Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2007/May

grandlicencetokill_(2).jpg

MGM/UA granted permission to embed said image in Grand L. Bush article. A verifiable email was sent to permissions-en@wikipedia.org and I have posted this notice on my talk page. As I understand, a bot will come around and tag the image properly as this human has not a clue. Thank you. 37Celcius 07:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Permission to use an image in an article is not sufficient since Wikipedia allows anyone to reuse its content. If you believe that the image meets our policy on unfree material, you should add the appropriate licensing tag along with a fair use rationale. ShadowHalo 07:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Romanian Army Images

I uploaded the "Image:TR-85M1 company.jpg" "Image:Vanatori de Munte.jpg", "Image:Infantry fighting vehicles.jpg" images and I received some warnings from OrphanBot. I left a summary and I also tagged this images. What's the problem? Eurocopter tigre 14:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

These images are copyrighted and you didn't provide a rationale as to why they meet all of our criteria for using unfree media, especially why it would be impossible to find or create a free image. ShadowHalo 15:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I added the romanian law in the summary which says these images are in free use. Is it ok now? Eurocopter tigre 19:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The tag that you have used is for images that are non-free, where we are utilizing the exemptions at Wikipedia:Non-free content. It looks like Romania has their governmental symbols and seals in the public domain, but not everything. As such these are replaceable fair use. Please see the non-free content criteria also, be aware that not all governmental works are public domain, most are not. - cohesion 00:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Postcard

What copyright should be applied to an image (Slightly reduced sized) a postcard? http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Image:RossallJubileeGarden.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.82.208.146 (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Probably none. Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, which means all of our material is freely licensed. For a definition of freedom in this context see freedomdefined.org. We only use copyrighted material in very limited circumstances as defined by our non-free content criteria. This image could be taken by someone and uploaded to wikipedia, increasing the free content available. If you have any questions let us know. :) - cohesion 01:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Image posting

Yes, I have a question. It's been hard for me to post a picture of a West Virginia State Police cruiser on my article about the West Virginia State Police. Despite a written permission from the copyright holder (James Duff/National Police Car Archives), Wikipedia apparently still believe the photo is eligible for "speedy deletion." This is a copy of the e-mail sent to me by Mr. Duff: "Ramses, That's fine, be sure to send me a link when the article is complete -- James Duff Webmaster" This is a link to the photo in question: http://images4.fotki.com/v41/photos/4/49373/291084/npca1101a-vi.jpg Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ramsescoly (talk • contribs) 15:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

The problem is that you have not secured the kind of free license we need. Permission must be given for release under the GFDL or something compatible. See WP:COPYREQ for the kind of permission we need to have, how to go about getting it, and what to do afterward.

A solution that works equally well would be to take a picture of a cruiser yourself and upload it under {{GFDL-self}}. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In order for wikipedia to use images when the uploader is not the copyright holder in this situation we need explicit licensing of the image under some free content license. Wikipedia is given under a free license, meaning other people can use our work freely, even for commercial purposes. Before the image is allowed we have to make sure that is acceptable to the copyright holder. - cohesion 01:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this necessary?

http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Image:Walton_High_School_Gym_Mezzanine.jpg

Vernon.dozier edited this photo I uploaded to blur out the faces within it. I've been searching for specific regulations on the subject but have come up with nothing concrete as to whether this is required or not. If so, I'm fine with that and could very well upload one without people instead, but looking at images from articles like protest make me think otherwise.

My question, then, is when, if at all, do I need to blur the faces of people in images? Do I need consent from each person in each image? - Boss1000 01:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

(Oops. I realize now that this is concerning copyright issues with images, but I can't seem to find the right place to ask this. :-S)

So far as I know, we do not need to blur out faces, regardless of whether or not they are minors. IANAL but I don't think they have the right to keep us from using the unblurred picture since personality rights aren't an issue with a picture like this. ShadowHalo 01:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I want to say the same thing, and looking at Vernon's history, he's only made 6 edits, so that leads me to think he might be mistaken. If someone knows this for certain, it would be a good idea to add the information to whatever article it fits under or perhaps a policy page. I know I'm curious... - Boss1000 01:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As a general rule, unless we have a policy dictated by legal requirements, we should not try to make judgments based on legalities ourselves. See WP:PEREN#Legal issues. If blurring faces in photos is necessary, we'll hear about it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. That's interesting. Normally when one uploads a new version of an image there's a history and you can revert if called for. Your photo was on the Commons, however, and Vern uploaded his defaced version to en and essentially "obscured" yours. You can get around this by renaming the Commons version and relinking to it under the new name. Or you can just wait a week hoping Vern doesn't catch on, and let it be deleted since it lacks a copyright tag. Alternatively you can move the en version to a new name and mark the redirect page it leaves behind {{prod}} to get it out of the way faster. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll probably first take another and better picture, removing the unnecessary floor and ceiling taking up half the image, and replace the old one I uploaded. To get that to show, I'll probably take the latter course you suggested. Thanks a lot for both of your help! - Boss1000 02:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Deshima 1852.jpg

I do appreciate that I should have done something differently, but I don't understand what more or what else I should have explained. This is an illustration from the 1852 London Illustrated News. The original image has been cut from the original newspaper and mounted as part of the New York Public Library Picture Collection; and I have the impression that I have clearly indicated the source with appropriate language. My plan to post other images from the NYPL Picture Collection makes it important for me to understand what I seem to have done WRONG so that I can do better in the future. Please advise me how to appropriately label images from this unique source in future postings. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ooperhoofd (talk • contribs) 05:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

All images on Wikipedia need a licensing tag so that automated bots can recognize its copyright status. If this image was published in 1852, then add {{PD-art-US}} to the page. ShadowHalo 05:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

---I'm pleased, of course, that ShadowHalo has given me good advice, but I just don't know how to make use of it. I clicked on the image, which is located within the article I created about "Isaac Titsingh" ... but this effort was unavailing. I don't know where or how to add {{PD-art-US}}. More critically, I don't quite appreciate where or how I could have/should have appended this datum a priori. My goal here is two-fold: (1) I do want to resolve the issues that an automated program has raised for this specific image; and (2) I want to learn how better to comply with Wikipedia protocols in the future. I can't turn to someone in my immediate circle of friends for advice because, alas, I don't know anyone who understands Wikipedia better than me. In fact, I'm the boldest amongst my small circle of acquaintances. If I may, I hope you will allow me to ask, please, for a more specific response which will allow me to modify the label for this specific image and also, hopefully, to better understand how to label other uploaded images in the future.

Go to the image description page, click "edit this page" at the top, and type in {{PD-art-US}} at the end. ShadowHalo 06:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

pictures from Nichi-ran jiten, a book from 1935

It seems I used GFDL presumed when that was not possible. So it seems I need to choose a different copyright tag, for Image:1109.jpg or it will be deleted.

Actually, the name 1109.jpg was wrong, so perhaps it should be deleted and replaced by the same picture with a more informative name (something like nichiran_jten_1109.jpg). But as for the copyright tag, I really don't know how to deal with that.

The picture (which I took myself) is a photo of a page of a book printed in 1935. Whether it would be permissible to publish simply a picture of one page of a book as a sample (irrespective of the copyright status of the book itself), and which copyright tag that should be - I don't know.

I did research the copyright status of the book itself however. The book was published by a Dutchman and the Japanese association Nan’yō Kyōkai (南洋協會) in 1935. The colophon (tagged as 著作権所有, which is Japanese for copyright) states firstly the Dutch compiler (P. A. van de Stadt) and than the publisher (a person by name, not Nan’yō Kyōkai), than the printer (also the name of an individual) and finally the printing shop (a prewar company in Japanese Taiwan).

As I understood it, there is the theoretical possibility that the compiler transferred his copyright to the publisher Nan’yō Kyōkai. In that case the book would be in the public domain, since both in the Netherlands and Japan that right would be public after 50 years. Take note that Nan’yō Kyōkai published a facsimile reprint of the book in 1989. I don't think that is relevant, butI am not a lawyer.

The other (more likely) option is that P. A. van de Stadt simply was the copyright holder of his own work. P. A. van de Stadt died in 1940. If I am right, then under the retroactively valid current law that would mean the book would be in the public domain in 2010 (70 after the compiler died). However, I tracked down two still living grandchildren of the compiler (H. A. N. Versluys and H. P. van de Stadt) and they gave me permission to publish the complete book online (which I did, www.jiten.nl). Versluys sent me an e-mail and H. P. van de Stadt gave me his permission on the telephone. Since I did not want to bother them anymore than I already had I did not ask for a formal document stating that I have permission to publish the book. Also, there may be other grandchildren that are still alive, but that I was unable to locate (the family members have gone there separate ways).

So which copyright tag should I use? I have no idea.

BTW, the title-page (with a portrait of P. A. van de Stadt) is in the article as well (Image:Titelpagina.jpg, should be something like nichiran_jiten_titelpagina.jpg) but that has not yet been tagged for deletion.

Nichi-Ran jiten

--Kornelis 23:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

We can use a page image under fair use guidelines since you are engaging in commentary on the text. I would think it more desirable to use the page image containing the entry you use as an example.

However, in making a fair use claim we still need to know who the current copyright holder is. I suggest contacting the publisher of the facsimile edition, since they must have that information. (Make sure you ask about the original text. They may attempt to claim copyright for themselves on the facsimile, but that's both invalid and not something we're interested in.)

Since we don't know which of the family members, if any, actually holds the copyright here, or if they all do jointly, we also don't know which grant of permission is valid even if you had it all in writing. If Versluys did, then his email would be sufficient as long as the permission was in terms acceptable to Wikipedia.

In the meantime, we're covered under fair use for both an image of the text and for the portrait since you devote some space to a biography of the author. Be sure to tag the images accordingly and provide rationale showing that Wikipedia's fair use criteria are met. -TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally Japan is life+50, not 70. But I don't think it matters in this case. :) - cohesion 01:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your swift feedback.

