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)

Copyright Question

I found this image Saro_Skeeter.jpg onthe website http://www.free-picture-graphic.org.uk/saro-skeeter-helicopter.htm. The image had an accompying message that this image could be used non comercially, and also stating that it is for educational use in particular. It seems to me that this kind of image should be allowed, but if it is, I could not find an appropriate tag for it. Either way, could someone please help me out with this? Aborrows 05:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid such images are not acceptable on Wikipedia, our content have to be compatable with our license. The gist of the GFDL license is that anyone can use the content for anyting (commercialy or non-commercialy), provided that a) they credit the previous authors, b) make any new work based on it available under the same terms, and c) include a copy of the GFDL license text (there is some stuff about cover texts and document history and so on but you get the idea). Content that is only usable for non-commercial use, or by special permission and things like that is too restrictive to be compatable with that license, and thus not allowed even if Wikipedia itself is non-profit. There is a small "loophole" with invoking the fair use doctrine of US law to use images that are unfree, but it's supposed to be a "last resort" only (a fair use picture is slightly better than no picute), so our policy is fairly restrictive on fair use content. --Sherool (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights"

Copyright Question

Newspaper Articles I just uploaded two copies of newspaper articles as reference for a new article I started. Would someone check and let me know what I need to do from a permissioning/citing/tagging perspective?

--Irishkevin2 14:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you please give the page names of those images? Use [[:Image:imagename.jpg]]. Stifle (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I've found the images from his upload history and responded to him at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#Newspaper Articles. In the future, Irishkevin2, it's usually best if you only post your question in one place. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Coat of arms

I uploaded Image:Coat of arms of Hungary.png to replace Image:Hungary COA.jpg. It's exactly the same image, from the same source, but 14% of the file size and with no JPEG artifacts. When I uploaded the image and was prompted for a license, I chose "None selected" from the drop-down menu, because I didn't see {{coatofarms}} there. After uploading, I immediately edited the image description page to add {{coatofarms}}, as this is the copyright tag given for the previous image.

Just now I received a message from OrphanBot, which informed me that the copyright status of the image is not specified. Does {{coatofarms}} not qualify as a copyright-status tag? If there is a copyright problem, then I don't have any further information; I was simply uploading a PNG replacement for the original JPEG version, and the copyright problem must logically extend to Image:Hungary COA.jpg as well. If there is no copyright problem, then I guess I should just ignore OrphanBot's message and delete the {{no license}} tag from the image description page for Image:Coat of arms of Hungary.png, and maybe someone should look into OrphanBot's behavior. —Bkell 01:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

repost from above

"Coat of arms" isn't really a license tag, it's more of an indication that the image may have restrictions on it above and beyond any based on copyright law.

The copyright situation with coats of arms can be confusing. In the European tradition, the "coat of arms" that is granted is actually a text description of the arms, and any graphical depiction is one artist's impression of that description -- an impression that is certainly eligable for copyright. --Carnildo 06:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Now, for more info, there are a number of these images on enwiki and commons, see commons:Image:Hungary COA.jpg and commons:Image:Hungary coa.png. It seems at least some of these images came from Vector-Images.com, and can be used with attribution only. Ideally we would have only one image on the commons in some vector format with a copyright tag. Right now Image:Hungary COA.jpg is a higher resolution jpeg than the jpeg on commons that it is masking, it is also used on a lot of articles. The smaller size one seems to be the one from Vector-Images, so I am hesitant to replace them with the larger unsourced unlicensed versions. If we can get a source/license for the large ones that would be best and then the lower resolution ones could be replaced.

Hope that all makes sense, short answer though is yes we still need a source and license for the higher-resolution images. - cohesion 16:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The source is given; see [1]. I'll follow up on the licensing. —Bkell 16:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

How do I Copyright Tag a Uploaded Photograph ??

Hi ... The orphanbot has mailed me saying that I need to copyright tag my uploaded photos. I took the photos myself, but just how do you tag it ??? Thanks ! --David Humphreys 04:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

aha !!! just worked it out !!! --David Humphreys 04:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Glad it worked out :) Also remember if you are uploading images that you took yourself or that are free content feel free to upload them to the commons so that all the language projects can use them. commons:Special:Upload. (You do need an account there, it's best to use the same username) If you have any questions let me know :) - cohesion 16:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Web Sourced images

Hi ... I have found a website that states "All my photographs are free to use on non commercial websites." Does the photographer receive a credit on Wikipedia or is that considered advertising ??? Thanks --David Humphreys 13:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually while it seems like we should be able to use images like that, we can't. Even though wikipedia is a noncommercial site our license (GFDL) allows for commercial redistribution. That does actually occur as well, with about.com etc. To answer your question more directly, some people license their work as requiring attribution only, and that's ok and would not be considered advertising. So, the attribution isn't the problem, the non-commercial aspect is :) - cohesion 16:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Albino Gorilla picture

Hi, I uploaded this picture to the Floquet de Neu page (about the albino gorilla) from here on Dutch Wikipedia, but I can't read Dutch so I don't know what they put the copyright status as. Does anyone know? Thanks TastyCakes 22:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It appears that they copied it from the English Wikipedia (originally uploaded at Image:Snowf2.jpg), and that image was deleted for not having source information. The page on the Dutch Wikipedia doesn't have any information on copyright. --Carnildo 22:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Damn. I think it's the perfect picture for the article.. TastyCakes 00:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

File:Dpecrest.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I keep getting warnings on most of the images I upload all of which, I might add, do have the licensing information in there, granted I do not select from the drop down menu but usually insert a Coatofarms tag since that is the most appropriate for the images that I've uploaded. Is there anyway to prevent from getting these warnings? --ImmortalGoddezz 22:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

See #Coat of arms above. Coats of arms are not necessarily free. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Permission question and fairusein tag

Hi, I uploaded:

I have permission to use it on Wikipedia from the University of Evansville, and it is used on the University of Evansville website as promotional material. Should I mark it as promotional material, or fairusein and withpermision tags?? Btw, I don't think the fairusein Tag works very well, unless I'm just not using it right. Thanks! --Mh143 23:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)mh143

First of all, I'm afraid that permission to use it solely on Wikipedia is insufficient. We have many mirrors, such as about.com, that must be allowed to use our images. The image needs to be released under the GFDL or similar license to be used freely.

Second, all pages on Wikipedia are case-sensitive; {{Fair Use In}} doesn't work, and you need to use {{fair use in}} or {{fairusein}}. Also, the parameter provided is which of our articles you're using it in, not the source of the image.

Third, you do need some kind of fair use rationale unless the image is released under a free license such as the GFDL. I'm not sure if this qualifies under any of our fair use rules, unforunately. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Nicholashooper.jpg

I just uploaded Image:Nicholashooper.jpg to Wikipedia from the page http://filmmusicworld.com/radio/index.php?todo=showstory1&header=&page=&storyid=183&storycategory=&storycategory1=. I was unsure of the licensing because none of the options seemed to quite fit the situation. I don't want to cause a problem with copyright status, but I don't think this picture is a violation of any copyrighting, because I have seen the picture at various other web pages before, when talking about Nicholas Hooper. Please advise as to what is the right thing to do with this image. Thanks a lot. --Fbv65edel ^{(discuss | contribs)} 16:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a great deal more scrupulous about copyright than most websites. In the case of this image, I'm not sure it's acceptable for use under any of our fair use categories. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your help. I understand entirely. Is it acceptable to link to that web page on his Wikipedia page, or something that would provide readers of the article to see his picture? --Fbv65edel ^{(discuss | contribs)} 14:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Since that page is presumably using the image with permission, it's fine to link to it. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Simetrical. I suppose the image can be deleted now? --Fbv65edel ^{(discuss | contribs)} 21:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It should be deleted fairly soon. You can get it taken down more quickly if you'd like to add {{db-author}} to it. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

TOO MUCH NONSENCE ALL I WANT IS TO UPLOAD A PICTURE OF THE CONVENTION CENTER THATS IT NOT STEAL ANYONES PICTUER OR NOTHING AINT LIKE YALL GON GET SUED OR ANYTHING I MEAN COME ON!

