↓

Skip to table of contents

↓

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

How to add a copyright tag to an existing image

1. On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts Image:), click Edit this page.
2. From the page Wikipedia:Image copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag. For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators".
3. Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{GFDL-self}}), 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 Save page.
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 ask your question" 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.

This page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive. Sections with fewer than two timestamps (no replies) are not archived.

Photobucket

Can images from photobucket be uploaded? Photobucket's terms of use seems to explain that all public photos can be copied, modified, and distributed for any legal use. In particular, see under the section "Proprietary Rights in Content on Photobucket". I originally asked this question at Wikipedia:Help desk#Photobucket where there is some discussion and a suggestion that I should ask here. Snowman (talk) 09:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No, for many reasons. First, most photos on photobucket are not actually owned by their uploaders. Second, the terms of use do not make images as free as is needed. All photobucket "users" may "copy, print or display publicly" the photos that are there, but there is no mention of derivative works, or who constitutes a "user". (Any mention of modification is a right granted to photobucket itself, not to anyone else.) Finally, if you take down your photos, these rights cease to exist. Wikipedia requires irrevocable licenses. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be mistaken because the images can be modified. This is a quote for the terms of use: "By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content on or through the Photobucket Services, you hereby grant to Photobucket and other users a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, worldwide, limited license to use, modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and translate such Content, including without limitation distributing part or all of the Site in any media formats through any media channels, ..." To me this appears to be a public domain license, or something very similar to it, but I would like some help in interpreting these terms of use of photobucket. Also, if a photobucket user has uploaded several photos on the same theme with the same camera, it is likely that the images are their own work. It is the same with flickr, it is a wiki guideline that wiki uploaders assess if the images seem likely that they are the flicr users own work. I would like some assistance with the interpretation of the part of the photobucket license that deals with the license termination. To me it appears to imply that the license terminates when distribution ceases, but only photobucket have an obligation in the terms of service to stop distributing the images. Snowman (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Still, random people who have never been to Photobucket are probably not "users", and so are not granted a license. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

From the terms of use: "The term "User" refers to a Visitor or a Member." ;) -- Hux (talk) 02:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

And many wikipedia users and reusers are neither.... Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

While Calliopejen1 was mistaken regarding modification and derivative works, her other points are still sound and enough to disqualify PhotoBucket photos from being usable here. As she said, Wikipedia's requirements are that media is either in the public domain, or released under a permanent, free license that allows any and all modification and use, including commercial use. So, while PhotoBucket allows more or less unlimited use, the terms state that at any time a user may remove this license and revert their photos to private status. This means that the PhotoBucket license is not a permanent one, so it's not acceptable to Wikipedia, unfortunately. (PS FYI, there's no such thing as a "public domain license". "Public domain" is a term used to describe the complete absence of any license or other restriction on the use of a work.) -- Hux (talk) 02:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

So one barrier to use of the wiki is the possibility that the photobucket license might change. This is what photobucket says to its uploaders; "After you remove your Content from the Photobucket Website we will cease distribution as soon as practicable, and at such time when distribution ceases, the license to such Content will terminate. If after we have distributed your Content outside the Photobucket Website you change the Content’s privacy setting to "private," we will cease any further distribution of such "private" Content outside the Photobucket Website as soon as practicable." Snowman (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

old pictures

How can I get a copy of an old picture if I can get photographer who's now deased permission≈≈≈≈≈≈ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.148.51 (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure what you're asking. Are you in possession of the photo? Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

A little clarification on public domain images please

On the Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States, it states that images would be in public domain if its creator has passed away more than 70 years ago, or if unknown, 120 years after it was created. Now it also states that works unpublished created before 1978 but are published during 1977–2003 are only in public domain at 2048 earliest. Does that mean that for example, a photo created in 1840 and stored in a box for 150 years before being unearthed,

• was in public domain when someone scanned and posted it on newsgroups (1998),
• exits public domain in 2002 when published in a book,
• and will not reenter public domain until 2048? Jappalang (talk) 08:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The general rule is that works do not exit the public domain once they enter it. The photographs you describe would enter the public domain 70 years after the photographer's death (or, if unknown, 120 years after creation), and would remain there, even if they were subsequently published. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

That is good to know. I just want to be sure and cover all angles when I go looking for public domain photos. Many thanks for the answer. Jappalang (talk) 09:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

license tag

I don't know what type of license Image:Schifirnet.JPG falls uder. The picture was taken by one of Prof. Schifirnet's students during class. Prof. Schifirnet asked the student if he can put it up on Wikipedia, if he's sure he doesn't claim any copyright. Student's answer was yes to both question. Prof. Schifirnet gave me the picture to upload it, which I did. Now what license tag is that?

And, if I cannot upload it, can Prof. Schifirnet upload it himself, and under what license? Please notify me on my talk page.

