Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Merge arrow
 It has been suggested that this page or section be merged into Media copyright questions. (Discuss)
Shortcuts:
WP:IMAGEHELP
WP:ICHD

Welcome · Tutorial · Cheatsheet · Frequently Asked Questions · Glossary · Help · Help desk · Image copyright help desk · Reference desk

Skip to the bottom
This page is for asking questions about image copyright, BetacommandBot and other related queries.

To ask a question about ONE specific image, Click Here

For factual and other kinds of questions, use the search box, the Help desk or the reference desk.

For your own security, please DO NOT provide your email. We are unable to provide answers via email and this page is highly visible across the Internet.

Please read the following before asking your question:

  1. To ask a new question, click the "Click here to ask your question" link below. Remember to fill out the Subject/Headline field.
  2. Please be aware that we cannot, under any circumstance, provide medical, legal, or any other sort of advice that is normally regulated by governmental authorities. We only provide advice on using images on Wikipedia and not general image copyright advice.
  3. After asking your question, check this page for response(s).

Special services:

  1. If you place {{helpme}} on your talk page, an editor will visit you there ASAP! (Helpers can find you at Wikipedians looking for help.)
  2. Join the #imagehelp IRC chat room for live assistance. Please see this page for advice on how to use IRC.
Click here to ask your question about using Wikipedia
Volunteer instructions
Skip to bottom
Back to the top

Contents


[edit] Eyeglaa Bi-Cross Wirelees Hearing Aids

Resolved.

Where in the UK can I souce eyeglass bi-glass wireless hearing aid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.223.118 (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That will be something to ask your doctor. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Internet Imaging

Resolved.

How do you upload images from different websites? --CPGACoast (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You go to Wikipedia:Upload, which is on the toolbar to the left side of the screen. You will see it linked as "Upload file." It will take you to a screen about where the image came from and instructions with each image. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NCLC Logo

Resolved.

I had uploaded a logo of the National Christian Life College several days ago and it was deleted. How can I make it acceptable in English Wikipedia without having risks of it being nominated for deletion? I want to have an identity of the school through its logo. I want the logo to appear in the National Christian Life College page just like in the University of Santo Tomas page. Thanks and Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Chitetskoy (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chitetstkoy, I've restored the logo and included a fair use rationale. Addhoc (talk) 13:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] disputed fair use

I keep getting aggravating messages on my talk page about disputed fair use rationales which tell me to go to something called the "image description page" to defend my upload against the Wikipedia Bureacrat Brigade. Where is that? Sorry if missed something but I don't really feel like reading ten pages of terribly-written and unhelpful instructions so that Wikipedia can keep a picture of someone kicking the Silver Surfer. --Halloween jack (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