LOOK MAN THIS WHOLE UPLOADING A PICTURE THING IS TOO DAMN DIFFICULT AND ONLY U KNOW HOW TO DO IT OR UNDERSTAND IT I MEAN DAMN ALL I WANTED WAS TO PUT A PICTURE OF THE PUERTO RICO CONVENTION CENTER BECAUSE THE ARTICLE DIDNT HAVE ONE AND IM TRHOWN A LOT OF BULLSHIT AT ME AND THEN U COME N TELL ME ALL THIS MAN U NEED TO HELP ME OR SOMETHING I MEAN DAMN CMON MAN —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Queens finest (talk • contribs) 18:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Please calm down. No need to shout. Whether or not we will be sued is irrelevant. We are trying to make a free encyclopedia. Free encyclopedias need free content. If you can't find a free version of this picture (or one that qualifies as fair use) then I am afraid we will continue on without a picture of that convention center. I don't know how we can make this any easier for you. In general, we cannot accept random pictures from the internet, so, no matter how we structure our system, using such pictures will be difficult. Try contacting the copyright holder of the picture and asking them if they would license it under a free lincese. BrokenSegue 18:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tag

I have uploaded a file which doesn't contain any image.It is a word document converted to pdf.I have not made use of equation editor(if u consider that to be an image) in making the file. I have made the file by myself.But it is asking for an image tag — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srikaushik (talk • contribs)

If you made the document, you can use the tag "GFDL (self made)" in the Licensing pop-down menu. --Fbv65edel ^{(discuss | contribs)} 14:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia can not display a pdf file inline, though, so your file is not going to be usable within an article. If you need to display mathematical notation, you should use TeX, as described at meta:Help:Displaying a formula. ×Meegs 17:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

logo

I have added Image:Newwlbtlogo.JPG to WLBT-TV twice. The first time, I forgot to select that it was a logo. I tried to go back and include that information, but wasn't successful. Therefore I uploaded the image again with the correct information, thinking that it would override the first image...looks like it didn't.

What should I do now?

Here is a list of your uploads. Two of the images are not tagged as logos: Image:Old WWL logo.jpg and Image:Wlbtlate70s.jpg. You do not need to re-upload the images to tag them correctly, though. Instead go to the image's description page, click "edit this page", and add {{logo}} to the bottom of the page. For more information, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. ×Meegs 17:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

One Question

I made my own account but I'm having trouble with basically everything, I just want to put a picture of me so that people would know it's me. but it says that the image must be copywriten. Why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abraham Castaneda (talk • contribs) 22:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Is the image you're referring to Image:MeAtTheChain.jpg? It needs to have a tag identifying its licensing. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for your choices. I assume it's a picture of you that was taken by someone else. In this case, the photograph is the intellectual property of the photographer, not you, which means you have to get the photographer either to release all rights to it (in which case you can use {{No rights reserved}}), or to release it under the GNU Free Documentation License or an acceptable Creative Commons License (see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for details). {{No rights reserved}} (or {{PD-self}}, which comes to the same thing) is the least hassle, but it does mean that if someone modifies the image and/or uses it for commercial purposes neither the photographer nor you can do anything about it. Angr (t • c) 09:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Motorway Hungary.jpg

{{PD-because|it has been Created by the Hungarian Government, free to use}}? Sounds like crap to me, I'm sure there's a reason we dont have a tag for that. --Rory096 21:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This should go to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images -- this needs much more informative source information and some proof that the Hungarian government releases its work into the public domain. Jkelly 22:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Adding a tag

Hoe do I add a tag to a picture that I uploaded?

Go to the image page, hit "edit this page", then add the tag. If you have trouble finding the tags they are listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags, if you have trouble finding images you have uploaded go to the upload log and enter your name in the "User:" box (case sensitive without the User: prefix). --Sherool (talk) 06:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I need a licence

I need a licence for the picture Image:Shenzhen night street.jpg.

Thank you very much for your attention.

by Alexander Needham 15:18, 16 May 2006

It's got a license; you're the author and you've released it into the public domain. It should be fine. Angr (t • c) 15:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

help with tags

hello, i am brand new to wikipedia, and am very confused as to the whole tagging buisness. I added a very famous pic of Christine and Léa Papin to the entry on them, and i credited the source, but i don't know how to tag the picture... The photographer is unknown, and the exact date is unknown, but the picture was taken circa 1927-1931. I think that the picture is considered to be "public domain", but I still don't kow what the hell I'm meant to tag it as, there is so much confusing info... could you please help me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PlushHoney (talk • contribs) 19:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's unlikely that Image:Jknk.JPG is in the public domain. Everything published in the U.S. before 1923 is, as well as everything whose author died more than 70 years ago. As you say, the picture was probably made in the 1930s (and probably in France anyway, so the 1923 rule doesn't hold anyway). Without knowing who the photographer is, it's impossible to know if his 70 years are "up". I'd say you're best route is to have the image (both the copy at Image:Jknk.JPG and the copy at Image:Image-Jknk.JPG) deleted (just put {{db-author}} on them) but keep a copy on your own hard drive until you find out what the source is. Did you e-mail the webmaster of http://grands.criminels.free.fr and ask where they got the image from? Angr (t • c) 20:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This isn't an easy one. I found what appears to be the original image that your Image:Jknk.JPG is a crop of. The webmaster of that particular Geocities site suggests that the image was taken in 1927. We would, unfortunately, need to know when it was first published, or the death date of the photographer, to determine this image's copyright status. Jkelly 20:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

So I need to find out where the pic was first published (probably a French newspaper of the time) and then credit that source and tag it accordingly? Sorry, but i am so clueless about this! Thanks for the help guys, by the way!!!

It's not just a matter of crediting the source, though that's important too. If the image is still copyrighted, then it can't be used unless you can argue that its use falls within the provisions of the fair use doctrine. Angr (t • c) 14:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

How do I add links and a Copyright tag?

Hi, I'm a bit new to this whole editing thing and I need to know a few things. How do I add links and a copyright tag to the image Image:Jack the Jackalope.JPG ? I clipped the image from a sceenshot Gamespot had on it's site and they took the screenshot from the Rampage: Total Destruction video game that belongs to Midway . --Rizer 15:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Rizer.

Basically, we can't use that image here. There is the tag {{Screenshot}} where fair use is claimed for a screenshot, but copyrighted images can't be modified in any way, and you've clipped the screenshot to make this image. The best tag to put on it now is {{db-author}} so it can be speedy deleted. Angr (t • c) 15:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why a cropped screenshot would be bad, if anyting it would probably make for a stronger fair use claim since we only use exactly the bit of the copyrighted work that we need (tilting the "amount of work used" aspect of fair use in our favour). IANAL though, but that has been my understanding thus far. If you try to pass your modified version off as your own sure that's a copyvio, but I'm pretty sure modified works would be covered by fair use too, espesialy if the modification is simply to remove all parts of the work that is not relevant to the current use, and the original source is clearly identified. --Sherool (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Cropping, like and process of creating an excerpt, is allowed. If you couldn't "crop" a book by pulling only a quote, you'd have to reprint the entire thing, and that's certainly not fair use. --Davidstrauss 05:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Seriously? I all I did was crop the image to that of the subject mentioned in the text. I have seen it done several times on this sight already...and you are telling me it can't be done? I've read the screenshot tag you've put up, but I am still confused. If I understood it correctly, that how is it that any images of the more recent subjects with similar tags are visable? Surely most of the other videogame images within the site fall under the fair use claim? How would I be able to find an image where I will not violate the fair use claim?