Thank you, Elenaschifirnet (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If he doesn't claim any copyright, that's public domain. Use the tag {{PD-because}}. It would be ideal to get the release of copyright in writing though (See WP:COPYREQ if needed). --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the tag {{PD-author}} would be better - it's more precise. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

copyright rules in GB/USA?

hello! I am from germany and therefore only know the german copyright rule, which allows the free use of any picture in the case that its creator is more than 70 years dead. I just have uploaded the following picture: image:Hedwig Raabe.jpg, whose painter, Hans Peter Hansen, died in 1899. please would you tell me if the german copyright rule is also convenient to the angloamerican law? in that case: what is the option on the british wikimedia commons upload-menu referring to the german 70-years-rule I have to click on? thanks for the informations, --Ammonius82 (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I know that American copyright law is also Life + 70 and makes all media created before 1924 public-domain; I'm unsure about Britain, however. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 19:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The basic rule in the U.K. and most Commonwealth countries is life + 50 years. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Life + 70 in the UK (and the rest of the EU) surely? DuncanHill (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in fact - I was confusing the E.U. with either Uruguay or the U.A.E., which sandwich it on the chart I was consulting and which are both life + 50. Thanks for correcting me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem - UK used to be life plus 50. DuncanHill (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The UK is broadly similar (there are some differences), but it's the American copyright law which needs to be referred to when uploading pics to Wikipedia. I think {{PD-art}}, {{PD-old}}, or {{PD-art-life-70}} would all be sufficient. Commons has these options on the main upload form or you can add the tag after uploading. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I simply have added the 70-years-tag for authors to the image now, hoping there won't be problems with it any more. --Ammonius82 (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Photograph of an artistic design

Hi. I have a picture that I would like to use on Wikipedia. Photography, self taken, of an artistic design. It's the decoration of the canvas on the seats of Stockholm's metro, and would be useful for Wikipedia as it demonstrates the use of a number of Stockholm's sights in an abstract, decorative fashion. The design itself might be copyrighted, and it is, to my knowledge, used only by Stockholm's municipal transportation authority. Would it be permissible to publish my photographic reproduction under a copyleft license? Benevolent Spectator (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It would depend on the nature of the design. If it involved only simply geometric shapes and that sort of thing, then it would be ineligible for copyright, so you could license your photograph however you liked. If it was something more intricate, then it would certainly be under copyright, and your photograph would be a derivative work; in that event you would be unable to license it. I'm not really an expert on where the line is drawn between eligible and ineligible, but if there somewhere offsite you could host the picture so we could take a look at it? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Afraid not, I don't have any accounts elsewhere where I could upload it, and would not like to create one solely for that purpose.The design itself is highly abstract, rather like simplified contours of buildings and more, much like line drawings. I guess one might ascribe some artistic value to it. If you had any suggestions where to put the picture for scrutiny I'll be happy to do that. Perhaps one could upload it to Wikipedia and at the same time make a note at WP:IFD with a link to this discussion here, to involve a few more eyeballs? Benevolent Spectator (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Have done that now, discussion please at IFD. Thanks. Benevolent Spectator (talk) 07:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

mms from 0096170811586

N Not done

i have a password how to open this picture--62.120.26.142 (talk) 03:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, we can not assist with this matter. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 03:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Would any of these images be eligible for use here?

The McClatchy News Service published close to 100 articles about Guantanamo and Bagram detention facilities in June. They also published over five dozen images.

I expect those images will expire from the McClatchy site, at some point. I requested http://www.webcitation.org/archive.php to archive the images. And I have a page in my user space where I listed the archived images for later reference.

Are any of these images public domain?

I figure this image, marked "for official use" would be in the public domain, because it was made by a GI.

Although this image is labeled a "pool" image it looks identical to, but of a higher resolution, an image that a US Gov site credits to a GI. If that is the case it too would be public domain?

I assume "press pool" images are not public domain, but merely that (some?) press services have limited reproduction rights -- and no one else does -- correct?

Copyright status of images taken in Afghanistan

I asked about this question over on Commons:Village pump -- from my reading it seems that Afghanistan currently has no domestic copyright law, and is not a full signatory to the Berne Convention or any other international copyright agreement.

Some people seem to interpret this situation as if images from Afghanistan are "up for grabs", and the first person to publish them in a country that does have copyright laws can claim all rights to the image, world-wide, even if they didn't take the image themselves, or negotiate the rights with the original photographer.

This sounds like nonsense to me. But IANAL.

In this particular case these images were taken by employees of the publisher. So the publisher would own all the rights anyhow...

fair use?

Some of the remaining images are clearly not eligible for "fair use", because those individuals have been interviewed before, and other non-free images of them are out there.