I have used the fair use in article template. I don't see how more info on the current copyright holder can be obtained, considering that the publisher of the facsimile edition (the main branch of Nanyou Kyoukai) cannot be the copyright holder (the book was published more than 50 years ago) and the descendants of the compiler (grandchildren) have not remained in contact with each other. It took me quite some time to track down the two grandchildren. More detective work seems to be out of proportion if we go for fair use, and I have no intention to put more time into that. If someone more knowledgeable than me thinks this does not suffice, feel free to either do more research or to delete the pictures. --Kornelis 07:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Caron1663.jpg

The OrphanBot "message" alerted me to the fact that I somehow did not appropriately label this image. I'm at a loss to guess what I failed to do; but more importantly, I'm uncertain about what I should be learning from this message. This image comes from a book published in 1663. The New York Public Library must have determined that at least one volume of this work was irretrievably damaged, because this specific 1663 image comes from the New York Public Library Picture Collection. Although an intact version of the book is doubtless held in Rare Books Collection, this image was mounted on poster-board, and I simply copied it using the copy machines available at the Mid-Manhattan Branch Library. As far as I can tell, my identification clearly indicated that NYPL was the source of this image; but clearly, I need to learn something here. Please explain how better to identify the images I select for online posting from the NYPL Picture Collection. I'm more than happy to comply with whatever requirements Wikipedia needs to require, but I'm at a loss to figure out what I've done wrong ... nor am I able to guess about what I should do better in the future. Please give me appropriate guidance. Thank you. 05:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Ooperhoofd

You need to be adding the appropriate licensing tags. Without those, the images are not put in the proper categories and OrphanBot will leave you messages that you need to add the licensing tag. Click "edit this page" at the top of the image's description page and add the {{PD-art}} template. When you upload images in the future, just make sure that you identify the source of the image and use the appropriate licensing tag. ShadowHalo 06:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As for the source, that would be the book the image was taken from, not the library in wich you happened to find the book. --Sherool (talk) 06:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Operating system screenshot

This is [1] screenshot of BKUNIX, a GPLed operating system. But it also contains some output by computer's ROM including bootup messages, indicator string at the top of the screen and the font of the letters is also ebeeded in ROM. How should I proprly provide the license information?--Dojarca 16:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

William Bligh's journal

I have found a book that has a facsimile and a transcription of William Bligh's rough journal that he kept after being put out in the launch after the mutiny on the Bounty. As far as I understand, I can scan and make available the facsimile since it's just a reproduction of a work (not covered) and anyway, the author has been dead for hundreds of years. Unfortunately, Bligh's handwriting is very hard to read and I wanted to know if I could copy the transcript as well. Walkerjoe 11:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

probably not. Typesetting can be protected by copyright. In the UK the term is 20 years. I don't know about US law.Geni 14:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Uploading an existing Image.

i am Shivam Chaturvedi. My Question is that Why can't I upload an image that I have downloaded from other source. If that image is not available to Wikipedia why can't I upload it?

Thank You. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aryarakshak (talk • contribs) 15:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Most images you find around the web are copyrighted by other people, unless the copyright holder have explicitly stated that the image can be used under the terms of a free license it can not be used on Wikipedia. This is because Wikipedia is about creating free content. One possible exception exist if your can confidently say that your intended use of the image will fulfill all of the criterea listed at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. --Sherool (talk) 07:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Resaving cleaned up images

image:EastwoodFFDM.jpg This image was already on the page. I cleaned it up since it was very dark. I saved the cleaned up image as "EastwoodFFDM-2.jpg" I didn't want to remove the original so that's why I saved it as another version. I didn't add copyright info since there was already a statement there, but now the image is without copyright info.

1. Was this the correct way to resave a cleaned up image? Or should I have saved it with the original name?

2. Does the original copyright statement need to be added back in somehow?

I did the same thing with the other image on the "For a Few Dollars More" page so it has the same problem.

ö GatoNoir 02:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a judgment call on replacement. Sometimes it's called for, sometimes it's not. In this case I'd say it was. The original was much too dark.

Yes you need to place the copyright info on your new images. You should be able to just cut and paste from the edit windows of the originals. Alternatively, you can re-upload your new versions into the same location as the originals, and then tag your "-2" files {{db-author}} which will get them deleted.

This will also prevent the creation of an orphaned fair use image, which we can't really have here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Yak-141.jpg

Image:Yak-141.jpg Need opinions.

Unclear copyright.

Read info under image --Mothmolevna 13:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd just let the clocks run on the deletion notices. This is pretty obviously a copyvio where the uploader is claiming it to be his own. howcheng {chat} 21:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Dont noe how to add copyright liscence

[Image:ICC 50th Exco.jpg]

this is from my camera. but i do not know how to tag a liscence. Pls help me and prevent this pic from being deleted after 7 days. Thank you. Please reply on my talkpage. Geevagk

–-Geevagk 07:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Replied on talk page. howcheng {chat} 21:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Image Basilmienie.jpg

I cannot work out which copyright tag to add to this image. It is a photo of my husband, used with his permission. Can you let me know which tag to use. Many thanks --RaineRaine 22:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Who took this picture? Who owns the copyright? Unless your husband took it himself (e.g., with a tripod and set the camera on timer) or someone took it on his camera, or he purchased the negatives/digital files from the photographer, he does not own the copyright. If you took the picture, you can choose from WP:ICT#For image creators, but choose wisely -- once you license it, that declaration becomes irrevocable. If someone else took the picture, that person must dictate the licensing terms. howcheng {chat} 21:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Modified an image:

I took Image:Parramatta-NSW-TownHall-XM.jpg, modified it, and uploaded Image:ParramattaTownHallfixedperspective.jpg, and replaced the original as an illustration at Parramatta, New South Wales. Should I just copy the tag from the original. Is this the proper method for modifying an image? --Agesworth 04:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Both are your own works, so you can license them how you see fit. In fact, you could license the first one public domain and the second one GFDL, although that would be odd. howcheng {chat} 21:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

why astaslogo.png deleted?

I have permission of copyright and its a log of the company. thanks, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ceno19 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

The image still needs a fair use rationale, explaining why the image meets each and every one of our criteria for using unfree media. howcheng {chat} 21:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

question about costa rica

what is the main historical issue or event in costa rica as in human rights? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.42.21.54 (talk) 11:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

This question belongs as Wikipedia:Reference desk. howcheng {chat} 21:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

artists

Can you find info on artist A. Fenti Pini? I've been searching everwhere.--71.240.193.210 12:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Please ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk. howcheng {chat} 21:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Screenshot(s) of an hack for computer games

http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Image:Hpnx_dq.png

I'm not really sure to add any explanation for that screenshot, and unfortunately, the developer for the program is unknown, also it isn't copyrighted. Any ideas for which license to use? I'm not sure does hacks and other similar programs count as "public domain"... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ericlaw02 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Under chinese law once something is created it is automaticaly under copyright. If you wish to contend the image is fair use you need to provide an explanation as to why you think this is the case.Geni 20:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Weird question

Concerning Image:Krux-ice-dec94.png, I received permission frmo the author to upload it. He didn't specify wiki only, educational/free only, web sites only, or any other use. He certainly isn't giving it to the public domain though. Basically he just doesn't care how it's exhibited. When I uploaded the pic, the upload tool specifically said to EITHER use one of the pre-built fair use selections OR include a description in the summary. I did the latter and now a bit has tagged the image. Is the EITHER/OR part incorrect? How should I tag this image? --shift6 19:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

did you get permission for people to use the image comercialy or make modified versions of the image?Geni 20:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think his answer to that would be "meh, whatever" or something simliar. When I asked his permission to use the image, he said only "sure" and when I sent him the URLs after he said only "cool". I honestly don't think he cares that much about ANSI art he did almost 15 years ago. Also, everything he programs nowadays he releases as GPL code, so I imagine he would feel approximately the same: his originally, but do what you want with it. --shift6 21:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"I think his answer to that would be "meh, whatever" " is not a valid lisence. The simpleist option would be to get him to release the image under the GFDL or CC-BY-SA (idealy both).Geni 21:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

how do you edit the copyright?

i am trying to edit/fix the copyright for this picture but i dont know where there is any button for me to edit it. Please message me back. Thank you.

This image is going to have be deleted. There is no justification for using someone else's copyrighted image when someone can easily take a freely licensed picture of this subject. howcheng {chat} 21:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Amazon Web Services logo fair use rationale

Amazon Web Services logo.png got tagged with {{no rationale}}, even though it already explains that it's the logo of the article subject, as per the fair use rationale guidelines and Wikipedia:Logos. What should i do?

Will anybody get angry if i remove the tag? --Piet Delport 13:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The image needs a fair use rationale, explaining why the image meets each and every one of our criteria for using unfree media. The {{logo}} template does not do this, so removing the {{no rationale}} tag would not be the thing to do. ShadowHalo 18:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about the existing summary text which should already answer the above criteria. What am i supposed to do, copy and paste it separately for each criterion? --Piet Delport 17:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Images in Pantera

A lot of fairuse images without source.--Vaya 10:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

tag them with {{nsd}}.Geni 13:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Cropped photo

I cropped a photo on the Ben Gurion airport page after the person who uploaded it told me it is from the Commons. So what kind of tag does it need? --Gilabrand 21:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Assuming this is in regards to Image:LyddaAirport.jpg. We can't say what copyright tag it needs because you haven't specified the source. This is why we need the source and license for images. In other words, the point of the tag is to show other users what the license is, and how they can re-use the image. If we don't know anything about the image we can't know which tag is right. - cohesion 23:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's LyddaAirport.jpg.--Gilabrand 05:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

We still actually need some information about where the image was from in order to decide on a tag, right now we know absolutely nothing about the image. - cohesion 05:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This was the exchange that led to my cropping the photo. I have no idea how to access the original...

"I saw you added a map to the BG airport page and think it needs some cropping. The pages look a little ragged... --Gilabrand 06:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded the photo but did not add it to the article. The hebrew wikipedia has a cropped version of this photo. I believe that since it is free use photo (from the collection of the Library of Congress) it should be uploaded to commons. I do not have an account or the experience with wikicommons. If you would like to upload the cropped photo to commons, my version already has the Library of Congress tag in it. Derwig 21:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=User_talk:Gilabrand"

I don't know how to make an image copyright tag.

I don't know how to make an image copyright tag. I'm confused about what the page about image copyright tags says. The image is from Nycsubway.org and the category is Subway Images. Can somebody maybe make the tag or give me some advice? [2] —The preceding(UTC).

This image is copyrighted and cannot be used on Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Copyrights. ShadowHalo 23:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Whatever i am uploading is a pic or details of lord shani temple in delhi. People want some info on the net so i think this is the best place to give. All this matter i uploaded is free to use. So if possible then please Tag it yourself as i dont get too much time to understand this terms of wikipedia. It will take me time.

Thanks & Regards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrmysterious (talk • contribs).

Were all these images created by you? If so could you please mention that on the image description page? Thanks. - cohesion 05:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Image Copyrighting

I thought I put the infromation on there and yes, I did find the image somewhere. But what infromation am I not putting on there? Fiolexgirl44 12:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• The only information that you put on Image:Hey out toys have arrived.png was "A title card for 'Hey!Our Toys Have Arrived.'" Do you have a source for this image so that we can figure out the license? --Strangerer (Talk) 13:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

water wells

how does one trouble shoot problems with submersiable pumps and motors at the controll box? Basszula 13:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions, and will try to answer any question in the universe. Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. - cohesion 19:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

THE LAST SEASON COVER copy.jpg

Image:THE LAST SEASON COVER copy.jpg I have a qeustion as to which tag I should use on this image. I created it as sample cover art for the book I am trying to get published and have posted it on Wikipedia due to popular demand of students at my former highschool who have sampled the first chapter and love it already.