First, please avoid using personal attacks in your edits, even in an edit summary such as this one or to a bot.
As for your images, the bot cited the exact problem that was wrong with them on the image page: WP:NFCC#10c requires that the exact name of the article that you are using the non-free image in be included with the fair-use rational. The two that have not been deleted lack this, and you simply need to add them (plain text or links, it doesn't matter, as long as you include any parenthesis disambiguation with it). Correct this in both images, and you can then remove the warning and satisfy the requirements. --MASEM 23:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I got one of those a couple of months ago for an album cover image I had uploaded for an article about the album. Upon seeing it, I went to the help pages it referred to and did everything it said I needed to do to bring the image and the fair use rationale up to speed.
The image got deleted anyway.
After that experience, I'm not going to waste any more of my time trying to satisfy the copyright bureaucrats on Wikipedia. If it's important to someone else, let them puzzle out the system. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I hear you on that one. Even if your image had passed muster at this point and not been deleted, someone would have come along later and created a whole new set of restrictions for you to overcome. That has happened me more than once, so I have given up fighting. It's too bad people spend so much time putting down other's efforts rather than working to improve Wikipedia.
Epolk (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Epolk, there is not "someone" - there are many, even hundreds of people who create these guidelines. The only someone who can unanimously enforce standards is Jimbo Wales. The rest come from consensus from verified and respected Wikipedians. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
You guys just don't understand the complex legal principles at work here. If we don't replace those images, Marvel Comics will take a break from their busy schedule to sue the Wikimedia Foundation for having the audacity to give them free advertising. This is also why all professional-quality promotional pictures of movie stars have to be replaced with a shitty cameraphone pic of the same celebrity getting off a plane at 4am in Hoboken. --Halloween jack (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
That's a common way of looking at things, and if the images were solely used on Wikipedia, then there wouldn't be any real problems, but we try to provide all the images on the project under a free licence so users can do anything they like with an image, such as putting it on a T-Shirt in their store and selling them for profit. If we don't use free images whenever possible, then people wouldn't be able to do stuff like that with our content, and that's what we're here to do. Nick (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I see your point; providing a content-rich encyclopedia should certainly take a backseat to supporting the industry of those guys who try to sell me ill-fitting Gildan t-shirts when I go to the outlet mall.--Halloween jack (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry guys, in 6 months someone will just decide to change all the rules again. Just worry about getting the words right; there'll be no images at all on Wikipedia before long. 23skidoo (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  • You mean no *copyrighted* images, right? (Some Wikipedias ban all copyrighted images - that doesn't mean all images are banned - one can still upload GDFL and public domain stuff) - There are some new restrictions but I don't think that the English Wikipedia will completely do away with fair use images. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

- And then Some Wikipedias ban all images they don't like. And text. And links. And entire pages. For no other reasons than "it's copyright-infringement" (like any company even cares) or "this is nonsense" (because THEY think so) - and then the site is deleted, never to be retrieved again. Just like this post will be. Along with other posts stating the same issues.KnatLouie (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User-made photographs of public art?

Resolved.

Good lord, yet more copyright paranoia!

Exactly what is the copyright status if I take a photograph of public art, such as a mural, statue, or even a graffiti piece? Can I make the derivative image available under a free licence, like GNU? I used the fair-use copyright tag to be on the safe side, but am now being plagued by "inadequate fair use" tags. Basically, as I understand it, while the the artist holds copyright to the original artwork, in the case of derivative works, such as a photo of that work, the photographer has copyright and can release it under free license. Please let me know if this is the case, so I can change the copyright tags to my photos of public art and put an end to this nonsense.

The most egregious example is this: Image:Nerihorse.jpg. This was actually an illegal graffiti piece (though generally attributed to graffiti artist Reminisce), and hence, I don't think is at all copyrighted.

Some clarification of these issues would be greatly appreciated. Peter G Werner (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a very subjective area, with one interpretation being that since graf is illegal, the artist is not afforded copyright protection. My interpretation is that pictures of graf are indeed copyrighted because of the hard work and creative elements involved in making the piece - please see Image:Phase2bubbler.gif for an example of a correctly written rationale. east.718 at 14:10, January 3, 2008
Oops, another user provided a valid rationale. east.718 at 14:15, January 3, 2008
Ah, thanks for doing that. However, what about the larger question of derivative images (eg, photos) of public art, where the original artist presumably holds copyright to the original art piece? Is that a "fair use" copyrighted image, or can that derivative image be placed under free license? I've never found a clear answer to this Wikipedia image guidelines. I'd love to get clarification on this question, since I'm considering going out and shooting a number of such images around the San Francisco Bay Area. Peter G Werner (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
If you want more opinions, you should ask over at WT:F - an apt name for a discussion board concerning such an abstruse part of policy. east.718 at 16:35, January 3, 2008

[edit] Image:Jonahsperm.png

Resolved.

This is a public domain art image of a lapsed trademark, uploaded in 2003 before these matters were as fussy as they are now. It was created as a part of a series of old labels I made, mostly as illustrations of old patent medicine advertising. Most of those are at the Commons now [1], and this could be in all likelihood. Sperm oil whaling was more or less moribund in the USA by 1910. The image is in use, in the History of whaling article.