Okay, poking around a bit more I think Sherool is probably right. The correct tag to use is {{Game-screenshot}}, which explicitly permits the use of a computer game screenshot "for identification and critical commentary on ... the copyrighted character(s) depicted on the screenshot in question". Angr (t • c) 20:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Olympic-rings.png

Orphanbot has described the image as having no source, but it has a fair use rationale. What should be done? Thanks, Andjam 14:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It's also marked as being redundant to an image at Commons, so I say let it get deleted. No big deal. Angr (t • c) 14:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

But what about the commenting out that Orphanbot does? Andjam 14:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot always leaves a message in the image's description page saying where it's been commented out from. Angr (t • c) 15:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

So we know which pages it got commented out from, but with 500+ pages involved, are all the commenting outs going to be reverted manually, or will a bot fix it? Andjam 01:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't delete it, as it might be deleted from Commons in the future. It's being debated there. --Rory096 19:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

type of tag needed

hello,

I was doing some editing of some pages on wikipedia and i uploaded some pics I foun on the web using google image search...But I don't know which copyright tag I should use for them. Please help me —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kong24 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for coming here to ask. We'll need to know some things about the images before we can allow them to be used on Wikipedia. For instance, Image:Mountains.JPG says it was taken by "Gregg Herbert". Are you Gregg Herbert? You put up a tag asserting that you were.

As for the others, they might qualify as fair use, but it isn't likely. Unfortunately, they're being used here for exactly the same purpose as the owners use them for (identifying the individuals in question), and therefore they aren't "transformative". Combined with the commerciality of some of Wikipedia's mirrors, our legal case for using these pictures is unfortunately somewhat dubious. Those may have to be deleted. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

roosevelt.jpg and lincoln.jpg

i need help on how to tag the pictures, i have no clue how. Can you help me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Desty22 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Please describe the images and tell us where you got them and what they would be used for here so that we can help you. (Also, I would suggest next time that you choose more descriptive names for your uploads.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Desty22 hasn't uploaded any images (or if he has, they've been deleted already). Angr (t • c) 21:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

They were deleted. --Rory096 21:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

And by me, no less. How embarassing! Angr (t • c) 21:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You were linking to the wrong page. Image upload is in logs, not contribs, and they incidentally remain there even if the upload is later deleted; cf. [2] [3]. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Advice reqd re appropriate copyright tag

Could someone advise me on the appropriate copyright tag to apply to Image:X1 sub.jpeg? I have email permission from the Copyright holder, in this case the National Maritime Museum, their only condition being that it be labelled "© National Maritime Museum".

Salmanazar 21:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no date for the image? Did they understand that they were okaying commercial and derivative use? Better forward that email to permissions. The correct tag is {{attribution}}. Jkelly 22:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If they only want to allow use on Wikipedia, however, you can use {{WithPermission}} in conjunction with a fair use tag. --Rory096 22:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Please reproduce the exact text of the e-mail here (as well as forwarding it to permissions at wikimedia dot org). It must explicitly state that it can be used, modified, and sold with no restrictions except for attributions for {{attribution}} to be valid. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Correctly Specifying the Source and Creator of an Image

I've had both Image:Blacktailedgnatcatcher.jpg and Image:California_Gnatcatcher.jpg tagged as having no source information by OrphanBot, even though I've tagged both of those images with {{PD-USGov-Interior-USGS}} and given the source URL. What else do I need to add to the information accompanying these images? --InvisibleK 12:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what exactly OrphanBot looks for when determining if an image has a source, but this time it goofed up. I removed OrphanBot's tags and added the word "Source:" before the source information; hopefully that will take care of it. Angr (t • c) 13:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It was a bug in OrphanBot, which I've fixed. --Carnildo 19:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Divya_Bharti.jpg

I have provided a source for the image and most likely there is no other original source for this image apart from some fansites or any info on who owns the copyright. I am sure it can still be used on wikipedia though. Could you advise on what should be done? Thanks. (Shakirfan 21:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC))

So, we don't know the source. Unfortunately wikipedia cannot include images where we don't know the source or license of an image. - cohesion 00:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Iekessinger.jpg

The image in question is a digital photo I took of an actual photograph, and then cropped. The photograph of Don Kessinger is a Chicago Cubs team-issued press photo which was taken in the early 1970s and freely distributed to various media outlets for publication (publicity). This is one of many from my personal collection, which I have acquired over the years. My uploading of this image for Wikipedia's benefit is in no way profit-oriented. I thought I had tagged it correctly. Should I retain the tag and/or license I used, but also name the source (Chicago Cubs)...or should I use the "fair use" option? Please let me know what to do. Thanks. BurmaShaver 22:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem isn't the license, it's that there's no source information. Just give the information you gave above about where you got the photo from, and you can remove the "no source" tags. Angr (t • c) 00:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Iekessinger.jpg

Thanks for the info. I followed your directions as best I could, and re-named the image Iekessingerd.jpg so that I could re-upload it. Please let me know if it is now acceptable. If it is, I will fix other similar images. BurmaShaver 01:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Image:Iekessingerd.jpg is fine now. You didn't have to re-upload it, though; you could have just updated the info on the original image. Anyway, now that the second upload is correct, I'll go ahead and delete the first one since we don't need two copies of the same picture. Angr (t • c) 09:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Message about copyright tag

The picture in question (Image:JonandAngela.jpg) is mine; it comes from The Belch Dimension Comics #2. I created it and own it. Please refrain from deleting it. Thank you. The_Iconoclast 07:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Leaving this request here won't keep it from getting deleted. You need to replace the tags on the image description page with (1) a statement that the picture is your own work, and (2) a license under which you're willing to release it. For self-made work, some obvious choices are {{PD-self}}, {{GFDL-self}}, {{Cc-by-2.5}}, and {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}}. Angr (t • c) 09:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I have To Add The Copyright Tag To My First Uploaded Image; May You Help Me ?

Hello,

I have to add the tag: "NO Right Reserved" to my first Image: "Kippah"; how may I do it ?

Ty.

Bye.

Giuseppe

--Aerostrato 08:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You already did, three minutes before leaving this message. You can remove the {{untagged|month=May|day=11|year=2006}} tag now. Angr (t • c) 09:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:RedArmy_kursants1933.jpg

Hi there. I've never uploaded images before so I wasn't sure about copyright status when filling those dialogue fields. However, my verbal description was I believe clear. In addition: this is a private photo never published, I obtained it from the relatives of those potrayed. They were willing to share a memory of their fathers (that later fought World War II and died there). Their only conditions were:

• non-commercial use only
• providing the additional war info of the portaryed on request of readers

Anything else? Cause I won't like my first Wikipicture being deleted.AlexPU 09:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

If they only gave permission for non-commercial use, then Wikipedia can't use it. Images at Wikipedia either have to be free for commercial use (not because Wikipedia itself is commercial but because some mirrors are and some other "downstream" users may be) or else a fair-use claim has to be made for them. On the other hand, if this photo was taken in 1933, it may be public domain anyway, because it's more than 70 years old. You could use the template {{PD-old-70}} in the licensing section and remove the "permission" line from the summary. This does mean, however, that what the family does or does not permit to be done with the photo is irrelevant. Once the image is public domain, there's nothing stopping anyone from adding humorous speech balloons to the picture and selling it on a tee-shirt. Angr (t • c) 09:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be exact: I got this and other photos from a 67 y.o. woman collecting and sharing knowledge of her KIA father (one of the officers potrayed) and his artillery unit. She is very far from any legal considerations :). I only promised her to:

• help her cause using Internet by providing the pictures for worldwide usage and supplying additional info on her father on further request of anybody
• not make money from those pictures

There's a 100% guarantee that neither me nor Wikipedia would be legally persecuted for the usage of these photos.