Just to be clear, in the cases where a lonely McClatchy reporter put their life at risk to go interview a villager who was very difficult to find -- images captured there would not qualify for fair use, because some other brave reporter could put their life at risk, and do all the legwork to track the subject down for another picture. So most of the images of individuals would not qualify for fair use?

These two images [1], [2], capture a specific event -- the release of a bunch of captives from Bagram. Would one of the individuals here have to be someone known to be important for these images to qualify for fair use?

If any of these guys die...

If any of these guys die, and no free images are known to exist, then the image would probably become "fair use" -- correct?

So, if they don't qualify for fair use?

So, if these images don't qualify for fair use am I supposed to not have pointers to them? If so I will blank this page.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure about the answers for all the images you asked about, but I will offer what help I can, and hopefully someone more knowledgeable will come along and be able to sort out the rest. The pool image [3], even if it's similar to an image taken by a GI, says on it that it belongs to Getty Images, a commercial image firm. That makes it non-free and out of the question for wikipedia use, especially with a free alternative avaliable.

For the court martial document, I really don't know. The "For Official Use Only" at the bottom of the page makes me think it might not be, but it probably comes down to what the status of documents obtained by US Court Martials is. I'd say it also depends on how/where this image got out. If it's a leaked document, considering it's marked "for official use only", I'd guess it's not okay, but I honestly don't know and hope someone more knowledgeable than me can come along and answer.

Depending on the text of the article, you might be able to justify one (but not both) of the images of the prisoners getting released since it would capture a historical event that would be impossible to replicate. However, it really would depend on the text of the article and whether or not the image would lead to a significant increase in reader understanding in a way that mere text could not.

And it's fine to have links going to non-free images, you just can't post the images themselves. So no page blanking required. Sorry I can't answer all your questions, but I hope that gets you off to a start. Vickser (talk)

Thanks for the reply.

Yes, I will agree, if the pool image really was taken by a reporter, it is not PD. But I have come across about a dozen images which seem to have been demonstrably first published by the DoD, where they were attributed to a GI, only to have them later surface in a wire services library, where the wire service library is claiming they own the intellectual property right. I think some times this is due to plain out human error. But I am afraid that some photojournalists have less respect for intellectual property rights than we do, and will routinely claim ownership of images they are not entitled to.

So, the public domain aspect of all works of US Federal employess is trumped by an "Official Use Only" stamp? But, if that were true, why wasn't Daniel Ellsberg, the guy who leaked The Pentagon Papers charged with copyright violation? The other interpretation is that the PD counts more, comes first, and once an image or document is leaked, authorities are limited to charging the leaker with violating the official secrets act, or reasonable equivalent? Geo Swan (talk) 07:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As said above, for the leaked court martial document, I'm really not sure. Hopefully someone who does know more than me can come along and clarify, but in the mean time I'm inclined towards better safe than sorry. It says it's made by George Chigi III who it identifies as a military polygraph examiner and is from a US court martial file. Do we know for sure that military polygraphers are members of the US military and not contractors? Was this drawing done as part of his official duties or is it something he wrote in a diary that the court martial obtained? Was it even made while he was still in the military and not something he made after the fact at the Court Martial's request? There are lots of things that could effect it, so while it may be PD, I don't feel clear enough on it that I could say to you "this is fine, upload it."

For the Getty thing, if you can find a copy of the image published by the DoD that the DoD claims belongs to it, then it'll be okay. But that version says it's by Getty Images, so we're going to have to assume it is unless we can prove otherwise. I won't speak to whether or not GI or other wire services are regularly flouting copyright rules, but unless it can be shown in this specific case, we're going to have to assume good faith that they, as a large and respected commercial image firm, own the images they say they do. Vickser (talk) 06:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

An image from Croatian government

I have an image, which is copyrighted by the Croatian government and the license under the image states it may be used for any cause, reproduced, etc. with a responsibility to name the copyright owner. Which template should I use when I upload this image? Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe the correct tag is {{Attribution}}. Check that it accurately describes the status of the image. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, can I upload such a picture to Commons? Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look good: the stated license translates as "Copyright © 2007 Government of the Republic of Croatia. All rights reserved. Content from these pages can be used without special permits with reference to the source."

