Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Media copyright questions

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

How to add a copyright tag to an existing image

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

(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Screenshot of Website

I was wondering if it would be permissible to upload a screenshot of the following website (TVCatchup) to help give a visual context to its related article? I'm a bit hesitant as I understand that logos that are not free use (I think that's the word) aren't allowed, but the screenshot contains logos from BBC, ITV, five etc. So would those logos be considered not for free use? Thanks. londonsista | ^Prod 23:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You can upload a logo like this. Just use the non-free use method, as the person above asked about. Since they are a .com their logo is almost certainly copyrighted (even Wikipedia's is, in fact). Richard001 (talk) 02:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

In fact, being a .com has nothing to do with it; all creative works are copyrighted upon creation. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

What I meant is that it's unlikely that they would have released any of those rights. Richard001 (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

So I guess I can't upload the screenshot of the page as the TV logos are most likely copyrighted? londonsista | ^Prod 18:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, just upload it under a non-free license. Provided a photo is significant in improving the article and a free alternative is not an option it's okay to use fair use. Richard001 (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your help. :) londonsista ^Prod 07:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Question about a derivative work

I came across Image:Wlm logo remake.png and the subsequent SVG. The image clearly states it's a derivative to get around fair-use issues. My question is: Don't derivatives have the same copyright status as the original image? Which in this case appears to be a mixture of Image:Wlm logo-ic.png and Image:Windows Messenger XP Icon.png. Thanks for your time. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly based on it, though if it was much more dissimilar it wouldn't be recognizable (for example the green and blue are around the other way). I doubt it's worth bothering about myself, though some might feel the need to eradicate it. I suppose the shinyness effects and perhaps even the arms could be done away with. Richard001 (talk) 02:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I my (decidedly amateur) opinion, this is dissimilar enough not to qualify as a derivative work. But yes, derivative works do retain the copyright status of the works they're based on. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Under 17 USC sec. 103(a), no copyright exists with regard to an unauthorized derivative work. Therefore, its copyright is abandoned or forfeit, so that the work is in the public domain. -- PraeceptorIP (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia logo FUR

I was under the impression that the Wikipedia on Wikipedia did not require a fair-use rationale, but apparently I was wrong. I have undone the bot edit pending discussion here, but I have no idea what is going on. — neuro^(talk) 06:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

By the letter of the criteria, it does. I'm pretty sure there's a de facto exception for Wikipedia logos outside article space though. --NE2 06:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I realise that it should per the criteria, but I seem to remember some consensus a while back that a fair-use rationale was not required for the Wikipedia logo at least, due to the fact that it already existed on the page (at the top left). Hm. — neuro^(talk) 06:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason why a non-free use rationale is required for the Wikipedia logo is the same as for any other non-free content: Wikipedia has a goal of producing reuable content, and the fact that the copyright owner (in this case Wikimedia Foundation) does not license the content (in this case the logo) under a free license, hampers the reusability of any page where it is used. The requirement of a non-free use rationale assures that the content is used only where it is essential to the article. —teb728 t c 21:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

On the assumption that this means I was wrong, the image has been removed from the rotation until I can create one without the logo. — neuro^(talk) 13:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Wait, Commons accepts them without a rationale. Sorted. — neuro^(talk) 13:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

digital sphygmomanometer

I wonder if I can get the more informaton about digital sphygmomanometer such as block diagram or electric circuit of it and how it works with best wishes Aborusl (talk) 07:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the wrong place, you want WP:RP. — neuro^(talk) 07:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

would like to use image in my book

Statue of Coatlicue displayed in National Museum of Anthropology and History(Mexico) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.135.250 (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If you click on the image, the link takes you to Image:Coatlicue.jpg. It says there that the image was uploaded by User:Arturoramos, who claims authorship of the image and releases it to the public domain. —teb728 t c 21:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This is intended as a constructive suggestion

Because of the numerous disputes that arise over the copyright status of images and other works used in connection with Wikipedia articles, particularly as to fair use issues, might it make for less controversy and speedier resolution if Wikipedia established a volunteer panel of Wikipedians who are copyright professors or copyright law practitioners -- to address these issues? It seems to me that many tags are placed by enthusiastic persons who are not well informed in this complex and difficult area, particularly as to what rights are in derivative works and what is fair use.
--PraeceptorIP (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC).