I guess I'll use that 70-years rule for settling the case. Thanks for help, hope for the same in future.AlexPU 11:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

{{PD-old-70}} is, unfortunately, entirely inappropriate for this image. That image is only when the author has been dead for seventy years or more, which seems quite unlikely. If the author is known, you'll have to wait 70 years after his death (which will probably be a few years yet, unless he died soon after the picture was taken); otherwise, you're going to have to wait until 2053, 120 years after the work's creation. So currently, it's being used under a noncommercial license, which is unfortunately not acceptable for Wikipedia. Any chance you could get her to allow commercial use? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Any chance it's public domain because it was taken in the Soviet Union before 1954? Or does that only apply to works of the Soviet government? Angr (t • c) 20:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well {{PD-USSR}} is for works published in the Soviet Union before 1973. This image has not been previously published so I think a different set of rules apply, though I'm not 100% sure what they would be in this case (in the US it's life + 70 for unpublished works even if they where created before 1923 for example). --Sherool (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Since it was unpublished, the rules are very simple: 70 years after the death of the author if known, otherwise 120 years after creation. It's unfree. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

What do I do?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:M1917rev.gif

This image is a black and white variation of a government picture. The site and a link to the original is on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathbunny (talk • contribs) 06:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The page has no link to any original, it says it's of unknown origin and speculate that it may be from a goverment site (what makes you say that?). Unless you can dig up enough info to tell us who made the original photo (or at least who hold the copyright to it) there is not rely a lot we can do except delete it as having a unverified status. --Sherool (talk) 06:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops.

http://tri.army.mil/LC/CS/csi/sahist.htm http://tri.army.mil/LC/cs/csi/m1917rev.jpg

Didn't save the page preview.

I don't know how to tag images —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deathbunny (talk • contribs) 13:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Not every image on a government website was produced by an employee of the federal government in the course of his duties. The image isn't acceptable unless you find evidence of who made the base image.

To retag an image, just edit the image page. You may want to check out Wikipedia:How to edit a page for some basic formatting help, etc. For instance, you should sign your edits to talk pages with four tildes: ~~~~. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

On the site, many pictures have specific copyright information on them. The exceptions include pictures seen in military factfiles and other government sites. Can we assume that, given that it's a government site and that it specifically notes other people's copyright information, what isn't marked is government copyright? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deathbunny (talk • contribs) 05:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid we can't assume that. If it doesn't give info on who took the picture, it has to be assumed copyrighted. (And by the way, you can use four tildes to sign your name and the date: ~~~~.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Medical imagery

Photos I took, of x-rays of myself. Technically, since the original x-ray was done by someone else (of course), who holds what copyright? ~ Booyabazooka 00:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm uncertain how much creativity is involved in X-raying. Is it just sticking someone in a roughly appropriate position and then pushing a button? If so, X-rays are probably not subject to copyright. If it has to be adjusted, fidgeted with, whatever, then it would likely be eligible, and the copyright holder is whoever actually took the X-ray (or whoever was employing the person to take the X-ray). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This is really interesting, since the x-ray is also the actual result of a medical test, it would be regulated by a whole lot of other laws as well. This is one of those times when I think to get a good answer you might need an actual lawyer ;) Speaking from a healthcare point of view though I think most healthcare workers would think the image was yours, whether that's legally true or not. - cohesion 07:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

how to tag an image

I don't know how to tag an image. Could u help me please? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishomingtang (talk • contribs) 01:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

To tag an image when you upload it, select the appropriate tag from the dropdown box. To retag an already-uploaded image, simply edit the image page as you would any other: click "edit this page" and change the contents appropriately. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

And just one little "gotcha" to watch out for. It does not, repeat does not work to re-upload the image and picking the correct license from the drop down box to fix an already uploaded image. When you overwrite an existing image the description of the old image stays as is, whatever you type in the description box when you upload a new version is just shown (in trunkated form) in the upload log, it does not get used. So the only way to fix the tagging of an already uploaded image so to go to it's page and click the edit button. I often see people franticly uploading 5-6 versions of the same image trying to get the tagging right when all they need to do is edit the page. --Sherool (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Fluffy999

Hi, on a number of occasions I have pointed out to User:Fluffy999 about uploading possibly copyrighted images. A relative newby, he has uploaded a number of images which are clearly copyrighted/scans from books and usually tags them with a NoRightsReserved tag. To his credit, however, he usually cites the source (if it's from the internet, but not if it's from a book).

The most recent example is Image:Hume-trimble-NOBEL-PEACE-PRIZE.jpg. Fluffy999 gives the url but there it clearly states that the image in question is "((c) Micheline Pelletier/CORBIS SYGMA" [4]

I would be grateful if someone could discuss the seriousness of uploading copyrighted images with Fluffy999, as I don't think he fully understands what is allowed on Wikipedia and what is not. I would address the user in question directly but recent experience has shown that Fluffy999 does not take very well to any constructive comments from me and, on the advice of an administrator, User:Jtdirl, I no longer communicate with him directly.--Damac 10:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Fluffy999 has been busy uploading images taken directly from the BBC website. I've listed these on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 May 24/Images but have not tagged them, as this will only provoke personalised attacks on me by the user in question. I'd appreciate it if someone dealt with the problem and explained to Fluffy999 why copyright laws do not allow users to upload any images they feel like from the Internet.--Damac 09:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, if an image is in violation its fine to remove it or if the tag is more likely to be fair use- please advise. A lack of images doesnt detract from the quality of my submissions. My real problem is not some malicious intent to infringe copyright but that there are so many rules and regulations that its almost impossible to make out what I should and shouldnt upload and how it should be tagged. Since I am new and learning the ropes I will make mistakes although I sometimes will be wrongly accused eg. yesterday an admin deleted a GFDL labeled image I made saying it was a photocopy. When I pointed out it was made in MSPaint there wasnt a problem- incorrectly tagged.

To Damac's credit he hasn't tagged these images although has been previously advised by one admin, Jtdirl, to cease & desist from tracking my movements around the wiki, User_talk:Damac#Fluffy. Yet he persists., so more senior intervention looks to be required. Fluffy999 09:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The previous user is blatently misrepresenting what User:Jtdirl advised me to do, as anyone with a modicum of functional literacy would understand if they read his actual comment at User_talk:Damac#Fluffy.--Damac 10:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Not the place to go into it, although worth pointing out to people here as they may just take your post at face value. Its fine if you deliberately ignore admin Jtdirl's advice to cease & desist- advice is not binding it seems. Hannes78 10:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC) (sockpuppet for Fluffy so he can avoid stalking)

How do wikipedia determine pictures' origins anyway? They can delete whatever pictures they think it's not copyrighted or they can't delete them until someone tell them it's not copyrighted. It is difficult for new people to post pictures. Chris 01:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

When you upload a picture you have to supply the source from where you got the picture. That way someone else can double-check that the license is correct. Saying "I found it on Google Images" is not an adequate source though, you have to say where the picture originally came from. Angr (t • c) 07:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't tag automatically added?

If I load an image and choose the correct copyright status, why is the appropriate copyright tag not automatically added? JMcC 11:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It is (if by choosing copyright status you refeer to the drop down list on the upload form), unless you are uploading something on top of something that already exist. The stuff you put in the upload form is only actualy used when you upload something for the first time (bit of a gotcha there). If you uploaded the image once and forgot to tag it and then try to upload it again (with the same name) with the correct tag it won't actualy work, all it does is create a new version of the image file itself, the decription page is not changed in any way. In those cases what you need to do is go to the image page and click the edit button and add the tag manualy (you can find them listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags). --Sherool (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it was a re-load. I found the tags and chose a plausible one. JMcC 15:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be uploading a lot of images that were taken by other people and saying they have waived all their rights, that's not especially common, and we might need to verify that. Do you have any evidence of this? Also keep in mind we are not really looking for "plausible" license tags as much as correct ones. - cohesion 08:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

How do I "add a tag" to a picture I uploaded. And what is a tag? The web address of the picture? RoryS89 18:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)RoryS89

Hi. You seem to be uploading images that you like that you have found on various websites. Please don't do that. See Wikipedia:Image use policy for information on what kind of media is suitable for uploading to Wikipedia. Jkelly 18:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Jeg er quisling og navnet ragnvald blix.GIF