This permits reproduction, but does not permit the creation or distribution of derivative works. For Wikipedia's purposes, this is non-free, and the image isn't usable on Wikipedia. --Carnildo (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:WPSuperheroes.svg

Does Image:WPSuperheroes.svg breach copyright or trademark law with regards the Superman shield? Hiding T 18:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not even close to the superman logo. It doesn't even have the same font. BW21.--BlackWatch21 18:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I personally think it resembles the Superman logo, but doesn’t copy it enough to be called a breach of copyright. I deliberately used a different font for the S, and the inclusion of the W & P sets it apart in my opinion. But, to be honest, i am not impartial as the creator, so another verdict would be welcome --23230 ^talk 19:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The only way you'll get a definite verdict is by being sued and having the courts decide, but it looks good to me. It's not a modified copy of the Superman logo, so copyright infringement is out, and it's not being used to impersonate Superman, so it's not trademark infringement either. --Carnildo (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me too. I don't think you'll have a problem. Vickser (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Including Copyrighted Quotations

I would like to include a copyrighted quotation in an article. This is "non-free content" -- I have the copyright owner's permission to use the quotation in the article, but it is not licensed under the GFDL or any other compatible license. Because the quotation is the entire copyrighted work, its inclusion does not fall under the "fair use" exception. Is it acceptable to use this quotation (with attribution/permission statement)?

24.7.118.63 (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we don't accept things under a "you can use this for a wikipedia" license, it needs to be full free license. It's likely you'll be able to use some quotations under fair use, but certainly not the whole work. As a rule, any non-free license won't fly unless you could use the same material under fair use. Vickser (talk) 00:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The following copyrighted quotation is from Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Text

Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text must be attributed and used verbatim. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [brackets] for added text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited.

-- SWTPC6800 (talk) 03:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Wikipedia is the source for a good deal of my research. Do you inforce the use of citations with regard to the information my computer provides me that has been acquired from a Wikipedia reference? 72.70.16.178 (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking about... If you are talking about reusing text from Wikipedia elsewhere, you must follow the requirements of the GFDL (generally including attribution and inclusion of a copy of the license) -- see Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content -- unless what you are doing is fair use (which might include storing a copy on your computer for personal use). Academic honesty is also a good reason to cite your sources. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Images of "Secret Astronauts"

Are the photographs of USAF astronauts on the PBS Astrospies NOVA web page in the public domain? On the Credits page, they state that all astronaut photos are "Courtesy U.S. National Archives and Records Administration". Although I could not find the images on the National Archives web site, the FAQ states that "the vast majority of the digital images ... are in the public domain". The photos look like standard USAF photos issue and so would be PD. Are these acceptable for upload to Wiki?

Thanks, Skeet Shooter (talk) 02:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

All the profile images would fall under either:

This image is a work of an U.S. Air Force Airman or employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain.

or

This image is a work of a sailor or employee of the U.S. Navy, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain.

And are thus okay to use. Yes, if you had the original source it would be better, but those are their official profile shots, and we know photos of AF/Navy members taken during the course of their official duties are okay. So, yes, they're okay, and use those two templates when uploading. Vickser (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Skeet Shooter (talk) 12:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Timo Glock crash image

Well I'm planning to upload an image of Glock's crash, called glock-hockenheim-z-08_200708.jpg . However, I forgot where I found it and I do not know the license Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, if you don't know where the photo came from, we cannot accept it on Wikipedia. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

All I can remember was it was in some news website. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

If it's from a news website, it's probably not going to be a free image. It would then need a fair use rationale, which may or may not be possible depending on the article text. Free or fair, you're going to need to know who took it, who owns the copyright, and where it could be found for it to be acceptable for use on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, if you don't have that, we're going to end up having to delete it. Vickser (talk) 04:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

PLZ CHECK IS EVERYTHING CORRECT OF MY ARTICLE ON KARAM SINGH HISTORIAN???

I AM GREAT GRAND SON OF KARAM SINGH HISTORIAN AND IAHD A PHOTO OF HIM WHICH I GOT SCANNED AND THE UPLOADED IT .HENCE IAHVE USED THE TAG PDF SELF..........ARE THEIR NECESSARY CHANGES —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manjotdhillon (talk • contribs) 12:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the copy of the biography. It belongs in the Karam Singh (historian) article and not in the Image:Karam Singh Historian.jpg image page.

What is needed on the image page is information about the picture itself: Who took the photo? When did they take it and where? Is the photo still under the photographer’s copyright? If it is not, why not? If it is, under what terms does the photographer allow Wikipedia to use his photograph? Most particularly it needs a copyright tag, expressing under what terms Wikipedia can use the image.

I don't understand the content you added with your last edit.

By the way, please don’t use ALL CAPS. It is considered rude—like shouting. —teb728 t c 01:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

war trophy

what is the history behind keeping silver trophies in officers mess? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsgusain (talk • contribs) 13:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but this page is read by people who know about copyright questions. You might get an answer to that question at Wikipedia:Reference desk. —teb728 t c 20:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

programming fundamental

can u tell me what the different between the following types os programming below:

a) Structured programming

b) modular programming

c) object - oriented programming...

can u tell me about that..

plssss

i need help... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.54.111.175 (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This page is for copyright questions. You might be able to get an answer at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing if you can convince them that you are not trying to get them to do your homework for you. Or you could try searching for structured programming, modular programming, and object-oriented programming in the search box. —teb728 t c 20:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Bobby Driscoll - Public Domain rationale/tag for audio files