Something you do not seem to appreciate is that as a matter of policy Wikipedia intentionally restricts non-free content far more than fair use law. See the policy at WP:NFCC. Among other restriction, it accepts non-free content only if it is essential to understanding the article and only if it could not be replaced by free content. The reason for this policy is that Wikipedia has a goal of producing reusable content, and when non-free content is used, it potentially hampers the reusability of a page.

If you and other copyright professors or copyright law practitioners are interested, you are perfectly free to give your opinions at Images for Deletion and other deletion forums. But in order to be effective you and they would have to learn about Wikipedia policies, which are also quite complicated. For example, the reason your image, Image:Gator-Amaz.gif, is up of deletion is that it does not have a image copyright tag, as required by policy. See the explanation above at #Licensing images. As it says there, {{non-free fair use in}} is probably the best tag. As it also says there, it also needs a non-free use rationale for each use, explaining how that use conforms to WP:NFCC. —teb728 t c 23:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/All for a list of such tags. Since this is presumably a non-free image, see particularly the non-free content part of the list.

• A couple of points. First, I wasn't volunteering for the panel. I was inviting others to volunteer. It makes no sense to have people making what purport to be legal arguments when the arguments are insupportable, at least on a legal basis. Somebody (someone else) should volunteer to short-circuit the needless dithering.

--Essentiality is always a continuum. An image typically makes it easier for the reader to understand a point (hence the maxim about a picture and 1000 words), but how hard without or easy with must things be to satisfy policy? I would say that any substantial increment of greater ease in understanding justifies a use as fair, even though it is not impossible to do without it. Consider the Ninth Circuit's analysis in the Perfect 10 and Arriba Soft cases. Use of thumbnails in those cases is not absolutely essential to having an image search engine, but it it very beneficial. The courts saw that as enough to make thumbnails fair to use.

--One should not take pride in Wikipedia policies being complicated (or, gasp, user unfriendly). That may be a feature but it can be a bug too. It would be a benefit to everyone to make policies simpler and less complicated, as well as easier to understand. That would further compliance with policy. There is no benefit in having an inner priesthood that constitutes the only circle of those who understand policy, except possibly that of building self-satisfaction for the priests. Also time spent learning complicated policies, unless the policies serve an essential end, might better be spent editing articles or crearting them.

--I might add that the courts have spent many decades developing the concepts of fair use as a way best to trade off the interests at stake between the public and copyright owners. I cannot believe that the savants of Wikipedia can do a better job by re-inventing that wheel.

--I took the liberty of bolding what I was responding to. I hope you don't mind.

--PraeceptorIP (talk) 05:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• • The “legal basis” is that Wikimedia Foundation owns Wikipedia, and they have a right to make a policy on non-free content that is more restrictive than fair use law. And that policy is in fact substantially more restrictive than fair use law. You may think that the policy should be otherwise, but it is not up for discussion on this forum.
  • The purpose of the policy is not “to trade off the interests at stake between the public and copyright owners”; rather it is to minimize non-free content in order to maximize reusability of content.
  • It is not enough for use of an image to be “beneficial”; in the words of the policy, “Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.”
  • I don’t take “pride” in the policy being complicated; perhaps I shouldn’t have used the word complicated. My point was that the policy effectively includes fair use law; so that knowledge of the policy is important, whereas knowledge of fair use law is of little if any use in considering non-free content. —teb728 t c 10:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

... a screenshot of Poptropica?