This is a carricature of Vidkun Quisling, first published in 1944 in Göteborgs Handels- och Sjöfartstidning. It widely known, and represents a significant historical value. Anyone knows if it can be published on Wikipedia? -- Heptor _talk 19:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

According to no:Ragnvald Blix the author died in 1958, so under U.S. law it won't enter public domain until 1 January 2029. It could perhaps be considered fair use (using the {{Art}} tag) in a discussion of Blix that referred specifically to this cartoon (rather than just using this cartoon as an example of his work). Angr (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for answering. Too bad the image can not be used in the Quisling article-- Heptor _talk 13:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

preston,poulton and layton station photos

them Image:Layton railway station.jpg and Image:Poulton le Fylde railway station.jpg and Image:Preston railway station.jpg are mine honest. user:jonjoe

That's fine, but you need to tag them properly anyway. You have to decide under what terms you're licensing them. If you want them licensed under the GFDL, add {{GFDL-self}} to the image description page. If you want to be attributed as the author and retain a few other rights, use {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}. If you want to completely release all rights to them, add {{No rights reserved}} or {{PD-self}}. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#For image creators for more discussion. Angr (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:BlackmoorBook.jpg

I own the rights to the image through Dave Arneson, the Creator, who I am the webmaster for. Why the hell was it deleted and what dumb ass did this without e-mailing me? Put it back up with all the images added.

The image was deleted because you did not include a copyright tag for it. When you upload an image, you get a big, colorful message saying that your file will be deleted if you do not provide a copyright tag, and that's what happened. The image has been deleted completely, we can't put it back up. If you still have a copy, you can upload it again, but this time be sure to put a copyright tag on it. See in particular Wikipedia:Image copyright tag#For image creators for tags that are appropriate to put on your own work. Angr (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyright help

I think I have done this right - could someone check to make sure it's OK?

I've copy and pasted an image saying there I don;t want anyone to use it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pub3.jpg

Is it right?

--Steve1509 08:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not. It says it's used by permission, but "The terms of the permission do not include third party use." Images used at Wikipedia have to be freer than that. If you are the copyright holder of that image, please go to Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and select an acceptable license (e.g. {{No rights reserved}}, {{GFDL-self}}, {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}). As it stands, the image can be deleted at any time under Wikipedia policy. Angr (talk) 09:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

How do I attribute copyright for the following?

Winstar Farms gave me an image image:DH head.jpg for use on Funny Cide's page of wikipedia. But I don't know which copyright label to use for this. It's not my copyright, it's Winstar's copyright. I can find no choice to suit. They also sent me a gif of their logo. Perhaps that's how they expected their credit?

--Ki Longfellow 19:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

You will have to ask Winstar Farms to release the image under a suitable license, such as {{GFDL}}, {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}, {{cc-by-2.5}}, or {{no rights reserved}}. Use for Wikipedia only is {{permission}}, and such images will be deleted. Wikipedia content must be hostable by third parties and must be modifiable and sellable. You might be interested in Wikipedia:Boilerplate requests for permission. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Need Help

Hi, I need help documenting the copyright status of this image: Image:Ref of evil.jpg It is the movie poster for an independent film. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Potashnik (talk • contribs) 03:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I've tagged it for you. For future reference, the tag is {{movie poster}}. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Tag

How to put a tag on this picture : Image:Crab pulsar VLT BL.jpg Thanks B. Lempel

I'm not sure we can use it at all. The original here says "© European Southern Observatory" suggesting that unlike NASA, ESO does not put its work into the public domain. If that's the case, we can't use an image derived from it. Can't you find a NASA image illustrating the same thing? Angr (talk) 12:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

How to tag for copyright purposes

Hello this is 1255 20:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC) with the question on how to tag for copyright of Dwight Walton. I think I did it correctly, but I am not too sure. Please somebody help me and verify that I did the right thing. Image:Dwight Walton.jpg. Thank you, --1255 20:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You still need a copyright tag. In this case, I think the best one to use is {{Fairusein|Dwight Walton}} since you've already given a detailed fair use rationale. Be sure to removed the {{untagged}} tag when you add {{fairusein}}. A purely aesthetic comment: I think it would look better if you cropped the frame out so that the edges of the original photograph correspond with the edges of the pic used here. Angr (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Editor uploaded an image with no tag

Hi, an editor named Mrknowitman uploaded a video capture of a movie. It is at Image:Presentation3.jpg. OrphanBot left a message saying that has no copyright tag. What will happen to this image if the editor doesn't provide a tag? I think it is deleted within a week? I'm not sure.

I never delt with images. Thanks for understanding. Cheers --Starionwolf 23:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If the image is not given a fair use rationale and used in an article, it will be deleted within a week. (If it could be released under a free license, such as the GFDL, then it wouldn't have to be used in an article to be kept, but that's obviously impossible here.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Luque testimonial.jpg

Hi, I saved this image a while ago from a news article on http://www.nufc.co.uk about Albert Luque's contribution in Alan Shearer's testimonial match. As I can no longer find the image on the website I can't provide a specific link to it, but it is a publicity photo of Luque in the testimonial so does this not qualify as fair use? I got tagged for not providing a source, even though I mentioned the website from where I got it. Cheers - Northeasternbeast 11:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Publicity photos. It's actually extremely unlikely to be a publicity photo, which are almost never candid shots like that. More likely it was made by a newspaper or magazine photographer and used by permission on the NUFC website. AFAIK, to qualify as fair use we'd have to track down the original source, not just the source you got it from. Also, to really be fair use, it would have to be difficult or impossible to get a free image of him, which it isn't: just take a camera along next time you go to a game! Angr (talk) 12:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Jiroft location

hi, i can't understand,it is quite confusing,my question is this: how can put an image tage for my image? about licence, this image is depicted by myself, how can give a licence to myself? please give me a clear way to mange this photo.thank you very much —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abdolreza (talk • contribs) 13:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I see that the images you have uploaded are Image:Jiroft location.JPG and Image:Jiroft loction in Iran's map.jpg. Since the second one is identical to the first one, but smaller, you don't need it, right? Since you're the creator of the map, all you have to do is click here, replace {{untagged|month=May|day=28|year=2006}} with {{GFDL-self}}, hit Save page, and you're done! Angr (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Do be aware that by doing this you're agreeing to irrevocably license the image under the GNU Free Documentation License. You may want to review the terms of the license before you agree to it. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Since he already put the GFDL tag on the smaller copy Image:Jiroft loction in Iran's map.jpg I assumed he understood its conditions and just wanted to do the same thing to larger version. Angr (talk) 07:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

~ A photo of painting that I own--artist deceased

I couldn't find any tags appropriate to this circumstance. How should such an item be tagged?

--Driftwud 16:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Thanks, Driftwud

I assume you're referring to Image:Gordienko flamingo.jpg by George Gordienko, who died in 2002, right? AFAIK a photograph of a two-dimensional work of art like a painting is subject to the same copyright restrictions as the painting itself. The painting is still copyrighted and will be until 1 January 2073; I assume the copyright holder is his heir. Unless you can convince his heir to release the painting under the GFDL or a Wikipedia-friendly version of the Creative Commons license, you'll have to make a claim for fair use if you want to include it. The tag is {{Art}}, but it says it has to be used "for critical commentary on the work in question, the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or the school to which the artist belongs". So in order to use the painting in the article on George Grodienko you'd have to discuss this specific painting critically. Angr (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

If he owns the painting, he owns the copyright and can license it as he wishes. --Davidstrauss 05:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what you're saying. Physical ownership does not equate to ownership of copyright; if I own a picture, I'm no more permitted to copy and license it than if I own a computer program or book. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 17:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

UEFA four and five star stadia list

Regards this pdf file Image:UEFA4and5starstadialist.pdf

I'm unsure how to categorise this document. It's a pdf file which I was emailed by the UEFA media office as a reply to a request for some information. It's available to anyone that contacts UEFA asking for it, however it's not available as a download from their website, hence why I uploaded it here (It's purpose is as a reference in a edit dispute over "UEFA five-star stadia" rather than an image to be used directly in an article).