Hello,

I uploaded and embeded an excerpt of a radio show (concerning the 22nd. Academy Award Ceremony - 1950 - within the section/passage: The Window), which is entirely in the Public Domain, since its free availlable on archive.org. I then added an appropriate summary and a "Public Domain" rationale, which is actually used for images, but my file, I added is an audio file. Now I'm not certain, if I used the correct tags/rationales. I'd be grateful to learn about the correct ones to use. Regards:--Bylot (talk) 11:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you link to the actual url for the recording on archive.org and the media file here on wikipedia? Being on archive.org is not at all a guarantee that something is public domain. If you read their copyright policy on their FAQ [4], it seems pretty clear to me that they archive copyrighted material, but will take it down upon request. It seems likely to me that the file isn't going to be in the public domain, although I'd have to check up on audio copyrights and see if it was originally published with a copyright before giving you a definitive answer.

Assuming it's non-free and depending on the text that accompanies the audio, you may be able to use up to a 30 second clip. You would do so under the tag:

{{Non-free audio sample}}

Which looks like

This is a sample from a copyrighted audio recording. It is believed that the use of this work qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law when used on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, where: The sample is being used for commentary on the recording in question. It contributes significantly to the encyclopedia articles it is used in (listed under the heading "File links" below) in a way that cannot be duplicated by other forms of media. The sample is short in relation to the duration of the recorded track and is of an inferior quality to the original recording. No other samples from the same track are used in Wikipedia. There is no adequate free alternative available. A more detailed fair use rationale may be provided by the user who uploaded this recording. Any other uses of this recording, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. If you are the copyright holder of this recording and you feel that its use here does not fall under "fair use" please see Wikipedia:Copyright problems for information on how to proceed. To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale as well as the source of the work and copyright information.

.

To get to the tag on the upload page, select Other, and then under Non-Free/Fair Use pick Music sample.

For now, just link to the audio recording you have here as well as the original source so we can evaluate if they're free or not. Thank you. Vickser (talk) 11:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your prompt reply. I replaced the previous audio file of 1.27 minutes by a shorter one of only 49 seconds, saving the essential part. Then I edited the summary rationale appropriately and added the suggested media file tag plus a non-free use rationale. Within both rationales I linked to the original source (archive.org). To link only to this radio show on archive.org would mean, that one must either listen to this radio show there until those part or copy/download the complete audio file and cut out/extract it. With this contribution to the article on Bobby Driscoll I intended to improve it by allowing/offering to listen to this historical event additionally "live". Since it's a live audio recording of the 1950 Academy Award Ceremony it's definitely not reproducible and thus, (in my opinion) historically significant and not just another, even if rare, version of it.

Again, thank you very much for taking time to check it.

Regards:--Bylot (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Plaque

Springfieldohio (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC) I recently uploaded a plaque dedicated to the subject of my article. It was promptly deleted. The history in the article says I was given 48 hours notice, but I do not see where I got it. I have been interested in the subject of my article for a long time. So, a long time ago I downloaded an image of a plaque to him that is on display in a public park. Unfortunately, I no longer remember where I found that image. I have had it for years. My travels recently took me close to that very far away public park, where I stopped and took a lot of photos (two of which I used in the article as photos of a public place that I had taken myself, which I did). However, I did not take a photo of that plaque, because I already had one. Since this very public plaque is on dispay in a very public place, is there any acceptable justification whereby I can upload it again and insert it into my article? If so, what is it? I do not see how its use infringes on anyone's rights. There are many "fair use" justifications listed on the copyright page, but none of them ever seem to be acceptable when I try to use one. It would make a nice addition to the article, if there is some way I can use it. Thanks.

When you take a picture of things outside, they're often considered to be free under freedom of panorama. However, in the US freedom of panorma does not include 2D objects, such as plaques. Therefore, your picture of the plaque counts as a derivative work and is not going to be a free image. However, this does depend on how old the plaque is and when its original creator died. If the creator died over 70 years ago, or the plaque was put up before 1923 in the US, the plaque may be in the PD and thus your picture of it would be okay.

If the plaque's not free, you may be able to write a fair use justification for it. You said you'd been writing them: could you provide a copy of the suggested rationale, a link to the image, and a link to the article where you would like to use it? If you do so, we can take a look and see if fair use can be justified, and if it can, how you'll need to write up the fair use rationale so it won't be deleted. Let me know if you have any questions. Vickser (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I uploaded it again. It is Brady's plaque.jpg and I reinserted it in the Samuel Brady article in the place I would use it. I may have bumped into the correct rationale this time, because I see no message threatening to delete it. If that message is going to appear, please let me know what rationale, if any, I should use. The plague says it was placed in 1989. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Springfieldohio (talk • contribs) 20:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I took a look at the plaque [5]. It was placed in 1989 and therefore is not in the public domain via age. It's a 2D work, and thus not covered under freedom of panorama. It doesn't have any utilitarian aspect, so you can't claim that exception, even though it's not particularly artistic. The plaque is a non-free image, and so the picture of the plaque is also non-free.