The question really is: Which tag do I use for art that I myself have created? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jawsman02 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Popular demand is not a criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we do not include original research, or articles written by the subject, as this would be a conflict of interest. Wikipedia also does not host information on things that may only be notable in the future, it is not a springboard to launch a book deal for example. If you are interested in general web hosting to discuss something Blogger is free and may suit your needs better. If you have any questions let us know. - cohesion 02:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Almost 150 year old photo

I would like to add a photo of an African monarch from a book. Now, the book clearly states that copyright belongs to Wisbech and Fenland Museum, so that's a no-no... The interesting thing is that the king died 1863, so presumably the photo is a year or two older than that. Are that old images really copyrighted, or has the author wanted to be polite to his sources? Sadalmelik 17:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Museums try and claim copyright for everything, often this isn't the case though. If the creator of the work died in 1863 the image is public domain. {{PD-old}} is the correct tag most likely. - cohesion 19:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. The King - the subject of the photo - died 1863. I have no idea who actually took the photo, or when he/she might have died. Sadalmelik 19:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

As long as he died before 1937, it would be PD ... the odds that he lived for another 74 years are pretty slim. --BigDT 19:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The life + 70 rule only actualy apply when the identify of the copyright holder is known, and it is a real person. For works created by unknonwn people or under a pseudonym that has not been tied to any real person or when the copyright is held by a company or organization, the copyright term is actualy wichever is shorter of 95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation. So in this case it's defenently PD per US law. It was most likely first published more than 95 years ago, and even if not the image must have been created more than 120 years ago since the subject died over 144 years ago. So even if the museum did hold the copyright at some point it would have expired at the latest after 1983 since at that point the image must have been created at least 120 years ago. --Sherool (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

printing

Can we print qut articles?24.155.209.209 02:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

hi. what is tag ? how can i clear my self? this image (photo)is from my album and i scan it and uplod it to wikimedia. what can i do?--86.80.6.1 08:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I am having trouble with images in that they keep deing deleted, e.g.

Daren King

I assume I am not correctly following the guidelines regarding fair use/non-free content. Please help! Please reply on my talkpage. Mthastings25 15:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

CleanUp Question

I received a clean up messsage about an image on my pate for TriniTuner. The Image is Image:TrinFlagSmall.gif

I am not sure what is required or what needs to be done. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ddhoray (talk • contribs) 19:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Image:COInterface.jpg

The image Image:COInterface.jpg.

Unclear of copyright license but there's information about it on said page. Help would be appreciated :D -- Marc 07:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I got a copyright notification from User:OrphanBot about an image I uploaded called Image:HarryBarron.jpg. This image is in the public domain, but for some reason the option of listing it's copyright providence as Public Domain was not able to be selected. I have added a couple of others related to the list of Governors of Tasmania, and all of the others accepted as Public Domain. The picture is well over 80 years old so it is definitely Public Domain, but I didn't seem to be able to select it.Rac fleming 08:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:McEwan_Hall.jpg

Image: Image:McEwan_Hall.jpg

I got this image from http://www.div.ed.ac.uk/visualtour_3_10.html, the university's own website. It doesn't say anything about copyright, would it still be okay to use in an article? --DaYZman 20:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No, photographs are automatically copyrighted, even if they do not appear with a copyright notice. It is not free unless there is an explicit statement. ShadowHalo 21:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Christ as the Sacred Heart

There seems to be no source indicated for Image:Heart2.jpg, though it seems to appear on a lot of pages. Clearly this is a famous image, but what should the source be identified as? --Strangerer (Talk) 09:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right, images need to have both a source and a license. I have tagged it as no source, and will update the larger articles with a warning. That will most likely get someone to accurately source or replace the image. - cohesion 19:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It's mostly being used on a tiny portal template as a parameter, so... - cohesion 19:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I googled around and found a slightly retouched version of the image here [3]. Does someone want to contact catholic.net and see if they know who the original artist is? --BigDT 19:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I added a comment to the talk page about this image. I think it is safe even if the provenance of this particular version cannot now be known; it was uploaded by now inactive editor User:Jtdirl. This is a standard Roman Catholic devotional image, which has been copied and re-created by many different hands. You can tell that the paintings are different, but they are obviously copies of some original. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture tag

A picture I recently uploaded which was tagged correctly was deleted. It was a scan of a newspaper, and that is what the tag said. It was deleted. Please, someone explain why this happened. --Jimbo Herndan 04:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you're asking about Image:29thmap.gif, and that you had tagged it {{Non-free newspaper image}}. This is a fair use tag, and requires accompanying rationale above what the tag says. Either you failed to add rationale, or the admin who deleted it (User:^demon) decided the rationale you provided was invalid for how it was being used. See WP:NONFREE and WP:IDP#Fair use rationale for policy and guidelines. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

To elaborate, the image was being used at Twenty Ninth Street (Boulder, Colorado) and did not meet our non-free content criteria. Wikipedia allows others to reuse its content, so we cannot use copyrighted maps the way it was being used. ShadowHalo 07:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Publicity Photos

I was under the impression that publicity photos could be used in the absense of a free picture, but when I uploaded Image:JerichoRoad.jpg, I got a warning that it violates Wikipedia's first non-free content criteria in that it illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information. It then asks for a reason why one couldn't be created, like the person being a recluse or something like that. There is no reason other than I don't have a free version. Can't publicity photos be used until a free one becomes available? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joshuajohanson (talk • contribs) 07:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

No, the fact that no free image is available does not mean that a copyrighted image may be used. WP:NONFREE states that a copyrighted image may be used "only where no free equivalent is available or could be created". When it comes to living people, or in this case a group that is still together, it is possible to create a free equivalent. ShadowHalo 07:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:BlitzViolin.jpg

I refer to the image:-Image:BlitzViolin.jpg

The image was scanned from a small section of an old 1970's music paper that is now defunct and I don't believe that the image is subject to any current copyright restrictions.

I have perused the list of image tags, but have not found what seems to me to be an appropriate tag - any suggestions please?

Please reply to my Talk page.

Regards,--Huddersfield Bill 22:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

When was wikipedia made? what is the copyright year? Does this website have a copyright? (what?)

I don't know who added the above questions, but I'm sure Wikipedia have checked out their own copyright obligations..;-)

I actually used :- {{Non-free newspaper image}} for the image noted above - I hope this is correct.

Regards,--Huddersfield Bill 16:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia English for other language

Hello,

Is it allowed to translate freely from Wikipedia English for Wikipedia in other language?

Thanks,

--Pattikawa 11:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, in fact, it is encouraged. Check out Wikipedia:Translation. That page appears to be more geared towards translating other language articles into English but it gives you an idea of the process.↔NMajdan•talk 12:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright of Product Images

What is the appropriate copyright tag to use for product images? If a company publishes an image of their product, I know that the image is not automatically public domain... but what license, if any, should that image be published with? Few companies explicitly release their product images under a license. It's definitely fair use, but I'm not sure how that should be tagged.

The image I'm concerned about specifically is Image:OptimusMaximusKeyboardPrototype.jpg (taken from http://www.artlebedev.com/everything/optimus/).

Thank you for your assistance. -- MyrddinE 16:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Art. Lebedev Studios has already freely released a picture. You can use Image:OLED keyboard.jpg. ShadowHalo 17:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Celebrating Birthdays..........................

My question is , With the referencs of Quran and Sunnah , is it correct to celebrate birthdays? Pls guide . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.97.3.159 (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Please go to Wikipedia:Reference desk for this. howcheng {chat} 21:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use of Image:GoreBush.jpg

This image has a {{fair use in}} tag and fair use rationale for the Al Gore presidential campaign, 2000 article. However, it is also used in George W. Bush and Al Gore articles. Is that also fair use, and if yes, which tag would be appropriate, since the current one probably isn't? --Branislav Jovanovic 09:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This fails WP:NFCC #2 since it comes from Getty Images. Nominating this for deletion... howcheng {chat} 20:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Petercanavan.jpg

I'd appreciate some input on Image:Petercanavan.jpg. The image is copyrighted and shows him with the Sam Maguire Cup, and it's being used without a caption in the infobox. There is some discussion at the talk page about whether or not this image is replaceable as a depiction of a living person. ShadowHalo 20:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This image fails both WP:NFCC #2 and #8. First, it's a news agency photo, and second, we don't need to see a picture of him holding the trophy when words will do just fine, unless this particular photo was the source of some controversy. howcheng {chat} 20:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

...unless this particular photo was the source of some controversy [or if it is a particularly noted and notable image]. --Iamunknown 20:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Remove this image please

Image:Mr_butch.jpg

It is an image which I am copyright holder. I posted it under limited release license ( nonprofit & educational use only ) and then saw the message on the image page asking me to release it under GNU or smilar copyleft. I don't want to do that. Please remove it. Links to it on the Mr Butch page - http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=%22mr._butch%22 - have been removed.

Jgaff 21:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. ShadowHalo 22:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Question about 8-bit word processor screenshot

A while back, I added a screenshot of the 8-bit SpeedScript word processor (a magazine type-in) to Wikipedia. (See Image:SpeedScript 128 In Action.gif.) Currently, this is listed as a {{Non-free software screenshot}} since the copyright to the software is presumably owned by someone (even though the magazine went out of print about 15 years ago). However, I wonder if it's even eligible for copyright at all. The overwhelming majority of the image (23 of 25 lines) consists of text from the MOS Technology 8563 article, which I typed in to show the word processor in action. This text is, of course, GFDL. The remainder simply consists of a header line that reads, in plaintext, "SpeedScript 128 by Charles Brannon & Bob Kodadek    Insert Mode". Is this screenshot eligible for copyright protection, or can I mark it as {{PD-ineligible}}? According to this site, "Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans are not protected by copyright law. Similarly, it is clear that copyright law does not protect simple product lettering or coloring, or the mere listing of product ingredients or contents. The exclusion of these types of materials is not an exception to copyright law, but merely an application of the requirements for copyright protection. To be protected by copyright, a work must contain at least a minimum amount of authorship in the form of original expression. Names, titles, and other short phrases are simply too minimal to meet these requirements." I think that this screenshot does not contain sufficient creative expression to be copyrighted. Does anyone else agree? *** Crotalus *** 01:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur. PD-ineligible looks right to me. There are no creative elements in this image. howcheng {chat} 21:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

PD-ineligible isn't quite right, since the text is not PD but GFDL. I'd say tag it as {{GFDL-with-disclaimers}} with a brief explanation of why you consider the non-GFDL portions to be ineligible. (Either that, or recreate it with PD text. Which, incidentally, is what I'd prefer.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 03:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Russian schoolroom

russianschoolroom.jpg

for the article:

http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Russian_Schoolroom

Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Megaswimmer (talk • contribs) 20:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

It doesn't look like a postage stamp to me. howcheng {chat} 20:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Question on image of Peter Camejo

I posted an publicity image of Peter Camejo (used here - http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Peter_Camejo) which I was given permission to post on wikipedia quite awhile back. I just recently got a message saying this -

"Thanks for uploading Image:Camejopicture.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged."

