QUESTION IS-Will we have to wait until some actor/actress dies until we can use an image of them in their famous films?

    I also enjoyed the information on flash bulbs in museums and hope everyone has been as illuminated on the issue as I have. Thanks again everyone, hope to hear from youWaukegan 07:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi

    I got a message saying I needed to add a copyright tag to two images. Which I think I have done properly.

    I was wondering if that means the images will not be deleted now?

    How do you know?

    --Beagleskin 16:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    do you hold the copyright on those images?Geni 16:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes I do.

    --Beagleskin 16:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    did you create them?Geni

    Yes I did.--Beagleskin 16:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    the images should be fine then.Geni 16:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks :)--Beagleskin 16:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    An image for my Userpage

    I had uploaded an image I made, Image:ChrisDHDR.jpg, on which I specified that it was still in my copyright and I allowed it to only be used on my Userpage. It has since then been speedy deleted. Is there a tag I could use if I re-uploaded this image, or would I be forced to release it under a different licence? I do remember seeing an Image with a "Userpage only" tag, does it still exist? --ChrisDHDR ( • contrib's) 06:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Artwork vs. photography?

    I would like to use the painting found here. It was painted in 1852 by famous Toronto painter William Armstrong. Does the normal Canadian copyright apply here? IE, anything older than 1935 is PD? Or is it different for paintings? Maury 13:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No different for paintings in this case. You might want to crop down to just the painting, though (i.e., crop out the drop shadow). You should be able to tag it with {{PD-art-life-70}} and {{PD-Canada}} --Clubjuggle 13:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Image:Unholy three.png

    Being published well before 1970, could this be {{PD-Pre1978}}? I see no copyright sign or notice anywhere on it. 68.39.174.238 18:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It depends whether the copyright was renewed. See WP:PD#Published works. --Clubjuggle 19:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions&oldid=154290105"