At some point, long after it was uploaded, this was apparently given a "logo" template; and now has been tagged as an "unfree fair use" image for deletion. I did want to call it to someone's attention before simply removing all of these several tags and replacing them with a generic PD-US tag. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 07:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the tag. east.718 at 14:06, January 3, 2008

[edit] Gods own country.jpg

Resolved.

This bot has tagged "Image:Gods own country.jpg" for deletion. I think the image should not be deleted as this is widely established image and has been using by many tourist related organizations in Kerala including the official website of KTDC. We should not make our policy so harsh, which may spoil the enhancement of articles. Thanks. --Avinesh Jose (talk) 07:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Another user has written a valid rationale for this image. east.718 at 14:06, January 3, 2008

[edit] Image:HMAS jervis bay crest.gif

I am not so sure that the deletion has been thoroughly looked at because it clearly states that the owner (RAN) allows the use of this image provided that it is not used for commercial use and not to be altered as the tag below states. Which Wikipedia permits. So what’s the problem ? please explain !

{{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|this material in unaltered form only (retaining this notice) for your personal, non-commercial use or use within your organisation. (extract from http://www.navy.gov.au/copyright.html)}} Mbruce1 (talk) 10:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If the image is not permitted for commercial use, then it isn't free for Wikipedia's purposes and may be deleted on sight. You will need to add a valid fair use rationale for the image. east.718 at 14:03, January 3, 2008
That is, Wikipedia must assert a claim of fair use that is consistent with our internal policies as well as US laws pertaining to fair use. In order to claim fair use on a copyrighted image, you must provide a rationale. Please check the image description page for an example. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stop betacommandbot now, please!

Two more logos in articles in my watchlist were tagged for SD by this useless miserable confused and confusing bot. I have since removed the tags (on grounds that the copyright tag itself has a fair use rationale - that surely the bot is unaware of, as it's amere bot and can't read) but still it's giving us more job instead of doing things easier.

Destroy this bot now! --Sugaar (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(LOL) Sugaar, I agree with you. --Avinesh Jose (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The bot is operating correctly - please see WP:FURG for help on writing a fair use rationale. Don't hesitate to post on this noticeboard if you need help with anything else. east.718 at 14:05, January 3, 2008
Fair use tags themselves don't constitute a rationale. You need to write a separate one. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Totaly agree - this person "thing" has no original thought and should put his/her/its energy into making articles rather than trying to make wikipedia into a plain text toilet roll on the web. Ban betacommandbot now - one vote from meKrait (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand can't take criticism of his bot or his actions, even when it is harsh, so he is reverting it from the talk page. I will post in more detail below. Hu (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

sorry that I removed personal attacks and trolling by you, Please review WP:NFC βcommand 18:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:NFCC 10(c) The name of each article images that BCBot tags fail this. unless you can point to an example where this is not true please stop your personal attacks. βcommand 18:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] album cover images

Hi, I used an image of the Bay City Rollers album It's a Game on the wikipedia page for the album.

There is sufficient rationale listed on the talk page for use of this image. Please advise if I have done something wrong. Bawtyshouse (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to provide the exact name of the article that the image is being used on; specifically "It's a Game" does not appear in the language of the rationale. You should also include where you got the image from (did you scan it in, did you get it from a website and if so, which one) and who the copyright holder of the image is (in this case, the publisher of the album). --MASEM 20:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

BetacommandBot automatically removes album covers without fair-use rationales, even though the fair-use rationale is basically the same for every album. It undoes others' (particularly mine) work, when it could just as easily write the fair-use rationale or tag the article as needing it. It is ridiculous that it speedy-deletes images on technicalities. Ian Burnet (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Status

Resolved.