I took it thinking it would be useful in the article. Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 05:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Best copyright tag for image from a theatrical performance

I've uploaded Image:Tennant and Tchaikowsky as Hamlet and Yorick.jpg for use in Yorick and Andrzej Czajkowski. (I think the use of a famous pianist's skull in a prominent production of Hamlet merits an image, and all images from this production will be copyrighted to the Royal Shakespeare Company.) At the moment, the image uses {{Non-free historic image}}, which was the closest fit I could find. I also considered {{Non-free promotional}}, but that says that it can be used only to illustrate "the person(s), product, event, or subject in question". Since neither of the two uses is for an article on this particular production of Hamlet, that didn't seem to fit. Or am I reading that too closely?

Is there a better copyright tag for this image? Do we need a copyright tag for "copyrighted image of live performance", for circumstances like this in which no free image should really exist? ("The taking of photographs during the performance is prohibited.") Do the copyright experts here agree that this is an appropriate case of fair use (given the commentary in Yorick and Andrzej Czajkowski about the use of this particular skull in this particular production)? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don’t believe its presence significantly increases readers’ understanding of the articles, as required by WP:NFCC#8. The associated text in the articles is perfectly understandable without it. The subject is adequately conveyed by that text without an image at all; so it fails also WP:NFCC#1. —teb728 t c 23:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not so sure about NFCC#!: the image is strikingly educational and I think it would survive IFD on those grounds. However it is quite possibly replaceable. It may be used when the play moves to London. Photos will be copyright to the photographer, not the theatre company (won't they?), so get a press pass to the preview in London and take some photos. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 23:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's correct. The same image is credited here to "Ellie Kurttz/RSC", suggesting that the photographer and the company share the copyright. As for taking a photograph during the London production, a) the production is completely sold out, b) I doubt that a press pass, even were one available, would grant any photographic rights, and c) according to this source, "it is yet to be decided if Mr Tennant will use the skull" in the London performances.

However, I agree with Hroðulf that the photograph is educational, and conveys information in a more striking fashion than the text does. (I wouldn't have uploaded it otherwise. And please note that I didn't attempt to add the image to David Tennant, since I don't think that its use in that article can be justified.)

And none of this answers my original question: assuming that this image does meet NFCC requirements, which copyright tag is the most appropriate?—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Part of the original question was "Do the copyright experts here agree that this is an appropriate case of fair use…?" It probably would be fair use, but Wikipedia's policy on non-free content is significantly more restrictive than fair use. Sorry for not pointing that out before. —teb728 t c 21:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

In Wikipedia's policy it’s not enough for the photo to be educational and “striking.” The standards are: “Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.” And: “Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?” These uses fail both. —teb728 t c 21:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I am fully aware that Wikipedia's NFCC is more restrictive than fair use; when I said "appropriate case of fair use" I was using an outdated locution, for which I apologize. (It's not that long ago that the non-free content criteria were called fair use criteria, and I used the old term by mistake.)

I took Hroðulf's "strikingly educational" as shorthand for "significantly increases readers' understanding", which I think this image does in these two articles. The image conveys how Czajkowski's skull was used in performance more clearly than text alone could. And I think that the image conveys more information than the text alone does, or could, because it shows Czajkowski's skull in particular (as opposed to any random skull, real or plastic) being used in a performance context. If people disagree, please take the image to IFD, where a wider consensus can be determined. For the purposes of this page, I'm still interested in finding the most appropriate copyright tag. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Also...

While puttering around Andrzej Czajkowski, I discovered Image:Andrzej czajkowski.jpg, which has the copyright tag {{PD-Poland}}. Is this deprecated? Is the image in fact free, or would it need a different copyright tag and a non-free use rationale to be used in Andrzej Czajkowski? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Image from defunct newspaper

Hi there, I have been looking for an image to place in the infobox on the Bobby Lennox article. Whilst looking for refs I came across this website. There is a photograph there from an old defunct newspaper which would suit it. Would I be able to download it? The newspaper, the Evening Citizen, has not been in circulation since 1974. I'm still trying to get my head round these things, so any advice would be very welcome. Thanks. Titch Tucker (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The website images are copyright and that will apply to the newspaper's images too. Non-free images are not supposed to be used in infoboxes, so you need to search some more for a PD image. ww2censor (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The search goes on. Titch Tucker (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Please check my "Fair use" rationale