I have contacted his campaign website and was told that Peter owns the copyright to the picture and that it can be used on wikipedia. I have provided the link to the website and added another tag. Is there a better tag I should use or other information I need to post? Thanks, bov 04:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• The image is currently non-free and the tags you have chosen are mostly appropriate. We really shouldn't default to non-free, but instead ask them if they would be willing to release the image under a free license. Would you e-mail the campaign website again and ask if they would be willing to release the image "under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts"? Then attach the standard e-mail template and ask them to fill it out. Then, if they release the image, forward their reply (with your original message) to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org. --Iamunknown 18:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright question regarding Image:Gfuneral.jpg

I uploaded (http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Image:Gfuneral.jpg) this image which I don't think that there is a copyright on because it is found in a few places. Nevertheless I picked the website that most likely might have the copyright and I am planning to send them an email asking for permission to use the picture. What should I ask for? Aeuio 13:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm guessing that the website you got the image from is not the copyright holder, which we must know to establish the copyright status of an image. You may wish to e-mail the two websites indicated on the image description page and ask if they have any information about the original photographer. --Iamunknown 18:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale

I was told by User:ShakespeareFan00 that I needed to add a rationale for Image:Manfred_Mann's_Earth_Band_-_Redemption_Song_(No_Kwazulu).ogg (which is the only one I've uploaded at all). Please let me know if the rationale I provided meets the requirements (or not, if that is the case) using my talk page. --NeonNero 17:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan Public Domain?

I found a photo of a tree, Tsuga chinensis, on a Taiwanese government website. In the US this would be in the public domain. Does anyone know if the same applies to Taiwan, and if so, which tag should I use. Thanks! Djlayton4 22:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No, works by the Taiwanese government are not in the public domain. ShadowHalo 22:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Cathedral Photo

What would you say the copy wright would be for a picture of the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist (Charleston) that was up loaded from its website. Jo Bo 20:20 13, May 2007 (UTC)

copyright the church most likely and not under a free licsence thus we cannot use it.Geni 02:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

---

The images on the Heartsfield band page were taken by Daniel M. Reck and both he and Heartsfield have given permission for use of the two images in Wikipedia for the viewing by visitors to Wikipedia. They do not wish to give any additional rights for copying, reproducing, modifying, selling, or any other use other than for the purpose given.

How might this be accomplished? The instructions given are extremely complex for such an easy task.

The images should be tagged with {{db-noncom}} so that they can be deleted. Wikipedia allows others to reuse and reproduce its content, so we do not accept those restrictions on material uploaded here. ShadowHalo 07:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

UPLOADING IMAGE

WE HAVE UPLOADED THE IMAGE BUT IT DOES NOT WORK. WE HAVE USED THE SEARCH OPTION BUT NOT SUCCEDED. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Swshah (talk • contribs) 08:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

It's right here: Image:SYED WALAYAT SHAH.JPG. Now what's your copyright-related question? I note you are unsure of its copyright status. What work is it taken from, who wrote it, and when and where was it published? TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:P5120070.JPG

I've been asked about the Copyright on image Image:P5120070.JPG. It's a picture of my car that I took with my camera. How is it tagged to show that I own the copyright in order to make sure that the image remains on the article? Thanks, danread.

Please add a free-use license to this image. See WP:ICT#For image creators. Choose carefully -- once you pick a license, it cannot be revoked. Regards, howcheng {chat} 18:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Photos of artworks

Can someone please advise User:Rodolph whether the photos of artworks he has uploaded i.e. on Fingask Castle are acceptable for use on Wikipedia as I doubt the authors of these works have given up their copyrights to their work (which if I understand correctly you need to do for work submitted to Wikipedia?). Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 21:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You understand incorrectly. Nothing about free licensing requires creators to give up their copyrights. However, it's doubtful that this user is obtaining permission in a helpful way. Please refer him to WP:COPYREQ on the proper way to go about this, and what to do afterwards.

I note that some of the images he claims are GFDL are in fact public domain, so that bears watching. I don't know on what basis he thinks he can use that license, which suggests he doesn't know what he's doing. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Flickr Images

I seem to remember there being some specific guideline about how to bring images from flickr to Wikipedia/Wikimedia. Would this image, licensed under creative commons with attribution and no derivative works being the restrictions be suitable for upload? If not would this one with restrictions attribution, non-commercial, and share-alike be OK? --Ybbor^Talk 22:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• To be considered "free", image licenses must allow commercial reuse and derivative works. As such, both images are only acceptable as non-free content; they would only be acceptable "where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose" (WP:NFCC) and only after the copyright holder (in these cases, presumably the Flickr photographer) was conatacted and asked to release the photographs under a free license. --Iamunknown 22:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I would recommend FlickrMailing Josh McConnell to see if he'll allow derivative works. If he says yes, he can change the license to cc-by-2.0 himself, or you can email your message and his response to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. If you're unsure about a Flickr license in the future, there's a nice, easy-to-use visual at the Wikimedia Commons. ShadowHalo 22:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the responses :) I've flickrmailed him, and will hopefully hear back soon. --Ybbor^Talk 22:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

image copyright tags

I have received the message that Image:Glow0001.jpg does not have an image tag.

I have saved this image repeatedly with the GFDL tag.

It does not show on the description page. All I get is the box saying there is no image tag. I don't have this trouble with any other image.

Why am I having this trouble with Glow0001.jpg???

Sardaka 09:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The message is a generic one added automatically by a bot. The image is tagged. The real problem is that there's no source information it can identify. Navigate to the image page and add {{ImageSummary}}, filling in all the parameters, which makes it easy for the bot to locate this information. If it doesn't exist anywhere else on the web, then say so. It may be helpful to add any technical information not included in the image's metadata.

Assuming you're also Neil Paton, you should change the tag to {{GFDL-self}} to identify the account under which you uploaded it as that of the copyright holder. You need not remove your own copyright notice, of course. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Question about Image:MikeMageesTCSphoto.jpg

I need to add a copyright tag to the "image description page" for Image:MikeMageesTCSphoto.jpg. The trouble is I don't know how to find the image description page. Mike Magee told me the copyright was his and that he waives it for this picture. I just want to get that information expressed in the right way and in the right place. Thanks.

Regarding Image:MikeMageesTCSphoto.jpg, I am --The Cape 16:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

How do I get to the "image description page" for MikeMageesTCSphoto.jpg? Please respond to this question on my "talk page." --The Cape 16:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know (and I hope someone else will jump in if I'm wrong), you need to get an e-mail from the copyright holder stating that, and then forward the entire e-mail (including header) to permissions at wikimedia dot com. Or get the copyright holder to send the e-mail himself, stating that he waives the copyright. ElinorD (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The image description page is the page for the photo: Image:MikeMageesTCSphoto.jpg. Regards, howcheng {chat} 18:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Upload Photo

I have a photo that i have clicked my self Image:Def04.jpg to use on the page St. Mary's School, ICSE The upload page says "Note that images of a living person or extant building may not be uploaded under a claim of fair use if an equivalent image under a free license exists or could be created." i have marked the image as "invalid Fair Use >>> Fair use image of a building" Is the image allowed to be uploaded, and so are the others i have of the same building? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cyberoidx (talk • contribs) 17:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

You took this photo yourself? Then you get to license it as you see fit. Please pick a free license from WP:ICT#For image creators. Choose carefully, because once you pick a license, it can't be revoked. Regards, howcheng {chat} 18:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright tags

I have uploaded an image image:wmg_logo_rgb_small2.jpg and added it to the entry for Warwick Manufacturing Group. The copyright is owned by WMG and I have the right to use the image as WMG's head of communications, but I did not originate it. A company called Factor Design Ltd designed it for us. What tag do I need to use? Zoehoward 20:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You may have the right to use it, but for it to be used here Wikipedia must also have the right to use it, as well as anyone who feels like mirroring, reproducing, or otherwise publishing its content. Whether or not your company owns the copyright to it (as opposed to the trademark) depends on the agreement under which Factor Design Ltd created it, which I am in no position to comment on. However, assuming you do have the copyright you can either 1) release it under a free license such as the GFDL, or use it in an article as a fair use image assuming it meets Wikipedia's criteria. In the latter case, which I assume is the more likely, you tag it {{Non-free logo}} and add applicable fair use rationale. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

PD fashion plates

I do not understand why I am getting bot postings about unsourced images for Victorian fashion plates (such as Image:1833 fashion plate.jpg). These are clearly PD and are tagged as PD-art. My understanding is that scans of these cannot be copyrighted per Bridgeman vs. Corel and therefore source tags are polite but irrelevant. Please advise? - PKM 23:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, just found the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Thoughts and suggestions - PKM 23:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

Help needed with a copyright tag for an image i uploaded. Please see the wikipedia entry for singer/songwriter Sophie Moleta.... I've uploaded a fair use image for her latest CD cover Image:EveryGirl.jpg but cannot follow my way through all the descriptions on how to get the correct copyright tag entered to keep the image from being deleted. Would really appreciate the help to get this done. thank you in advance!!! billinnz -------- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billinnz (talk • contribs).

I have added a fair use template to the image for you, to see the syntax click edit at the top of the image page. The image still needs a fair use rational guideline, see the previous link for information about what should be included. If you have any other questions let us know. - cohesion 01:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Unsure about license.

I contacted the author of this image for permission to use it, and he allowed it, i don't know what license to apply to it...

http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Image:Paul_dixon_hockey.jpg

please inform me, preferably on my talk page. Thanks.

--RossWill 22:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This may seem odd, but wikipedia cannot use images where we only have permission for ourselves to use it. Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, which means all of our material is freely licensed. For a definition of freedom in this context see freedomdefined.org. We only use copyrighted material in very limited circumstances as defined by our non-free content criteria. Free content means that other people are also allowed to use it freely. If only wikipedia has permission to use an image it isn't free. If you know the copyright holder and he would be willing to license the image under a free license that is also acceptable. You might want to look at Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. It is very important that the copyright holder realize that they are licensing the image for other people as well, including people to use commercially. If you have any questions let us know. - cohesion 01:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'll look into it.