I upload an image and it says I need to provide copyright status. I don't really know what copyright status is or how to provide it.--Kondrayus (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright tags help to identify what the copyright status is of an image. A full list of tags can be found at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags, but more specifically for non-free images, you want Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Non-free, and most specifically, you want to include {{Non-free game screenshot}} for video game screenshots. --MASEM 22:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it alright to put an image you uploaded yourself on your userpage?--Kondrayus (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-free images cannot be placed on user pages; they can only be used within the Main namespace. You're free to place images from Wikipedia Commons on your userpage, however. --MASEM 20:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Or, indeed, any images which are under a free license; while those should probably be uploaded to the Commons, there is nothing stopping them from being uploaded and used here. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:STBotI

Please can the "welcome" message be reworded into a more helpful and less aggressive form? As it stands, it fails to assume good faith, is needlessly complicated and off-putting, lacks easily followed helplinks for editors trying to rectify any problems, and generally seems to be trying to upset as many people as possible. It would also be nice to have more than a few seconds to finish fixing copyright tags before getting a bot message threatening deletion when one has uploaded an image. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've had the same problem.--Kondrayus (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
This conversation should probably take place at User_talk:ST47#User_talk:STBotI. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I have posted there also, however it is profoundly unclear from the bot's page, this page and indeed the bot-operator's page where such discussions should take place. DuncanHill (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes, the bot's talk page seems set up for maximum obfuscation and bizarre redundancy. I can't find a link to the template used by the bot when informing you, but it appears to be based on {{Di-no license-notice}}. One way to go about changing it would be to propose new wording on that template's talk page and ask ST47 to adjust the bot's message accordingly. Clarity and conciseness are the goal, so if you can think of any polite simplifications, you are more than welcome to try to implement them. As for the bot's scheduling, that again is a matter for the operator. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not so much the template it put on my talk page (apart from the timing), but when one goes to the bot's talk page to try to work out what is going on one is confronted with what is virtually a diatribe against those editors it has messaged. A "how to fix the problem" message would be a much better welcome on the talk page - and would save the good people at this help-desk a lot of time too! DuncanHill (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Double check

Did I fix this image correctly? [2] the new date sort category is throwing me a bit. MBisanz talk 21:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Please add a wikilink to the [[Bank of Ghana]] article, see WP:NFCC#10c for more info. There's also an easier alternative to tagging logos if you use them in an article about the company. Simply add {{subst:logo+rationale|article name|copyright holder}} when uploading an image and a fair use rationale will be generated automatically. Thanks, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip, I didn't upload it, I'm going through the backlog and wanted to make sure I'm handling the new by-day category correctly. MBisanz talk 00:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who owns an X-ray or MRI image?

I recently had an MRI done and the doctor gave me a CD with the images from the MRI. I was thinking that they could be used here but I'm not sure about the legality of this. So, who owns those images? Me? My doctor? The hospital where the MRI scanner is? Please note, I'm not asking a factual question that belongs on the Ref Desk. I'm not seeking legal advice for a personal concern. I'm just trying to find out if I'm allowed to use the MRI images on Wikipedia. Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 14:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The best thing to do would be to ask the doctor or the facility which supplied the MRI. Some may have different rules regarding this than others, and it may also be specified in any forms you signed prior to having it taken. --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 18:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] .SVG

Resolved.

How can I save the images (.SGV format)? I want to save in my computer so I could review it and let my children also view it at home. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpiangs (talk • contribs) 06:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Just click on the image, right click and click 'save as' or whatever. You'll need a program such as Inkscape or the GIMP that will be able to read the SVG images (or you could open them in your web browser) ----Seans Potato Business 01:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images from a 1937 Russian film

Resolved.

Hi, I uploaded Image:Bezhinmeadow.jpg as fair use, but in hindsight I'm wondering if it would actually be public domain. It's from a 1937 Russian film that was never actually completed or released. Lawrence Cohen 07:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

See the text of Template:PD-Russia for the details. The authors of the film need to die before 1954 (maybe 1950, if we knew at least one person is a veteran of the Second World War). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I think I'm in the clear to tag it as PD-Russian, then. The film was never actually released anywhere officially, and Eisenstein died in 1948. Thanks! Lawrence Cohen 14:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Satellite imagery?