So, that only leaves fair use. To justify fair use, you would need the addition of the plaque to add significantly to reader understanding of the topic. Essentially, you'd need critical commentary on the plaque in such a way that showing the plaque added comprehension in a way words could not. (For more on when non-free images are allowed, see WP:NFCC) That's certainly not true in the current case, where the plaque isn't even mentioned in the accompanying article. Nor do I think it would be possible with any version, since there's simply nothing particularly enlightening gained from the image of the plaque.

In short, there's no rationale under which you can use the image, and it's unfortunately going to have to be deleted. I know it's not the answer you want and that it's always sad to lose a picture you want for the article, but we do have to enforce copyright standards and you'll still have a very well illustrated article. Vickser (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I would tag this {{PD-ineligible}}. The one sentence describing the site is not creative, nor are the basic declarations of when the plaque was placed. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I made that change before I say your post. —teb728 t c 21:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

If you guys think it's PD ineligible I'll bow to that. I considered whether it would be exempt under not crossing the threshold of originality, but after reading the commons bit on derivative works [6] I thought it wouldn't qualify for an exemption since it doesn't really have a purpose other than decoration and some thought had to go into the placement of the wording, typeface, etc. But I think you can make a pretty good case that there's just not enough in there to make it a work, and if you guys think that's the case I'll be willing to go along. Vickser (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Springfieldohio (talk) 22:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Just on last ditch question. One of the points of the article is to show that there is a lot of local pride in Kent, Ohio that "Brady's Leap" took place there. I think it would be entirely appropriate to mention that fact, along with pointing out that the citizens of Kent put up that plaque, not once but twice to commerate its happening. So, my question is would it do any good to add a discussion like that to that part of the article and specifically mention that plaque as part of that discussion?

Sure. Be WP:BOLD. —teb728 t c 22:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Screenshots of sports stars

Can I take screen shots off the TV and use these pictures on sports stars pages. WOuld this apply as fair usage ? ManfromDelmonte (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Use of non-free content on Wikipedia is much more restricted than US fair use law. In particular, a non-free image is not allowed if a free substitute could be obtained. (See WP:NFCC, particularly WP:NFCC#1.) This excludes most non-free images of living people. —teb728 t c 21:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use images of three-dimensional art

I was browsing through Category:User-created public domain images and found images such as Image:'Breaking Column', motorized stainless steel sculpture by --George Rickey--, 1988, --The Contemporary Museum, Honolulu--.jpg and Image:'Sky Gate', 24 foot high painted steel sculpture by Isamu Noguchi, Honolulu Hale (city hall), Honolulu, Hawaii, 1977.JPG tagged as being fair use images due to them being deriavative works. However, they were also tagged with {{pd-self}}. Is this valid or did the uploader just make a mistake?--balloonguy (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much, there are two levels of copyright involved in a picture of a 3-dimensional work of art. The original copyright of the work of art, and the copyright of photograph itself, which though a derivative work, gets its own copyright because of the importance of light/shadow/framing involved with photographing 3D objects. To use a photo of 3D art, you need both to be okay. The photograph itself is being released to the public domain, that's what that tag means. The art works themselves (here by George Rickey and Isami Noguchi), are not in the public domain, but because the images significantly add to reader understanding of the articles and meet the rest of NFCC, we're using that copyright under fair use.

I'm not sure if I'm explaining it 100% clearly, so let me know if you need me to clarify anything. Vickser (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No, you explained it perfectly, thanks!--balloonguy (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

non-free use

The image I uploaded for an article on The Day Joyce Sheet was deleted as it was copyright of the Imperial War Museum. I would like to submit a non-free use rationale. How do I do this? Johnhk31 (talk) 10:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

See the Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. You would put the non-free use rationale on the image page Image:Day joyce sheet.jpg. That image page, however, has been deleted; so you have no place to put it. One of the things you which the rationale needs would be a link to the article where the image is to be used, like Day Joyce Sheet. That article, however, has also been deleted; so you have no article to use it on at this time. Without being use in an article, the image will be deleted.