--RossWill 08:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Uploaded Picture: copyright

I have uploaded a picture that I took of my car with my camera (Image:P5120070.JPG) but had a message that I need to apply an Image tag to varify the copyright. How is this done? Please reply to my Talk Page, Thanks Danread

Replied on talk page. howcheng {chat} 16:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Error

i am getting error in when i am doing company code the error is no calculation procedure assined to country in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vijaykumar D Y (talk • contribs) 12:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

We need some more context. What exactly were you trying to do? I see nothing in your contribution history. howcheng {chat} 16:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Images copyright

My images keep getting deleted even though i am the copyright holder/owner. What i am doing wrong as it is not very clear?? e.g. Image:S+Hi.jpg.

-13:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

For this image, you have specified that only noncommercial use is allowed, which is unacceptable for Wikipedia, and that's why it's scheduled for deletion. The image says "©2006-2007 Maron Pictures" at the the bottom -- are you the owner/principal shareholder of Maron Pictures? If so, you will have to release it under a free use license that permits commercial usage, modification, and redistribution (see the allowable licensing at WP:ICT#For image creators). In addition, I would recommend sending an email (from a Maron Pictures email address) to permissions AT wikimedia DOT org that specifically states that the image is licensed under one of the free licenses listed on the licensing tag page. howcheng {chat} 16:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

How do i

How do i put my picture on the world wide Wikipedai. I tryed every thing and it still did'n't ciome on, What do i do? Please give me instructions through my email address(email redacted).

Prenatal*DHA

We don't usually answer via email. If you click the upload page you will get some questions, answer those and the instructions should help in uploading images. If you have any specific questions let us know. - cohesion 01:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

sports logo

I am having trouble with tagging this image Image:(irn)Perspolis Tehran.png. It is the old logo of a Iranian football club, and is no longer used by the club. Here is the source. [4]. How should it be tagged? Nokhodi 05:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• I've cleaned it up a little, but you should probably fix my fair use rationale, I just hastily wrote one tongue in cheek. Nardman1 10:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hubble dark matter image

Would this be in the public domain, in light of this? The devil is in the details. MER-C 08:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• It looks like you may have to contact M Jee for permission, as his name is in the credit line. His contact info is at the bottom of this page [5]. Nardman1 10:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, needed a second opinion before I uploaded the image (which I won't, for the time being). MER-C 12:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

To Ellen Kolb

Ellen, thank you for your heart-rending story about your grandchildren. However, this was not the place to post your story. I'm sure there is another more appropriate place online to post your story. Please provide a link if you can. - Desmond Hobson 15:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Road Maps

I have two questions regarding copyrights:

are logos from the Province of Ontario road maps compatible with Wikipedia? same regarding television stations and networks. I've seen a LOT of stations in Canada being stripped of their logos, and i was told to nominate american stations' logos for deletion as well from the IRC channel on freenode. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 19:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Genesis - Abacab

Image:Abacab81.jpg - This image is an album cover, but appears to have been over-zealously tagged for deletion. Please can this be corrected? Otherwise I suspect every image on the Genesis discography page isn't valid! The Yeti 21:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Even album covers need source information and fair use justiffication.Geni 02:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Audio pre-1945

I have some old (pre-1945) Japanese records which I would like to digitise and submit as ogg vorbis. I presume the copyright will have lapsed. Is that reasonable?

No. Japan uses life +50 years for copyright and the US uses life +70.Geni 11:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

So if the artist(s) died before 1957, then it would be OK. Also, if the work is credited to a body rather than individuals, it would appear to be OK anyway (since it is now >50 years since publication)? balal

US law does not default to shorter term.Geni 11:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:NoviAvion2.jpg and Image:NoviAvion1.jpg

Both of these images are apparently scanned from same publication, but they have two different copyright tags: Image:NoviAvion1.jpg claims it is in public domain because it is work of the government of Serbia and Montenegro/former Yugoslavia (which could be true, but this image predates that law), and the Image:NoviAvion1.jpg claims image is in public domain because magazine and/or country no longer exist, which is moot, because magazine had to have a publisher and country has legal successor. How should these images be tagged? --Branislav Jovanovic 11:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: copyright holder gave permission - why is it being deleted?!

I uploaded the image [[Image:Micahbluesmaldone.jpg]] after asking and receiving permission from both the photographer who holds the copyright and the subject in the photo. I added an extensive fair-use rationale for the publicity photo and yet it has been nominated for speedy deletion by a bot. Why can't this image be used even though it is a publicity shot and is all over the web and I've received express consent from the copyright holder to upload it. Explain this to me, please as I'm extremely irritated that I've taken so much time to add this image and it's being deleted automatically. If fair use rationales for copyrighted publicity shots are pointless, why have it as an option when uploading images?! It seems a ridiculous waste of time if there are no circumstances where a fair use rationale applies. Inoculatedcities 13:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows others to reuse its content, so we do not allow images that only have permission for use on Wikipedia unless they meet our criteria for using non-free media. Copyrighted images used only to illustrate what a living person looks like do not meet our criteria and will be deleted. ShadowHalo 20:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

How do i change the license?

How do i change the License?--Omerakif 18:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

How do you delete your contributions?

If I put an image on the page, is it permanently on there? Or can it be deleted?

Public School Website Pictures

I'm not sure how to find out whether an image is free or not. I got the image from the Fairfax County Public Schools Website (http://www.fcps.edu/SandburgMS/) and when I right click on the image, there isn't any information regarding ownership. I don't want the pic to be erased!

Kiki723 19:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Kendra

No, the image is not free. Images are copyrighted unless it specifically states otherwise. ShadowHalo 19:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Images from Indian Government

The images can be used by Indian Citizens as per the Right To Information Act , however I find a lot of images have been marked for unfair use such as [6]. I intend to post a few images from a similar source. Please advise what can be done in this regard.Kaushal mehta 07:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Images by the Indian government are, from what I can tell, not free. As such, they cannot be used on Wikipedia unless they meet our non-free content criteria. ShadowHalo 07:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

In response to this, the Right to Information Act article seems to state that Indian citizens have access to many public records. I don't see anywhere where it states where, for example, they have the right to republish the records, make derivative works, or use the material for commercial purposes. ShadowHalo 07:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Most of the images that use Indian government images are currently stating this. But I too am confused about this. The images are from a Ministry of Defence report which has been published online for public information. Can images from these be used on wikipedia? and if so how?Kaushal mehta 08:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, neither the Right to Information Act, 2005 nor the Copyright Act, 1957 (as last amended by Act No. 49 of 1999) clarify what Indian government material is in the public domain by default (if any), à la the US govt. The Indian govt. publication A Handbook of Copyright Law doesn't address it either. There used to be specific guidance on this point last year (along with a link to the relevant legal exposition), but it appears to have been lost in all the "redesign" of the related topic pages. I'm going to post a query on WP:India to ask for informed comments here. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Since there is no explicit legal mention that government media can be commercially exploited or derivative use can be made, we have to err on the side of caution. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Green beret image for "School of Parachute Troops" article

Although I understand perfectly the reasons behind wikipedia to use only legal images I must confess Im disappointed on the use of the interface.

I did research alot but found NO tag pages from where I could get one for my articles. Specifically I require a tag that authorizes the use of any image related to the Portuguese Military/Defense subjects.

I found the green beret image on google. True. But its obvious that it is a property of the military of Portugal and not some website.

I await your answer patiently, HKFlash

First, copyright of the photo is owned by the person who made it, not the "owner" of the object depicted. That's the law in any country such as Portugal that's party to the Berne Convention. Second, you don't say where you got the photo from, so we don't know who made it or under what conditions they license its use, if any. Third, on what is your belief founded, that images owned by the Portuguese military are available for free use? Fourth, assuming images made by the Portuguese military really are available for free use you could use {{PD-because}} or {{NoRightsReserved}} and provide the reasoning, preferably citing the relevant Portuguese law. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Using media from other Wikipedia sections

Can I assume that once a medium (images, audio) appears in one section of Wikipedia (say the French Wikipédia [7]) I can use it in another (say the English Wikipedia)? --Invenio 13:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Well, it depends. If it's PD it should be uploaded to Commons. I notice you didn't provide the exact link to the image description page, which is [8]. The image appears to be using some type of French fair use law. Any non-free content has to comply with the English fair use policy at Wikipedia:Non-free content. This is irrespective of its use on the French Wikipedia. They may have different rules over there that may be different than ours (under the overall guiding policy of the Foundation). Also, the French Wikipedia isn't really an image /source/. The image still has to be properly sourced before it can be used here. Given the recent debate over logos though (some say the source is self-evident, as it obviously comes from the company named in the logo) sourcing may not be a problem. However, it may be. Without proper sourcing and compliance with the non-free content rules that image cannot be used. Nardman1 13:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

no all wikipedias are as good as en at spoting copyvios so it pays to be careful.Geni 14:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Creative works question

I was able to visit the set of a TV show awhile back. Naturally, I am in the process of uploading the images to the commons under a cc-by-sa-2.5. The consensus at the commons was that there isn't a copyright problem. The legality of wheater or not that I was allowed to take pictures was purely between myself and CBS/Paramount. I started replacing some of the fair use images on WP with my images. User:Matthew objected. He believes that Image:Jericho - Sheriff's vehicle.jpg and Image:Jericho - Chinese supply pallet.jpg are creative works. I also uploaded this, which Matthew has not yet objected too. I disagreed naturally. An image of a cop car has no different copyright status than an image of any other car. Matthew believes that the supply pallet is also copyrighted because "Somebody has spent time to position everything creatively, package it etc." The rest of the images are located at commons:Category:Jericho (TV series). Is there a copyright issue with any of these images? --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think those would be a problem, worrying that someone might claim copyright on the way supplies are packed sounds a bit over the top... On a side note you should be more verbose in the description. Explaining these are photos taken by yourself while visiting the set. There is no shortage of screenshots from TV shows where users label them as "self created", so a bit more detail can go a long way towards avoiding unnessesary confution. --Sherool (talk) 11:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Would something like "I was invited to visit the set of w:Jericho (TV series) in Van Nuys, California where I took this picture" be clear enough? --PS2pcGAMER (talk)

Probably Image:Jericho - New Bern's inventory of Jericho.jpg and Image:Jericho - Mayor's Office.jpg might be a problem the others should be fine (eh although some of the recent US law changes with regards to architecture might result in issues with Image:Jericho - Baily's Tavern Outside.jpg and Image:Jericho - Church.jpg really not sure on that one though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geni (talk • contribs)

If commons says the pictures are fine, they should be. One thing I would recommend, besides clarifying that you photographed those pictures while physically present at the movie set, is provide a link to the copyright discussion saying there didn't seem to be a problem with using the images. That could avoid future debates over their status. Nardman1 13:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

some commons people have said the images are ok. In at very lest one case I would beg to differ.Geni 14:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Will do Nardman1. Geni, would you expand on why the image of the mayor's office may be an issue? --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 23:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

My guess is because it contains a lot of text, so instead of being a picture of a chalkboard it becomes a picture of a copyrighted text. That one could be iffy. Be sure to use an absolute link (with a diff) rather than a normal wikilink to the discussion. Nardman1 23:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Correction...the mayor's office contains a lot of creative detail. The inventory one is the chalkboard. Nardman1 23:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Logitech promotional material

I was wondering if images of the Logitech MX and VX Revolution mice, available at www.logitech.com, adhere to the guidelines stated on the Wikipedia:Non-free content page, since, in essence, these images can be regarded as "Other promotional material". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanHR (talk • contribs) 13:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC).