Thanks for your help. --Red star 15:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... it's definitely copyrighted by UEFA. I'd slap a {{fairuse}} on it with the rationale you gave above, and then once the edit dispute is over, put {{db-owner}} on it to have it deleted again. Keeping it here short term is probably okay, but it's not something that should stick around forever. Angr (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Guysanddolls.jpg

I have been told that i have to add the the source and creator of the image Image:Guysanddolls.jpg How do i do that?

You'll need to do a bit or research to find-out who holds the copyright to the original photograph (usually the photographer or the company they work for), and then edit the image description page to add that information. Unless the copyright holder is the production itself, the theater, or one of their promoters, though, the fair use rationale presented in the {{promophoto}} template will not be applicable. ×Meegs 12:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I know who owns the copyright but where on the image description page do i add it? I could not see that it would let me edit the template to add it in.

The image description page is here, you edit it like any other page. You do not edit the license template though, you pick another one. See in the fair use section of Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. --Sherool (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Information about the source and copyright holder does not go inside the template. Instead, just type all of the information you have in lines above {{promophoto}} on the image description page. Let us know if you have any further questions. ×Meegs 13:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, in order to be fair use at Newington College, the article needs to discuss this presentation of Guys and Dolls specifically. Otherwise it's just decoration. Angr (talk) 14:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

What would be the best tag to use then?

Well, as far as I know, there isn't a tag for a photograph of a live production, the way there is for TV and film screenshots. I suppose you should use {{fairusein}}, but you have to provide a detailed rationale for why it's fair use in Newington College, which as I said above, must include an explicit discussion of this production in order for there to be a valid fair use claim. Angr (talk) 06:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there one that says This image is copyright but wikipedia is allowed to use it? Feedyourfeet 14:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No. Ironic as it may seem, Wikipedia policy is that Wikipedia doesn't use images by permission. The images either have to be public domain, or under a free license, or defendable under a fair-use claim. This is because Wikipedia has mirrors and other downstream users who have to be able to use the same images we do. If a copyright holder gives permission only to Wikipedia, then those downstream users don't have permission. Angr (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

In a more general sense, we can not use images by permission because our goal is not simply to build the Wikipedia website, but to create a free encyclopedia, useable anywhere, by anyone. In this case, the way to keep this picture would be to approach the copyright holder and ask them to release the image to the public domain or under a free license (such as the GFDL or Creative Commons Attribution). If you are merely looking for decorative images for this article, however, the best thing may be to take some images of the school yourself, and release those under a free license. ×Meegs 15:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

the copyright issue

Image:SUC40035555.JPG regarding this for example. will someone please tell me how to get that copyright tag? because I have taken this photo.. myself... please do not make it so complicated.. because what you are doing is keeping people away from wikipedia.. people will eventually lose all their interest anyone out there hear me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aynali (talk • contribs)

Sorry that you found things too complicated. See Wikipedia:Image use policy for some more information. I've edited the description page to indicate that you intended to release the photograph under the GFDL. Please don't stop contributing original content! Jkelly 06:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

US-GOV-PD and Washington, D.C.

Msclguru asks: "how do I tag things that were created by the government of the District of Columbia?".

I looked at Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags for possible tags. It is known that US States hold copyrights to the material they produce (no PD), as the work of the Federal Government goes generally to Public Domain. But Washington D.C. is a federal district and "Congress has the sole authority over this federal district and thus the municipal government" (from District_of_Columbia), so tagging the work created by the government of the District of Columbia as {{PD-USGov}} is correct? FYI I did multiple searches thorough google and it seems nowhere in Wikipedia has this been discussed. If applicable, please add something to the PD-USGov talk page about this also. feydey 19:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't find any decision either, I added the question to image copyright tags to start a discussion. cohesion 21:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I took the picture

I took some pictures and uploaded them but in "my talk," I keep getting messages saying I need to source and stuff- waht do i do? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MUBOTE (talk • contribs) 2006 June 3 16:20.

You've already gone back and explicitly stated that you are the photographer, so I have removed the {{no source}} templates. It would also be a good idea to identify the subjects of the photographs on the image description pages, and to add the images to articles. ×Meegs 16:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Peter ward.jpg

I initially got an orphanbot warning for this image saying sourse etc wasn't there. It was. I've now modified the wording and copied and pasted a rationale from a photo of another English footballer's page with similar use. Could someone who knows about these things check that it's OK now?

A further question, if a picture comes from a website that says all of its images are public domain, can we take that as read or do we have to check? I'm talking specifically about this site:

http://footballfocus.xsmnet.com/ which has the disclaimer "All material on this website is from the public domain"Fork me 17:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Peter ward.jpg looks fine now. As for that website saying all material is in the public domain, I frankly don't believe them. The photos look like a combination of promotional photos and journalistic photos, none of which would be in public domain. Angr (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyrighted images with no fair use rationale

Hi, me again. I found some copywrighted images where the editor claims that it is for fair use. What should I do? I want to add a tag that asks for fair use rationale, but I can't find any. Any suggestions on what I should do? I gave him a chance to add a reason. I think he downloaded the copyrighted photos from a non-official website. Disney owns the characters in the images.

Thanks and bye

Here are the images in question:

• Image:Kopa01.jpg
• Image:Tlk6na2.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Starionwolf (talk • contribs)

If they are recent, tag them with {{nrd}}. If they aren't, tag them with {{fairusedisputed}}, and put "No rationale!" on the Talk page, or take them to WP:IFD. Jkelly 02:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the explaination. I wonder why I didn't see those tags in the list of templates. Weird. Bye. --Starionwolf 03:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

GayFest picture

Hi. I've been notified that the picture Image:GayFest2006.jpg needs a fair use rationale. I am having trouble deciding what rationale to give it. The image is used only on one article, GayFest, and is used to give a graphical representation of the events described in the article. Does this qualify under fair use? I haven't been able to find a free image of the GayFest, even though I am contacting ACCEPT, the organisers of the event, for such an image. Thanks, Ronline | Today, solidarity and hope 03:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If it's an annual event, someone can take a free-license picture or two next year, and there's no need to stick a non-free image in the article. --Carnildo 04:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ask the photographer here to reconsider their licensing. Jkelly 04:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Jkelly - that's the wrong GayFest :) It's in Spain somewhere. I can't find any Flickr photos of it, though I'm expecting someone may upload one in a few days. Carnildo - I asked contributors in Bucharest to take a photo, but it was at really short notice and no-one's taken any. I am however going to contact GayOne and ACCEPT, two LGBT organisations who have stated that they will upload photos on their websites. I'm presuming that they'll be OK with licensing at least one or two of the photos under Creative Commons. Ronline | Today, solidarity and hope 08:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there any problem with (Image:Bb794me-1-.jpg)?

I've received a message informing me about tags in images. Could you remove the picture Image:Ron badboy-1-.jpg and any updated versions of it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thorius Maximus (talk • contribs) 12:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Bb794me-1-.jpg does not state what TV show it came from and is not used in any articles. A source must be added, and for any fair-use rationale to be acceptable, it must be used in an article. If these criteria are not met, the image will be deleted. The same goes for Image:Ron badboy-1-.jpg.