I see that you are drafting an article at User:Johnhk31/Day Joyce Sheet. You should work on that draft—in particular providing references, which the draft sorely lacks. When the article is ready, you can move it to article space. Then you could upload the image again, including a use rationale. And then you could add the image to the article. —teb728 t c 20:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Lordprice collection

User:Lordprice has uploaded well over hundred fifty pictures most with a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 licence with uploader stating that all are copyright of the Lordprice Collection and used with permission. The website is a commercial site selling images and no indication that any of the images have been released. Some of the images on the Lordprice collection website have been scanned from other sources such as magazines and leaflets. Some images from this uploader have been deleted before (and some moved to commons!) Anybody have any comment, if they are possible unfree images is there a way of listing over 150 images at once. Left a message on uploader talk page on the 20 July asking if he has an OTRS ticket but he has not been online since. Second opinions welcome and if anybody agrees a suggestion of a way forward. Thank you MilborneOne (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As things stand right now, we have no evidence that "the Lordprice collection" is indeed the copyright holder of these images or that User:Lordprice represents that entity. Furthermore, many (most? all?) of the images carry a notice that they are "reproduced on Wikipedia with their permission", but this is incompatible with our requirement that images be free for others to reproduce as well.

There's no easy way of listing these images en masse, other than making a bot request. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, as "reproduced on Wikipedia with their permission" and uploaded after 19 May 2005, they could all be speedied under CSD:I3. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Enver Hoxha image from a possibly out-of-print book

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

Description

Enver Hoxha, from a book that is probably out of print Source

Enver Hoxha: His Life and Work (1986) © Central Agency of Artistic Book Trade (also known as Ndermarrja e Perhapjes se Librit) Date

Book was made in 1986, date of photo is probably early 80's. Author

Editorial Board: Prof. Foto Cami - Chairman Prof. Sofokli Lazri, Leka Shkurti, Prof. Agim Popa, Anastas Kondo, Sevo Tarifa, Prof. Raqi Madhi, Prof. Vangjel Moisiu, Spiro Dede, Ajet Simixhiu

Is this image allowed on Wikipedia? --Mrdie (talk) 23:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it's not going to be allowed. An image taken in the 1980s and published in 1986 by a private company is not going to be in the public domain. And it's not going to be for a while: Albanian copyrights are for life + 70 years.[7] Since Enver Hoxha is dead, you might be able to justify it under fair use. However since there are pictures of him in the public domain already such as Image:Stalin molotov hoxha.jpg, I don't think you'll be able to make a very good case for it. To read about when non-free content is allowed, check out WP:NFCC Vickser (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Free use photo

Hi. After seeing a request posted by Collectonian, I've been working with Kenlamberton in an attempt to get a photo for use in the article Ken Lamberton. He has photos of himself from others and uploaded them. That didn't work well. He is in contact with the person who took the photos and believes that they will allow them to be used in Wikipedia. I read over Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Example requests for permission, but still am fuzzy on the steps needed to get the approval to the proper places. If you can clarify this, I would be most appreciative. Suntag (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen WP:COPYREQ? It tells what permission is is required, how to request it, and how to submit it. —teb728 t c 20:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, that clears things up. Thanks. Suntag (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Image_Copyright_Query

I have returned to my page on Wikipedia after some time away to find all the images I had put up missing. After looking at my messages, some questions about copyright have arisen.

I must state that the images below are copyrighted and are used on cds that are copyrighted by me and my record company. I do not see what the problem is, as I have already declared this to be so.

Please advise me on what I should do in order to have these images put back onto the page. Thankyou,

Image:TTTO FS cdcover.jpg

Image:Lastwind - Monster Trucks Table Pic.jpg

Image:Bud Direct Need To Know.jpg

Image:This That The Other Urban Angst.jpg

Image:Dub Direct Tenement Rydims.jpg

Youre Sincerely, Richard Nowell Richard Nowell (talk) 12:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that, other than in certain, specific cases, Wikipedia can only accept images that have been released under a free license or into the public domain. If you have the authority to do this then simply upload the images again under the same file names and choose an appropriate license (see options at this page). However, bear in mind that unless a contract was drawn up with the photographer specifically agreeing that the photos constitute works made for hire, the copyright in these photographs is likely owned by the photographer, in which case you would not have the authority to release them. In either case, if you are unable, or simply prefer not to release them in this way then we can't use them here. Sorry! -- Hux (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify slightly: Wikipedia does not accept permission for use only on Wikipedia. What is required is a free license. This means that you/your record company must allow anyone to use the images for anything, including commercial use and modification. The only restrictions you can make is to require they be credited to you and/or that the use be licensed under an equivalent license. —teb728 t c 19:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

copying pictur and text

can I copy any pictur or copy any text from Wikipedia pages ?--~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asorong (talk • contribs) 23:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

--Asorong (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, subject to certain conditions that you can read here. What do you want to do with the pictures and text? --Rlandmann (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Is Zapfino copyrighted?