No, because someone can easily take a picture of their own. The very first criterion in WP:NFCC states that the image must be not replaceable by a free alternative. In fact, we already have a photo of the MX. howcheng {chat} 16:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Two personal copy images removed

I uploaded two picture files, BrittanyLSpears.jpg and BRLumpkin.JPG. I put both on my user/sandbox pages because they were supposed to represent fictional characters that I created. Obviously, they are inappropriate for use on the encyclopedia pages.

Today, I received bot messages for each of the images, saying that they had been replaced by Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, as they violated an allowable use of non-free material that I had uploaded under fair use. Essentially, they are not allowed on user pages.

Both of these pictures were personal copies of material I had downloaded from another source. BrittanyLSpears.jpg was originally a photograph of Katie Klaasen, a cheerleader for the Denver Broncos of the National Football League. I had it scanned onto the My Pictures file on my HP Pavilion computer, then uploaded it to Wikipedia. BRLumpkin.JPG was a photograph of a high school wrestler in my hometown. This was printed in the Long Beach Press-Telegram, then I scanned it onto a diskette, and then later to the same My Pictures program.

This leads to my question: If I wish to use a picture file that comes from a personal-use program like My Pictures, yet I have adapted it from a copyrighted source, what license do I use to upload a new version?

Time is of the essence here, as they will be removed on May 21 unless this is resolved. - Desmond Hobson 16:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Third file removed

Oh, I just found out that a third picture file was also removed on the same criteria as the two above. Bbrister.jpg began as a picture of an actual person, blues/swing singer Adam Brister, that was on a website that is no longer active. I had this also scanned onto the My Picture file on my HP Pavilion computer. The same question that I asked above applies to this file, and I think this will also be removed on May 21. - Desmond Hobson 17:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Correction: the scheduled removal date is May 19. - Desmond Hobson 17:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Please note that Wikipedia is not a webspace provider, please read our user page guidelines. If you upload non-free (aka "fair use") images that are not used in the ensyclopedia they will be speedy deleted within a week. Furthermore you are not allowed to use non-free material on your userpage, even if the file is used in a proper context elsewhere on the site. --Sherool (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify. Desmond, you seem to be under the impression that you can just use images from anywhere, in any way you want. This is, unfortunately not true. If it was, this page would likely not exist and everyone's job would be a little easier.

The trouble is that you don't own the copyright to any of these images. Just because you put them into your "My Pictures" folder, that doesn't make them yours. These pictures are copyright to whoever took them in the first place, whether or not the website where you found them is still active, and whether or not that website was using them legally. Scanning them out of a yearbook doesn't make them yours either. They still belong to the photographer, and we can't legally use them unless we can justify it under the doctrine of fair use. See WP:FUC for the rules of fair use in Wikipedia. Otherwise they have to be available under a free license like the GFDL. As Sherool explained, fair use images are never acceptable on user pages for various reasons, most of them legal, and Wikipedia furthermore does not host images for your convenience in representing your fictional creations. If that's what you need I suggest flickr or something similar. Wikipedia resources are for developing the encyclopedia and ancillary activities supporting that work only.

So how do you really acquire a copyright? By creating a copyrightable work, like a photograph or this text. If you were to take a picture yourself, then you could upload it here without any restrictions at all, license it under the GFDL, and everyone is happy.

If you happen to know the photographer of one of these pieces, try contacting him to see if he's willing to release it under a free license. See WP:COPYREQ for guidance about how to do that.

Otherwise, I'm afraid these will have to go. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• OK, I give up. Go ahead and remove them. However, I should explain that all of this came about for two reasons: first, I wanted a fictitious site in my sandbox that closely resembled your real pages, and second, because the website which is the "real" home of the characters can only let you upload if you use Netscape and I prefer to use Internet Explorer. Oh, well, at least I know what they look like and I have to be happy with that. - Desmond Hobson 15:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sherool has told you that Wikipedia is not a hosting service for your personal material. You can't have a set of fake pages for your own entertainment in your user space.

And I strongly suggest you re-evaluate your browser pages. Try Firefox. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Use of images and other sources from Wikipedia

Greetings from the Filipinas Heritage Library in Manila!

We are currently producing a Multimedia Filipino-English Dictionary, as one of our institution's publications. This Dictionary will come out as a CD-ROM, featuring images, illustrations and weblinks to enable users to visualize selected terms and concepts. Some of the images that could be used for this dictionary are found in your website, Project Gutenberg. May we request clarification regarding your policy on copyright? How do we go about using the images found in your website?

We look forward to hearing from you.

Melvin Chua Librarian-Archivist Filipinas Heritage Library Ayala Foundation Inc. Nielson Tower, Ayala ave.corner Makati ave. Makati City, Philippines chua.ms at ayalafoundation.org

The images on wikipedia are licensed differently, the image description page for each image should tell you the license. Unlike the text, they are not all GFDL. - cohesion 01:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

i recently submited an official logo for the cw network but apprently it sould be tag. i'm still confused on how to fo this. the picture show before was the wrong logo in terms of look and color and i think its a misrepresentation of the network and misleading to the people who go on this site. all the other logos on this site are correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.139.191.224 (talk • contribs).

I am not sure about what you are asking. If you need to edit an image page click the edit link at the top of the image description page. If that is not your question please update it here so that someone can better help you. - cohesion 01:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

How do I copyright my image?

I edited Pauline's (Nintendo) Page and inserted an art-work of mine in there Fan_Art_of_Pauline.png. I have been noticed that I have to copyright it. Where am I supposed to go or do? I drew the drawing myself. How exactly do I choose the copyright tag? Am I supposed to just copy and paste any copyright tag I want to use for my image? Or do I visit some website and put the url back in here? I have this image on photobucket, is that good enough? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Albertojz356 (talk • contribs).

If the image is your own work please choose a copyright tag from this list. Once you have made your selection include the template in the image page by clicking edit at the top of the page and inserting the template name in the page between 2 curly brackets. For example if you choose creative commons, attribution 2.0 you would insert the text {{cc-by-2.0}} in the page. When you click preview you should see that the template expands to give a description of the license. - cohesion 01:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

I need help - I have been given permission to use a book cover for my new contribution for THE ABC'S OF BEING ME which is owned by the author. What else do I need to do?

>

Wikipedia cannot use images when only wikipedia has permission to include it. Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, which means all of our material is freely licensed. For a definition of freedom in this context see freedomdefined.org. As part of that, all our material can be used by third parties. If something explicitly cannot be used by third parties it is incompatible with our goal of creating a free encyclopedia. - cohesion 01:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

what is

what is the lice{| class="wikitable" |- ! header 1 ! header 2 ! header 3 |- | row 1, cell 1 | row 1, cell 2 | row 1, cell 3 |- | row 2, cell 1 | row 2, cell 2 | row 2, cell 3 |}sens

It appears to be an example table in wiki syntax. This page is for help regarding image copyright questions. - cohesion 01:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Photos of shoes.

I just took some photos of a selection of Starbury shoes. Since the shoes have copyrighted logos on them and I would image that the designs themselves are copyrighted, what license should I apply? Can I apply a free license, or should I be safe and tag it as "fair use" for the specific appropriate article(s)? youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 23:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If you took photos of three-dimensional objects, they're your creation and you can license them. Any that are tightly-cropped to just show the logo might be questionable, but there's an artistic element to what you've done, so thanks for the addition! -- nae'blis 01:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

mom7jpg image

This image was taken rom my daughter's cell phone specifically for use in my resumes' I would like to be able to use it.

Jacqueline Harisun

alady0613 at yahoo.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.192.101.133 (talk • contribs).

No such image exists on the English Wikipedia currently. Can you be more specific about where this file is located? Is it uploaded somewhere else on the Internet, on your computer...? We need more info. -- nae'blis 01:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright

I downloaded the image "Ratnapura district.svg" from the wikipedia itself and modified and uploaded back under few articles in the wikipedia. The original image "Ratnapura district.svg" has a GNU Free Documentation License. But now there are warning messages about the copy right of the images that I uploaded. What should I do to prevent them been deleted.

The images I uploaded are : Image:Colombo.png, Image:Kaluthara.PNG and Gampaha.PNG

It's because you tagged them {{Don't know}} instead of {{GFDL}}. Change the tag accordingly and you'll be fine. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

about hygiene awarenss

how do i awareness from the food hygiene? whay is time temprature of food?

This page is about the copyright status of media for Wikipedia. For reference questions, ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk. ShadowHalo 08:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

configuration of DNS globally in linux

how to configure –bharath

This page is about the copyright status of media for Wikipedia. For reference questions, ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk. ShadowHalo 15:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-profit organization copyright from hard drive

A not for profit organization I am doing a Wiki for would like to have their logo on the Wiki page. I am having a hard time understanding all the legal jargon. They had the following questions:

1. How do you release the copyrighted logo, and if it is released, can it be protected from misuse? Do you give up rights on it forever? What copyright would it be under? 2. The source of the logo is from the organization itself, not its website...how and where do I explain that (in the summary??) 3. What other hurdles do I get to go through to get the logo on the page?

Thanks!