If you ever want an image you uploaded to be deleted, just add the text {{db-author}} to its description page (click "edit this page" at the top as for any normal page). This will add the template Template:Db-author, which puts up a notice asking for it to be deleted by an administrator. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

License by eMail

How does one get consent by eMail from an elderly lady (not very computer literate) who is willing to allow a picture of her famous mother used by WP:en? The eMail would have to be ~very~ easy to understand as to her choices. The image in question is a low-resolution (small) portrait and free use would seem to be the reasonable option here. ABenis 13:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If she's not very computer literate, I'd say don't intimidate her by insisting on e-mail. Go to Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission and use that as a guide to write an easy-to-understand paper letter. Ask her to send a copy of her answer to

   Wikimedia Foundation Inc.
   200 2nd Ave. South #358
   St. Petersburg, FL 33701-4313
   USA

Or just have her answer you by snail mail and then scan a copy of her answer and you e-mail it to permissions at wikimedia dot org. Angr (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure she's the owner of the copyright? Unless she created the image herself, it would be unlikely. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, she might know when the photograph was taken, and if it's old enough, it might be in the public domain. Gerry Ashton 20:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Possibly wrong license

Image:Charlesfenerty.jpg has been tagged with GDFL-self, but it appears the image is old enough that there is no possible way the creator and uploader are the same person. I'm not familiar enough with media stuff on WP to tackle this issue. Any help would be appreciated. --D-Rock (commune with D-Rock) 06:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've switched the tag to {{PD-old}}. Angr (talk) 08:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

deleting

how can i delete a picture? i cant find no deleting button nowhere? and i accidentally clicked on the permanent link button. what does that do? i really need help :( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Universitygotlame (talk • contribs) 07:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Only administrators can delete a picture, but you can request deletion of it by putting {{db|XXX}} on it, replacing "XXX" with the reason you want it deleted. If you're the uploader of the image and no one else has edited it but you, you can just write {{db-owner}}. Eventually an admin will come along and delete it. Don't worry about the permanent link button. That just provides you with a link to a specific version of a page (because Wikipedia articles change constantly, sometimes someone wants to link to a specific version). It doesn't hurt or change anything. Angr (talk) 08:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Two tagged by OrphanBot

I have had the last two images I uploaded flagged by OrphanBot as not citing sources, even though I tagged them as I always do and they were never marked before. The images are Image:Hughbennett.jpg and Image:R4u.jpg. For the first, I tagged it with {{PD-USGov}} and it was flagged. For the second, I tagged it with {{windows-software-screenshot}} and it was flagged. Anyone know why? Aguerriero (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Those are license/copyright tags, but they aren't source information. Don't just say "This image was obtained from the Web site of the United States Department of Agriculture" and "This image was obtained from the manufacturer's Web site"; provide the URLs.

I'm sorry but I must not have stated my question clearly. I realize now that I was not putting in enough information; however, my point and question is that if I have been doing it this way all along, why are they suddenly being flagged? If the few dozen images I have uploaded, I have almost always just put a template in and left it at that (for example, for album articles, I upload the album cover and use the template for album art, and leave it). Aguerriero (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe automated flagging for lack of source has only begun recently. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

copyrighted images

Are screenshots from TV shows copyrighted, I'm currently trying to clean up the Batman: TAS episode list and was wondering about including the title cards from the episodes. THX much.{{--Dylax 20:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC) |Dylax}}

Only those created after 1923 in the United States, or ones in which the creator hasn't been dead for seventy years yet. Other than that, they're not copyrighted. Jkelly 20:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Images published (not created) between 1923 and 1977 (inclusive) in the United States are still under copyright if they were registered and otherwise obeyed the formalities of US copyright, and the author has not been dead for 70 years. Images published within that range outside the US are almost all still copyrighted, unless the author has been dead for at least 70 years. Images published since 1978 (inclusive) are all copyrighted.

All Batman-related images are likely to still be under copyright. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, mine was a poor summary. Jkelly 20:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

image tag

Do you have an image tag that states when the copywrite owner gives a wikipedia editor permission to use an image? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Indin (talk • contribs) 01:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes; it's {{Copyrighted}}. However, using that tag will get the image deleted, because Wikipedia policy is not to use copyrighted images by permission. Wikipedia content has to be free for other people to use too, and permission extends only to Wikipedia, not to the other people who want to use Wikipedia content. Either the image has to be completely free (public domain, GFDL, a Creative Commons license permitting commercial/derivative use) or else it has to be useable under a fair-use claim (in which case we don't need permission). Angr (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:EnergyStarLogo.gif

Apparently it's trademarked, but the trademark is owned by the EPA. Is it {{PD-USGov-EPA}} or {{logo}}? Can they enforce that trademark? --Rory096 05:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Pending comment from someone with expertise, stick with {{logo}}, which is sufficient in either case. While trademark law gives them some control over the logo (and, incidentally, the phrase "energy star"), our claim for fair use in the Energy Star article is as strong as any. There's some info on U.S. trademark law at Wikipedia:Logos. ×Meegs 09:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It's {{PD-USGov-EPA}}, plus {{trademark}}. There are no issues with using it however we want, provided we don't use it in a way that could potentially suggest that we're affiliated with the EPA. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Confused about sourceing an image

How exactly do I go about sourceing an image? I know what the source is but I'm not sure how to actually tag the information properly. Help? Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DeathRattle101 (talk • contribs) .

Just put it on the image description page. --Rory096 06:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Dang, edit conflict, anyway here is my slightly longer reply: The source is just the information that tell us where the image came from, there is not particular tagging involved, just type in the info as plain text, and in the case of images found on the internet include full URL's to the image and preferably also the page it was found on, and if the image is free licensed also link to the terms of use or license information on the site that proves that the image can be used under a free license. For the copyright status you need to add an apropriate tag though, you can find them listed on Wikipedia:Image copyright tags, if an image is licensed under the GFDL license you add for example {{GFDL}} and so on (unless you are uploading a new image (if the image already exist you need to edit the image page, not upload it agani to change the info), in wich case you use the dropdown list to pick the license tag instead and just type the source info in the textarea. --Sherool (talk) 06:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Black Hill (Peak District)

Image:P6090104_Black_Hill_Holme_Moss.JPG – I have uploaded this photo of an OS Map to aid in a discussion on boundaries in the Kirklees Article. which I have noted when I uploaded the image. Could someone please take a look and advise the correct tag to use as per the info I uploaded. Richard Harvey 08:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what OS means. Before we can advise you on the correct tag to use, we need to know who published the map, and who, if anyone, owns the copyright. Please add this information to the image description page. If, however, you only intend to use the image for the discussion on Talk:Kirklees, perhaps you do not mind if it is deleted in a few days. ×Meegs 08:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

(continued at User talk:Meegs#OS) ×Meegs 08:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Altering copyright messages

Two questions:

Firstly, because I'm not sure exactly which tag suits me best, I've written out a copyright message in full on my photos instead (eg Image:Kyle of Lochalsh SBR 2006-03-22.jpg. Is this acceptable?

Secondly, it seems that anyone can change my copyright notice without notice, and therefore justify breaching my copyright before I can revert it. Surely this cannot be right?

--Tivedshambo 22:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's not acceptable because the restrictions you put on its usage are too stringent. Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia; material here must be able to be reused freely, even commercially. If you're not willing to release your photographs under the GFDL or under an appropriate Creative Commons License (requiring attribution and share-alike are acceptable; refusing commercial and derivative usage is not acceptable), or both (dual licensing is possible), then I'm afraid Wikipedia can't use it.