Is this how you're supposed to add fair use rationale? Please let me know if the image needs anymore explanation. I don't know much about copyrights. Thanks --[[::User:Unpopular Opinion|Unpopular Opinion]] ([[::User talk:Unpopular Opinion|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Unpopular Opinion|contribs]]) 21:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I added a note about replaceability, which is also required. Otherwise the explanation looks ok to me: I removed the dispute tag. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 23:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot--[[::User:Unpopular Opinion|Unpopular Opinion]] ([[::User talk:Unpopular Opinion|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Unpopular Opinion|contribs]]) 06:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Plain text fair-use rationales are not recommended any more. You should use this template based rationale. The page gives detailed examples. ww2censor (talk) 06:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I added the template, thanks for all the help. --[[::User:Unpopular Opinion|Unpopular Opinion]] ([[::User talk:Unpopular Opinion|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Unpopular Opinion|contribs]]) 07:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

That's the way to do it. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Parts of covers

OKBot has just tagged Image:Authentic cover banners.jpg with {{Non-free reduce}}, which is fair as it has a fair-use rationale at the moment. However, is this in fact something that would be copyrighted? It doesn't show any of the actual cover images, only the style of the headings. Thanks for any help. Mike Christie (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to meet the threshold of originality that US law requires (I am not a lawyer.) Suggest move the image to Commons, as it is not fair use, it is free. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Will do. What would be the appropriate licensing tag? Mike Christie (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Mangral

Why the image:sarfraz Mangral m.jpg has been removed from Wikipedia under subject Mangral. and also the image:Raja sakhi Daler khan.jpg is being removed from wikipedia as same above.§SARFRAZ MANGRAL (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

These were removed because they do not have an copyright status or because you had uploaded several identical photos (in which case, the duplicates were deleted.) Your log [1] shows the list of files you created. If you click on them, the explanation for their deletion is clearly listed. (EhJJ)^TALK 02:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Costs

What is the definition of direct unit costs and direct cost of unit sales when I'm am talking about a preschool business in a business plan? It is the cost of start-up sales? How do u figure it by full-time rates and part-time rates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CreativeTeacher (talk • contribs) 19:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You might get a reply to that at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. This forum is media copyright questions. —teb728 t c 23:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Use of Wiki information on a membership website

I have read and think I understand the terms of the license and copyleft provisions. However, I'd like to ask a clarifying question:

If the information from Wikipedia is used on a pay-access site, I would understand that information to be opaque and to be subject to the electronic distribution guidelines. Am I correct? Is a link back to the original article sufficient for attribution and transparent copy under the license?

Thanks so much

Vlntr85 (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The matter of charging for access isn't actually relevant; a transparent copy would be HTML source, wikitext, or perhaps a .txt copy of the file. Stifle (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

SVG Based on Animated DVD Frames?

I have created some SVGs of cartoon characters. I based these off multiple frames captured from a DVD. They are partially traced from these captures, and partly my own creative work. Can I post these as my own work, or do these fall under the copyright of the DVD from which I captured these original frames? Thanks. Steaphan Greene (talk) 05:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

They would be a derivative work, and only usable here under a claim of fair use. See WP:NFCC for more information. Megapixie (talk) 10:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

how to prepare Cu(1)Cl using Cu as a redusing agent.

how to prepare Cu(1)Cl using Cu as a redusing agent.i want exact procedure.and i want to prepare in the lab.

You may want to ask at the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. This page is for questions about copyright. (EhJJ)^TALK 12:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misevaluation, but it is our policy here to not do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn how to solve such problems. Please attempt to solve the problem yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. Thank you. Physchim62 (talk) 12:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Shaun Williamson Photograph

So I took a photograph. I own the copyright. It keeps getting deleted - why!? I own the copyright!! preceding comment added by Fatbobsufc, 19:59 2 December 2008

When you uploaded it did you go to Wikipedia:Upload and select "Entirely my own work". Did you then chose an appropriate license before uploading? Mfield (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The image was listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 November 16#Image:Shaunwilliamson.jpg for two weeks before it was deleted the first time, and no one replied. The nomination reason given there was, “Source website is all rights reserved, uploader implies that they are the copyright holder through the use of a tag, but not explicitly.” You were notified of the nomination on your user talk page. —teb728 t c 04:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

AAA State

What is an AAA State

Logo?