1. By "doing a Wiki for" I presume you mean you're writing a Wikipedia article about them. If they want to run MediaWiki on their own servers, this isn't an issue. If the logo is to be used in the article about them, and there only, no release is necessary. We can use it under fair use. But if they did want to release it, it would have to be under the GFDL or one of the acceptable Creative Commons licenses for it to be worth the trouble. They'd be giving up the rights specifically enumerated in the selected license, which broadly consist of the exclusive rights of reproduction, publication (including commercially), and the making of derivative works, and this license cannot be revoked once issued. They retain trademark rights, however, and ownership of the copyright, which they are free to assign or re-release under a different license however they want. Note that they can release the logo at a specific resolution or quality. It need not be publication-quality.
2. You just say so in the summary.
3. If they release it under a free license, they should send an email confirming that to the address given at WP:COPYREQ#When permission is confirmed. At that point you can tag the image {{GFDL}} and use it however you want. If you are using the logo under fair use, tag it {{logo}} and supply applicable fair use rationale apart from the text in the tag. If you do that using the {{Non-free media rationale}} template, it will be easy for bots to spot and it won't get tagged for deletion again. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Murals

I've seen some graffiti-style murals tagged as copyright. {{Non-free 2D art}} Is that true? How can a photo I took of an outside space be a copyright infringement? What if the photograph was inside? What if the mural was by a famous artist, like Keith Harring? --Knulclunk 02:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The exact statatus of murals will depend on local copyright laws but in the US they would be protected by copyright.Geni 08:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

can i upload an image? Natattacks 2:21, 23 May 2007

Really? Is there a legal copyright ruling on that? I'm shocked, and more than a little annoyed.--Knulclunk 13:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Why just because a painting is in a public place why shouldn't it qualify for copyright? Of course it isn't that simple with various Freedom of panorama issues getting mixed up in the problem but if the mural is the focus of the image then yes there are going to be copyright issues. As I said this differs from country to country. Which one are you in?Geni 14:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Freedom of panorama link, that helps. I disagree entirely, but justice and freedom will eventually win. --Knulclunk 16:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded

a fair number of album and EP covers back in 2004, before wikipedia had all the nice pre-programed copyright choices that now exist. How ever bacause there are so many of them (perhaps 20) I am not inclined to re-do them. Rather just allow another set of my wikipedia footprints to be washed off the beach of life. Unless there is an easy way to remedy this. Is there? Carptrash 13:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

well tagging them all with {{Non-free album cover}} would be the first step. You would then need to provide a fair use rational though.Geni 14:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright on autographs?

The Walt Simonson article mentions Walt's distinctive signature (he is a comic book artist). I would like to include an image of his signature and as I understand it, autographs and signatures cannot be copyrighted (e.g., http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=173430 ). In this case, I have a Simonson autograph and was planning to scan it. Please advise before I proceed. Thanks! Afabbro 04:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You're correct that signatures cannot be copyrighted since "Titles, names, ... mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring" are specifically excluded. In certain cases such as Walt Disney's they may be used as trademarks, but that's a different issue. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The image upload page does not really contain anything that covers this, unless I'm not seeing the correct option. I documented the above in the Summary but didn't choose anything under Licensing. The image is Image:Simonson_autograph.jpg Afabbro 05:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

And now it's been hit by OrphanBot. How best to proceed? Thanks. Afabbro 06:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

{{PD-ineligible}} sounds fine. The only thing is that it's missing a source. Make sure to include where it was scanned from. ShadowHalo 09:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Done! Thanks much. Afabbro 13:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

help

yeah do u know if a 93 ford probe motor will fit into a 93 mazda mx-6 both v6's..if u dont know do u know where i can find this information out! if so email me it at curly692004@yahoo.com!

This page is about the copyright status of media for Wikipedia. For reference questions, ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk. Afabbro 13:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rational for Image:Pol.JPG

The image I uploaded, Image:Pol.JPG, has the book cover liscencing template on its page along with a brief description stating that the image is from the cover of Melanie Rawn's novel The Dragon Token. I was told that I need to include a fair use rational regarding this image, but I am unsure how to proceed and/or what to add. Thank you. --Anarkeya 00:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

For more information about what should be included in a fair use rationale please see Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline. If you have any other questions let us know. - cohesion 01:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --Anarkeya 05:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll add that you should scan the book cover yourself and not rip off an image from Amazon, particularly when it includes one of their trademarks. If you don't own a scanner, then go to Kinko's and use one of theirs.

In general you should not be so cavalier with the work of others. That article mainly consisted of a cut & paste of the book blurb from the author's own website. Not only is the promotional tone wrong for an encyclopedia, but this is a clear copyright violation. Please don't do that again. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The image in question did not contain anything from Amazon, nor was the Pol article (where the image is used) taken from a book blurb. Thank you.

Problem with undated civil-war era photo with unknown photographer.

I uploaded a civil war era photo of a steamboat (the Alice Dean) that I scanned myself. The author is unknown and it is not copyrighted. I was warned that it will be deleted. How would I go about taking care of this?--Dlboyd 21:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

We need to know where you got the image. Also, do you know when the image was first published? ShadowHalo 22:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The image has been passed down and I own the original. It was never published outside of a postcard being made of it, which came from my original. There are many copies floating around now.

If the postcard was published before 1923 and copyright was not renewed before 1978, then its PD in the US. If you personally published the postcard, or authorized its publication, then you own the copyright and can release it under a free license. If the former owner of the photograph published the postcard sometime before 1978, then it's complicated unless you can show you inherited the copyright along with the photograph, in which case the above applies. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Csernica is a little off. Anything published in the U.S. before 1923 is public domain in the U.S., regardless of the death date of the creator. Anything created more than 120 years ago is public domain in the U.S., unless it was remained unpublished until 1977 or later, in which there there are other rules. See [9] for more details. howcheng {chat} 06:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Screen Shot

What is the correct copywrite tag for a screen shot of a Wikipedia Article? see Image:California_Infobox_U.S._state.jpg --Dbiel 06:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia-screenshot}}, which I have added to the page for you. howcheng {chat} 06:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Posting an image

Can i upload my own image.

generaly yes.Geni 02:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The image should be useful to Wikipedia, though we allow an image for users that contribute regularly to Wikipedia for use on their user page. But all images you upload of your own works need to be licensed free. MECU≈talk 13:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

uploading

i uploaded a pic of irina lazareanu and apparently i have to tag it...i just found it on the website that i listed......so what tag would that be?

I would expect Image:Irinalazareanu.jpg to have to be used under fair use, since the official website, nor the website you took it from (who wouldn't have permission probably anyways) have not stated a free license. You will therefore need to put it image in an article, use the tag {{fairusein}} and write a fair use rationale ensuring the usage of the image complies with our fair use criteria. MECU≈talk 16:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be posible to replace it with a free image so it can't be used on wikipedia.Geni 18:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

How to add copyright information about this picture

Hi there

I am working with officials of www.ekal.org to create an article for Ekal Vidyalaya on wikipedia. I have an image that was taken by one of the teachers of Ekal, It is at [Image:Ekal_Kids_Praying_Small.jpg]. Since it was taken by Ekal staff, it should hold copyright from Ekal, though we have not taken any specific steps towards it (like registering with Patent and Trademark office etc). We want to use that on our article at http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Ekal_Vidyalaya.

Please suggest the best way to use the picture, Thanks

Viral Patel

Image would need to be released under a free license such as the GFDL by the copyright holder.Geni 00:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

heros

is john hanry,molly pitcher,and calamity jane all heros?

Try the reference desk. MECU≈talk 13:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture of Product

I would like to put a photograph of a block of sculpey on the sculpey page. What copyright licence should it have?

Assuming that you took the picture yourself, you'll need to release it freely for Wikipedia to use it. There is a list of free licenses at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses, or you can release it into the public domain by using the {{PD-self}} template. ShadowHalo 06:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

wow, that was quick! Thanks. I am a lemon 06:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Even though it is an image of the packaging, with the Sculpey III logo on it? I am a lemon 06:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you meant it was a picture of the sculpey itself. In that case, tag it with {{Non-free fair use in|Sculpey}}. Make sure to also write a detailed fair use rationale. ShadowHalo 07:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding about Mobile databases by Prof. Kulkarni

Sir

I observed that there is no matterial available on Mobile databases used for all moving objects(laptop, PDA, celular phones etc.) I want to add the definition of mobile databases and various important issues connected to it. Note that it is a new topic. Many idea I may take from my or other research papres.

Can I upload this information? Thanking you, Prof. Kulkarni

You can try. You should be aware that we are not for original research and writing about things that you are closely associated with is often a conflict of interest for which you may not be able to write from a neutral point of view. MECU≈talk 13:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Promotional photo copyright tag

I received the image Image:Rev web1.jpg from the band's record label. It is a promotional photograph for use in press articles, etc. How do I tag this properly? It doesn't seem to fit in any of the existing Wikipedia copyright categories, unless I'm misunderstanding something. __PoisonIvy1983 13:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)PoisonIvy1983

We would have to use this under fair use unless you write and ask for a free license (See WP:COPYREQ). But we couldn't use it under fair use because it would fair the first fair use criteria. So, there isn't a tag that you could put on it that wouldn't have the image end up getting deleted anyways. Finding a freely licensed image or asking for a free license are your only options. MECU≈talk 13:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Question

I added pictures for the last few Ugly Betty episodes, and I forgot to select the "TV Screencaps" under license. How can I fix this without uploading the images again?

A specific example is Image:Petra_and_Mother.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scooby Doo47 (talk • contribs) 01:28, May 12, 2007 (UTC)

I think you would use {{Non-free video screenshot}} --Midnightcomm 04:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

i want to download your free encyclopedia

I have your cd but cannot get it downloaded because my firewall won,t allow it to download.please let me know if i can download. Thank you Fred

Please contact the WP:HELPDESK that will be able to help you further. MECU≈talk 01:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Please help with tagging

I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and am not exactly sure how to copyright tag the following image:

http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Image:Bosnians.JPG

I found some on Wikipedia and others using Google image search, so I don't know what to do. If anyone knows how to copyright tag, I'd greatly appreciate your help. Ivan Ilir

You should not use Google to search for images. We want free images, licensed freely for our use and others to reuse. There is no license tag for that image since it consists of many different copyrighted images that are not free. Please read the fair use policy for starters. MECU≈talk 01:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this genuinely a public domain image?

I wanted to double check that this is truly PD http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Image:Climatemapusofa.JPG

If so, it would be perfect for me to make a derivative work off of it. (I understand I can't make derivative works from GNU images and make them my own).