Hello, THis is an inportant question fo me: Is Zapfino a copyrighted font? Or can I use it freely? Thanks, Kat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.24.9 (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe the Zapfino font file is copyrighted. You can't install a pirated copy on your computer. But if you have a legal copy on your computer, you can use it freely to create documents. —teb728 t c 06:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation of the Wikipedia name

Hello, I would like to report a potential copyright violation. http://myanmarwikipedia.org is currently a redirect domain to http://wikimyanmar.org instead of http://my.wikipedia.org, the Wikipedia for the Myanmar language. Who do I contact? Thanks. --69.234.102.29 (talk) 06:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a trademark of the Wikimedia foundation. They're the ones who would take action if any. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 06:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:IMGP2517.jpg

I uploaded an image of my Mii I took on my Nintendo Wii, but it's saying it's non free media. Please help me. --S.C.Ruffeyfan 11:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's okay now. -- Hux (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You think? It seems like it's not going to be a free image to me. Other Wii images of Miis are non-free: Image:Mii channel.jpg, Image:Wiifitbmi.jpg, and Image:Mii Screenshot.JPG. I think any screenshot or picture of a Mii is going to be a derivative work of Nintendo, and thus non-free. In short, what this means is you're not going to be allowed to upload an image of your Mii to wikipedia unless it's under fair use for an article, and since the Mii and Wii articles are both already well-illustrated, you won't be able to justify this. Vickser (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Township Seal

Wouldn't a township seal be considered free content? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobes23 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the township - some towns (or the areas in which they are located) have rules stating that all government-produced works are in the public domain by default. Generally speaking, though, such seals are copyrighted more often than not. I'd suggest getting in touch with them, or searching for copyright information on the township's website if it has one. -- Hux (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

receipts

how do i get a receipt that i created to be copyright so no one can still my ideal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.13.78 (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this is a place for copyright questions that are related to wikipedia. It is not a general forum for non-related copyright questions. You may be able to find some answers at copyright.gov, which is maintained by the US government. Vickser (talk) 06:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Promotional material

I seem to remember a time when we could upload pictures that were taken from promo kits. Is this no longer the case? I ask because I have a ton of Motown promotional material, but I didn't want to start uploading it unless it's allowed. LoomisSimmons (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Image permissions

I am publishing a magazine and would like to include the following image in the magazine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2_Columbus_Circle.jpg

The article is part of a guide to New York City and I would like to show how the building at 2 Columbus Circle has been renovated over the past few years. I plan to print over 100 copies and distribute it in Japan. Does GFDL allow me to use this image in my magazine? If it is allowed can I credit the photo as "(GFDL Renate O'Flaherty"?

Please let me know. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbomb1 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:REUSE for guidance on reusing Wikipedia content. As a practical matter, reuse of GFDL images is difficult in a print medium, because one of the license conditions is that the license itself must be reprinted along with such an image. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if the license specifies "with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts" I have to print the copy of the license? Jbomb1 (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Google Maps Street View

Could I upload to Wikimedia an image of a building (of which no copyright exists on its image) which I derive by using Google Maps Street View? (ie use Street View to look at a house, screen shot the image, cut and crop the picture into a .jpg file, and upload)? Kransky (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Basically - no. Megapixie (talk) 04:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Metcard (back).jpg

Wouldn't it be Free Use, because the main subject of the image is the ticket? Guy0307 (talk) 08:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there would be any copyright on that part of the card. All that's visible on the card is functional, rather than creative. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 09:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lamenting the dead.jpg

This image was public domain until January 1, 2008. Due to a change in Russian copyright law, it may have returned to copyrighted status. It is in use at several articles including World War II casualties where I recently replaced it with a public domain image.[8] After the edit got reverted I explained the change on talk and provided a citation for the change (the concern is also on the image licensing template). Talk:World_War_II_casualties#Images The editor who wants to keep it has not been cooperative.[9]

I don't wish to have an edit war, so seeking independent opinion. It seems to me that the change in law is sufficiently documented, and the burden of proof shifts to those who want to regard this as public domain. So for the time being, it's safer to replace with an image that's definitely public domain in an article where it can be replaced with a free image. Is that a fair approach? Durova^Charge! 11:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that we can keep it as long as it's on commons. The people there are usually the experts on these things and will remove it if it turns out to not be a free image after all. If and when they do, we can replace it here. Shanes (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see you're an admin on commons. Then you probably know more about this than me. I usually tend to just trust images that have been on commons for a long time. Anyway, I still think the image should be removed from commons first, if it doesn't belong there. Shanes (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, generally that would be the appropriate choice. It isn't often that a copyright law changes in this way. This does affect large numbers of images and the new law has been in force for over eight months. Surely this isn't the first time this question has come up? Durova^Charge! 18:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Odwalla pictures/Fair Use?

Hey, I'm working on the Odwalla page, and I going to go try and get pictures of Odwalla products (drinks and protein bars). So, before I do, does a picture of a bottle or wrapper that I take with my camera need a fair use tag?