To your second point, be sure to keep the images on your watchlist so you can see if any edits (such as changing the copyright notice) are made to them. If anyone invalidly changes your copyright statement, it can be immediately reverted as vandalism, and is of course not binding. Angr (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Accepted, but I still don't fully understand the GFDL licence. What are Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts and Back-Cover Texts? --Tivedshambo 08:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

They don't seem to be particularly relevant to images. From reading GNU Free Documentation License it appears that some versions of the GFDL allow the original author to declare some portions of the text "invariant", meaning those portions may not be changed by future editors. Front-cover and back-cover texts are the text to be written on the front and back covers of books, which are also treated separately. You can read the whole text at Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License. Angr (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I have updated the copyright on my images with the GFDL tag, but with the additional statement stating that explicit permission must be requested for commercial use. If this is still unacceptable, please delete all my images from the server and I will replace them with low-resolution alternatives. Sorry, but I cannot accept other people making money out of my photographs when I have provided them for nothing.--Tivedshambo 16:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If you have added your images to any articles, they have probably already been picked up by commercial reusers (like About.com) and other legitimate or illegitimate forks and mirrors. You can provide me with a list of images needing deletion and I will do it. You should note, however, that if you are similarly uncomfortable with your written contributions being reused commercially, this cannot be resolved so simply. Jkelly 17:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify what Jkelly says, any commercial reusers that have started using your images will eventually drop them when they update their mirror. Alternatively, a list of reusers is available at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks#GFDL compliance, and a much list of some more major and up-to-date ones is here. You could ask any of them to take down your images, and they'll probably comply sooner or later. On the other hand, the probability of any given mirror having adopted your images by now is inversely proportional to the time it will take them to drop them, so it may not be worth the effort. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Simple scientology logo

Image:Scientology new style logo.png is a very simple logo. Is this image subject to copyright? If it is protected, can it be used in templates? I've been working under the "safe" assumption that that its protected by copyright, like any {{logo}}, and I already removed it from Template:Scientology, which is used in talk pages (where it serves only as a decoration). But its also used in Template:ScientologySeries which is used in many articles. So, I would like some more knowledgeable people to decide what's appropriate here. Personally, I think the image is just an unnecessary decoration outside of a few articles. --Rob 07:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely a copyrighted logo and definitely can't be used in templates. I'm taking it out of Template:Scientology-stub and Template:ScientologySeries now. Angr (talk) 07:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Show me where it says a copyrighted logo "definitely" can't be used in templates. The logo is obviously not an "unnecessary decoration", because its purpose is to identify the subject in a pictographic way (which is, in fact, the purpose of any logo), which is why we have a Star of David and an image of a Menorah on Template:Jew, for instance. wikipediatrix 13:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Fair use criteria, point 9: "Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are often enough not covered under the fair use doctrine. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages." Angr (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

For more information about why this is the case see fair use. As a quick summary though, fair use applies when you are discussing the copyrighted work, to allow for freedom of speech. For example, if we were discussing the logo we could display it. We shouldn't use the logo though in a way other than as a subject for commentary. But to your example, the Star of David is not a copyrighted logo, so there are not as many concerns. - cohesion 15:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this all assming inappropriate use of the template? If the template is only used within scientology articles then there's absolutely no legal difference between writing [[Image:Scientology_new_style_logo.png]] and {{ScientologySeries}} If used within the proper articles it would still be fair use. There's absolutely no question (to my mind). - Glen Stollery 17:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fair use criteria is not the same thing as fair use. We don't use unfree content in Template space. Jkelly 19:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

"Exceptions can be made with consensus" - where would one seek such a thing? Thanks in advance - Glen Stollery 19:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The full quote is, "Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus that doing so is necessary to the goal of creating a free encyclopedia (like the templates used as part of the Main Page)." You'll have a hard time convincing anyone that including the Scientology logo on the navigation template is necessary to the goal of creating a free encyclopedia. Angr (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't mean to imply fair use and our policy were the same or indistinguishable, just as background info. Our policy is just a general rule that helps make things clear, one could certainly still use a copyrighted image in an article in a way that didn't constitute fair use. I think using the image as a navigational element would not constitute fair use even in an article about scientology, the article would need to be about the particular image. Just my opinion though. - cohesion 00:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the only exceptions made have been for the templates that are used to construct the main page, and for derivatives of the Wikipedia and Wikimedia logos used by a few Wikipedia-related projects. --Carnildo 06:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Question about the point of this rule

Copying from WP:HD, they said to come here. There seems to be a rather strange standard on what is acceptable in fair use images. Namely, cover art (to CDs, games, DVD cases), is often being tagged as "sourceless", to be deleted, even if the image includes the licencing tag, a fair use rationale, and the source of the art (From cover of whatever, copyright whoever). What seems to be missing, according to the this, is a random and meaningless 3rd party source - such as some link online where the image can be found. Many DVD covers have on them now the source being a link to the image on amazon.com. This seems rather absurd to me. The media's publisher is the source of the image, and amazon is just one of hundreds of stores that show the exact same image on the product. Why does listing them as the source make it ok, while stating who really made the image isn't good enough? -Goldom (t) (Review) 15:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It's good to be redundant about this sort of thing. In addition to the fair-use tag for cover art, also say something like "Source: Cover of XYZ CD by Britney Timberlake" or whatever. If you scanned it yourself, say so. If you got it from a website like Amazon or whatever, say that too. Angr (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't need a third-party source, necessarily. We just want to know whether you scanned it yourself, got it off Amazon, whatever. In the case of {{logo}}, it's a bit redundant, yeah, so it would seem silly to insist on a source being given explicitly. Who's tagging them as unsourced? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 17:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I saw any for {logo}, it was for {dvdcover} (or whatever the tag is) and {gamecover} (again making up tag I can't remember it). I saw some game box covers being marked is why I posted this, but previously was wondering due to a featured list candidate being opposed because its fair use pictures of DVD boxes were not sourced - even though they claimed the source was the dvd box, as would make sense. -Goldom (t) (Review) 19:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Stating the source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ME_as_a_south_park_dude.JPG The site http://www.sp-studio.de/ is where I "got" this picture. Basically, you can choose from a whole bunch of things and make your own character. The guys said to not say that we drew it, and to cite him. He said that we could use them as avatars and other things of that nature, which is precisely what I am trying to do. Please help me source it correctly. Thanks. --ObiBinks 02:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Giving the source is easy enough, just say "Compiled at http://www.sp-studio.de/". The hard part is the licensing. The full statement of how you can use the images is:

   It's okay to print the pictures for personal use, if you want to make a t-shirt, birthday card or desktop wallpaper. But DON'T SELL
THEM!
   If you show pictures on the internet (homepages, blogs, myspace-accounts, message boards), please ALWAYS give me credit! That's all
I'm asking for, just add a little note, that the pictures were created on my website.
   If you want to use the pictures for bigger projects (like movies) please write me a mail about it. 

If this statement were to be translated into a Creative Commons License, I think it would be CC-BY-NC, that is, attribution is required, and commercial use is prohibited. Problem is, Wikipedia policy is not to use images that can't be reused commercially. As such, I'm pretty sure you can't use that image here, not even just on your own user page. Sorry! Angr (talk) 06:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

How do you REM something out

How do you REM something out?

You type <!-- before and --> after. Angr (talk) 06:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Image

I uploaded a personal picture and have no idea what I need to do to tag it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tommydpreston (talk • contribs) .

I assume the picture in question is Image:TOMMY.gif, right? Normally photographs are the intellectual property of the photographer or the photographer's employer. I'm not sure, but I believe that if you paid the photographer to take that picture of you, then you can be considered his "employer" at the time and therefore you are the copyright holder of the image and can release it into the public domain, or under the GFDL, or under a Wikipedia-acceptable Creative Commons License. Just go to Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and pick one. However, if the photographer was paid by someone else (such as your school or university), then the copyright belongs to them, not to you. Angr (talk) 06:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the text on the image pages should reflect the source and license of the image, and any usage requirements. It should only include metadata about the image, not information about the subject of the image. For information about the subject of the image usually you should use article space. In this case though, the content may not be a candidate for inclusion, although I am not sure what the consensus is on student government positions. Some useful policies to look over include the policy on articles about yourself, and the policy on original research. - cohesion 17:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If he paid the photographer, the photographer would be a contractor, not an employee. See 17 USC § 101, "work made for hire". Tommy, please ask the photographer if he would be willing to release the image under a license such as the GFDL. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Richie Sambora photo

Image:Richiesambora.jpg <<< I'm unsure as to which of the catagories covers the copyright photos area. 06:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Before the correct copyright tag can be determined, we need to know the source. Who's the photographer? Has the photographed been published, and if so, where? Angr (talk) 06:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

promotional copyright

I've been trying to upload a photo and put a promotional copyright tag on it, but there is no such option in the pop-up menu of Licensing. How do I add the promotional tag then?