Guroadrunner 12:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the user's other uploads [10] ... you can call me suspicious. Some of them are obviously not user-created images - like Image:Pattersonmedalpic.jpg, which was a blatant copyvio from http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040820/news_lz1x20sulli1.html. --BigDT 12:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well where is a PD image of the U.S. map? Wikipedia's is GNU and I don't think I can make a derivative work from that and ban opposition groups from using it. Guroadrunner 13:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The National Atlas of the United States (http://www.nationalatlas.gov/) has a ton of PD maps. (Original works of the US government are PD.) See [11] for a list of maps of the US. One of those might suit your needs. --BigDT 17:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up on the link - I found exactly what I needed there. Cheers, Guroadrunner 04:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I created all the image

Hi all i created the incredible ept image, other pics found in this eraviputhenthurai page are taken by me .I dont know how to copyright the image can you people help me.If you are copyrighting then copyright the images to www.eraviputhenthurai.tk this website is created by me you can refer credits link for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joffinjim (talk • contribs)

Images used on Wikipedia must be released under a free license, such as the GFDL, or into the public domain. If you, personally, are the photographer and would like to release these images under the GFDL, add {{GFDL-self}} to the image description pages or see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#For image creators for some other choices. HOWEVER, Image:Eptbeach.JPG and Image:Jimmanzil.JPG look like they watermarked with the address of another website. Are you the photographer of these images? --BigDT 05:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ancestry.com Image

I have a paid subscription to Ancestry.com. Within the package I get old newspaper images. I found a line drawing I want to upload in Wiki of William Lawrence Scott in the 23 February 1887 issue of the Newark (Ohio) Daily Advocate. The newspaper is over a hundred years old. I'm not taking a substantial portion of the Ancestry.com image, so I'm not violating their rules of use. So is the picture over a hundred years old and out of copyright, or does Ancestry.com hold the copyright because it just created the image? If the image is out of copyright, I don't see that option on your list of choices of licenses. In case you have access to Ancestry, here is the link. [12] Pat 15:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Which legal juristiction are you under? under US law the relivant case law would be Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp..Geni 15:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm under US law. Do I then say it is Fair Use for me to use the image based on that case? Or do I say the image is out of copyright? Do I mention that I retrieved the image from the service and provide the link to the pay service URL? I'm a bit confused by the Q&A uploading format and how to choose the right option.Pat 16:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

under US law the image is public domain although you should detail the source.Geni 17:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Dover_Station1.jpg

This photo I just uploaded is in the public domain, and it is now in the state tranportation library. They scanned it for me and told me it is in the public domain. What is the best code for the copyright on something like this. I am not the owner. Fish Cop 17:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

{{PD-because|reason the thing is public domain}}Geni 18:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Smithsonian

Recently the Smithsonian tag has been deleted, a tag that was used for dozens of pics I recently uploaded in the past two months from the Smithsonian's online site, in many different articles. Most of the pics can be found in the Freer Gallery of Art article. An example of such a pic would be

• Image:Northern Song Jun Ware Planter, stoneware with Jun glaze, early 12th century.jpg, this picture alone is used in six different articles.

Since the Smithsonian tag no longer applies, which one would? I read the debate on the Smithsonian tag issue, and remember one wiki member explaining that, since the pictures were taken by government employees, they are in the public domain. I don't know the validity of this, but I would like to know which tag applies to these images. Thank you.--PericlesofAthens 20:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

These can be tricky. If it's a painting or other 2D artwork I believe the current legal precident in the US is that digitized copies will still be public domain (IANAL). For photos of vases and such it's different though, the photographer (or his employer) is generaly awarded a new copyright on the photo. As I understand it if the Smithsonian created the images with US federal funding they can't claim copyright to them or soemething like that, problem is they don't tell us what is government funded and what is not, and they use theyr standard "this is copyrighted, don't use without permission" notice on everyting across the board. Wish whoever is controlling theyr government funding would twist theyr arm a little about theyr copyright practices, but I guess we'll have to stick with claiming fair use in the meantime. I'd say just use {{Non-free fair use in|article}} and write a solid fair use rationale to go with it. Note that if these are on public display somewhere where photography is allowed we would have to go get our own photos instead... --Sherool (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. In terms of ability to take photos, I am not sure, I have been to the Freer and M. Sackler Galleries one time, but I did not bring a camera. This is what their site says about "rights and reproductions".--PericlesofAthens 06:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

copyright

Image:Worthdress thumb.jpg. the above image is from a museum collection, and link to the Charles Frederick Worth page. The heritage service has copyright on the image I personally do not. How do I give a licence for educational use etc to this. With Thanks --Edmund Patrick 12:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia allows others to reuse its content for any purpose, we do not allow a restriction for educational use only. ShadowHalo 13:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I apparently uploaded the wrong tag for licensing while trying to create a page for Velox: Critical Approaches to Contemporary Film. How do I change the tag on the image so that it doesn't get deleted? I have look in the tutorials for licensing but I am too new with Wikipedia to really be able to figure it out. The logo image is not copyrighted (we made it ourselves) and just need to put the proper tag on the image. Can anyone help?

Thank you,

Phrenology (talk) 03:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

GNU Free Documentation License

I realize that there is an entire page explaining this subject, however, with all the noted technicalities I just don't fully understand what it's saying. I have a simple question, (if someone could/would please clarify the answer for me).

I am a graphic artist for a magazine. We are featuring an article about vacation spots in New York and I'm hoping to use one of the photos that I've run across on this site Image:MohonkHouse.jpg. Under the photo it reads, "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. Subject to disclaimers."

Is it ok to use photos (such as this one) that fall under the GNU Free Documentation License to illustrate the content of an article in our magazine? If so, do I need to add a photo credit beside the photo when placed in the magazine? If not, what photos (if any) are acceptable for me to use in the magazine as far as copyright is concerned?

--ChallengeGraphicArtist 19:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

In the case of GFDL stuff you would need to credit the autor and include a full copy of the GFDL. We also have a lot of photos under creative commons licenses that don't require you to include the full text of the lisence but require that you print a URL where the lisence can be found and credit the author.Geni 19:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can use the image. That's the point of the license. The gist of it is that it's free for re-use in any way, including commercial use and derivative works, but any such derivative work (even if commercial) must carry the same license. This would not apply to the entire issue of your magazine, only the image itself. The copyright to the image remains with the photographer, who should be credited.

The only other requirement is that somewhere in the issue you will need to include a copy of the text of the GFDL, which can be found here: WP:GFDL. How you relate that text to the image is up to you, just so long as it's present. The disclaimers mentioned in the tag can be found here: Wikipedia:General disclaimer. It's deprecated for images since it's really intended for Wikipedia text, but if the copyright holder hasn't changed the license then the disclaimers have to apply as well. I see no requirement to include them anywhere in your publication, however.

The part of the tag that says, "no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts" makes matters easier for you, since if any of these were present it would either impose restrictions on portions of the image or require additional material to be included along with it. Since there are none, you're spared that bother. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, if one publishes a GFDL document as described under section 4 (WP:GFDL#4. MODIFICATIONS), the warranty disclaimers must be reproduced alongside the license. I don't know the procedure for other methods of publishing. ChallengeGraphicArtist, you may have better luck (and a more definitive answer) if you contact the Free Software Foundation (home page, contact us). --Iamunknown 20:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there it is. Specifically item O. What a PIA. I wonder if some bot can post to the talk pages of everyone who's contributed images using the "with disclaimers" tag, asking them for permission to change it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There's another option (since you don't have enough to read about here). The picture was taken by Mwanner. If republishing the entire text of the GFDL does not work well for your publication (I'd imagine not), you can email Mwanner by clicking "E-mail this user" on the left side of his/her user page and asking if just including a photo credit in your publication would be alright. ShadowHalo 13:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

copyright two

Thanks for the answer above re educational use, my first question still remains, how do I put a correct copyright tag to a image. Upon checking with my service this image may have to be removed because of copyright issues, but I still need to know how to do it. Thanks --Edmund Patrick 18:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In this case, you should add the {{db-noncom}} template. The relevant templates for any future uploads you make are at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. ShadowHalo 18:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

About "no Invariant Sections, no front-cover texts and back cover texts"

I don't speak english very well and i know that there is an entire page explaining about copyright subject; however, with all the noted technicalities I just don't fully understand what it's saying. I have a simple question, (if someone could/would please clarify the answer for me).

I am editing a book and I'm hoping to use one of the photos that I've run across on this site Image:Desert1.jpg. Under the photo it reads "This image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License v. 2.0: (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/)" Is it ok to use photos (such as this one) that fall under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License v. 2.0 to illustrate the cover and back cover of the book? For commercial use, because, of course, i want to sell the books). If so, do I need to add a photo credit into the books? What do i have to write? I did not understand the part of the page about copyrights that says, "no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts". Does it aply to image licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License v. 2.0? If yes, what does it means? Would I unalloewd to edit or write texts on it? Stufs like "Title and name of the author, or inverse, strech or cut the image to adapt it to fit to the page? Thank you in advance for your atention. (And sorry for my mistakes if i typed wrongly the text).

my e-mail: carlosrgvalle@yahoo.com.br

"No Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts" refers to the GFDL, under which the text of Wikipedia is published. Image:Desert1.jpg, which is published under the {{cc-by-2.0}} license, could be used on the cover of the book so long as you comply with the license. The best way to do that would be to put a notice in one of the first or last pages of the book where you attribute the authors of the image (Nicholasink, Buchling, Rosa Cabecinhas, and Alcino Cunha) and state that it is published under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license. ShadowHalo 20:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Satellite image

Can someone tell me how to find the copyright/license information on a photograph found on the internet using google images? Also, what do I do if the entire page is written in Russian and I don't speak Russian? If anyone answers this question, I would appreciate it if you would notify me on my talk page. Thanks. Vsst 21:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If you link to the page where you found the image, then it will be easier to help you directly. Otherwise, you find someone who speaks Russian. Since we have these handy language userboxes on Wikipedia, it should be easy. Russian speakers who have so identified themselves will be listed in a subcategory of Category:User ru. Native-level speakers are in Category:User ru-N, but even rudimentary Russian-speakers might be able to give you some help with copyright information. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Realisticaly unless the photo is from worldwind it isn't going to be posible to use it on wikipedia.Geni 01:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Betty Pettersson.jpg

Could somebody *please* take a look at this photograph. I received a message saying that it needs clarification of the copyright and "license" and the homepage of the photo has a similar message saying that "Failure to tag an image may lead to its deletion." I think this photo is old enough to be "public domain" but there is a bewildering number of different "tags" for that and I have no idea if which one is valid, if any.

Done. --Knulclunk 16:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. :) /Spinning Jenny

Are these images free?

• Image:Lancia logo.jpg
• Image:Logoautobianchi1.gif

I believe they are not, and that they are derivative works of copyrighted images. PrinceGloria disagrees with me. This issue is important since the images are used in templates, so fair use is not good enough. I would appreciate an outside opinion. The discussion we had about the images is at Image talk:Lancia logo.jpg. nadav (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• • The answer is, that's a very complicated question. I recommend listing at WP:PUI and letting the sort it out. -N 22:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture for deletion

Hi, I added an image recently and i've been told that it's marked for deletion, the image in question was put on a website, owned by the BBC (as the image is from Doctor Who) and a similar (but substantially different) image is on the same page, to which the image i've uploaded was a full version. I don't understand what i need to do to allow this picture to remain on Wikipedia, could you please help?

since the image is under copyright and not under a free lisence you would need to produce a fair use rational.Geni 21:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)