Can I iupload a Logo I made myself as part of the company? Like I created the comapny, and would like to upload the logo so people could see the logo and understand it...... How could I fill-in the correct information? - Thanks, Alec2011 (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Both Worlds Logo.PNG looks like it is just text; so you could tag it with {{PD-ineligible}}, admitting that it contains no creativity. Or you could tag it with a WP:ICT/FL, which would allow anyone to reuse it for anything, including commercial use and modification. Or you could tag it with {{non-free logo}} and provide a non-free use rationale for each use. —teb728 t c 05:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Image's new version and name

Hi, I want to know if we change the image's version to another version, how can we change the image name? I want to know because I want to change the Image:Fairwind.jpg to another version and I also want to change the image's name too. Thank You.

You can only rename an image by uploading a copy of the image under another name. You can "change" an image to a new version by uploading a new version of the image over the top of the existing image (see the link on the image description page). If you are trying to move the image aside to use the name for a different image - consider just uploading your image under a different name. For example: Image:Fairwind album cover.jpg or Image:Fairwind at port.jpg. Megapixie (talk) 11:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hersch_lauterpacht.jpg

Hey guys, I recently found a photo of Hersch Lauterpacht on a Cambridge site (exact site is listed on image page). Lauterpacht has been dead since the 1800s to I presume that the copyright to any photos has expired, but to err on the safe side, the image has been placed as fair use. Is the image public domain? Or should it stay fair use? Thanks and happy editing! Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 11:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about the dead since the 1800s the article says he died in 1960 so it may not be public domain. The source link shows a different image so you need to show the actual source of the image used. The fair use rationale would be reasonable if it was for use in the article Hersch Lauterpacht but in the Country article it really is being used for decoration which is probably not appropriate for a non-free image. I would suggest provide a source for the image and change the rationale to use it on the subjects article. MilborneOne (talk) 11:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh god I am so muddled up. Sorry for wasting your time. Just confusing several different website links and people's death dates. Happy editing! Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 13:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No time limit?

Am I right in understanding that "will be replaceable in future" counts as "replaceable" rather than "not replaceable"? Relevant images are Image:Ldn Ovrgrd Train.jpg and Image:Ldn Ovrgrd Train Internal.JPG. 217.33.218.200 (talk) 12:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Batman222.jpg

User:Stifle has tagged Image:Batman222.jpg as a candidate for speedy deletion with the rationale that "Images of comic covers may only be used in the article about that comic". Could someone point me towards the policy page that declares this? Thanks. --Captain Infinity (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Start by looking at the {{non-free comic}} tag on the image. None of the uses listed in the tag applies to the usage. Then read WP:NFCC, particularly #1 and #8. The text gives all the explanation that is needed; no image is needed for readers to understand the text. —teb728 t c 18:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

PD-lawscourt_-_Public_Court_Records

Looking for an IP expert here: (still!) discussion.--Elvey (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I work in this field; I'll check it out. --MCB (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

What's Missing?

Loaded Image:Air Force Secretary Michael B. Donley 01.jpg with all necessary info including where the image came from (http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/080722-F-2270A-308.JPG -- which is image page inside Air Force Link web-site); who created it (i.e. U.S. Air Force), and fact the this image, like all U.S. Governement images, is Public Domain. Nevertheless, image-bot tagged it with notice that says those things are missing. If somethings missing I'll be glad to fix it, but everything needed to varify source/author/copyright status/etc is there. What's wrong?--Orygun (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The {{information}} template was not closed. Perhaps that prevented the bot from recognising the source and licensing. I have closed the template and removed the bot's tag. —teb728 t c 01:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)