What license would satellite imagery taken from places like Google Earth or TerraServer be under? If its from NASA wouldn't it be in the public domain? Noah¢s (Talk) 01:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If an image is taken by a NASA employee or any other US Gov't worker during the course of their official duties, it is a public domain image. This applies to those taken by NASA equipment such as satellites and telescopes as well. Please double-check the photos though as some are actually high-altitude areal photos and not actually satellite.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 19:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Plus, Google Earth image shots are under a license to where we are not able to use them on Wikipedia. I am not sure about TerraServer. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Public domain vs GFDL

Is there any point in me trying to promote the use of GFDL and CC BY SA over (instead of) releasing to public domain (on the premise that public domain images can be modified and then copyrighted whereas GFDL/CC BY SA remain open for use after modification? ----Seans Potato Business 01:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by "promote". If you find a PD image and want to modify it and release it as CC-BY-SA (or your choice of other license), there's nothing stopping you. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Which is of most benefit to humanity? ----Seans Potato Business 07:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Local Council requests accreditation for use of an out-of-copyright image.

Resolved.

I've been in contact with Hull City Council [3] regarding use of images from their database of historic photographs [4]. It's a collection of images scanned from old postcards of the city. Initially, they refused permission to use the images. However, after some investigation, I pointed out that the images I want to use are out of copyright. They now accept that the images are out of copyright but have asked that this sentence be included in any article in which the images are used:

The images in this article are used with the kind permission of Kingston upon Hull City Council. However in supplying these images, Kingston upon Hull City Council does not necessarily approve or condone the contents of this article.

This request is based upon their concern that "Hull City Council might become implicitly associated with sentiments, opinions or errors of fact which could damage our public image."

My questions are 1. Can they insist that the sentence is included? 2. Should the sentence be included?

I'm no lawyer but my understanding is that, as the image is out of copyright, it can be used freely without attribution.

As regards the second question, I lean towards saying that it shouldn't be included. To my knowledge that type of disclaimer is not typically used in articles. And, if there is no accreditation, then there is no possibility of their public image being damaged. Perhaps a "kindly supplied by" accreditation associated with the image itself would be the best solution. Are there any Wikipedia policies that would provide direction in this area?

Always state the source of the images, even if they are out of copyright. However, we cannot include that disclaimer on the articles itself. It is a policy of ours not to include disclaimers on articles for content. There will not be a way the City Council will be held responsible for edits to pages. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Once an image meets free-content or fair use guidelines, the only policy that needs to be (and the only one that should be) followed is Wikipedia's image policy. On the image page you should include the source, but no more. If they hold no copyright over the images, they have no authority regarding whether or not we acknowledge their permission or lack thereof.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 19:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
If they're in the public domain, then any previous copyright holder has no right to insist on anything being attached to the images. We certainly wouldn't include anything about "by the kind permission", we're able to use PD images whether they permit us or not. And while we could include the sentence about not endorsing anything, it would violate Wikipedia:No disclaimers.
I think it should be limited to "supplied by" or "obtained from" KuH City Council, with a link to the source URL. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for the replies. That's pretty much how I saw it. I'll relay the info and links back to them.
Although I agree with the conclusions reached here, could the council claim that although they don't own the copyright to the images, they own the copyright to the scans of those images? Are scans really any different to photographs? Talltim (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

Resolved.

We are sending a group to Fatima and Lourdes. We were wondering if there was a chance for you could send us a few photos. We will be using these photos in a slide show, which will be presenting to the group. Otherwise, we were also wondering if we could use a few pictures off of your website, and but accreditation of the photos for you. 206.51.203.104 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Any pictures on Wikipedia can be saved directly from their image page. The image page also contains any copyright information that will indicate whether or not you may use the image for personal or other uses, and whether or not credit must be given. You may view this information by clicking on any picture in an article you wish to view in more detail. Wikipedia (with a few exceptions for oversight duties) does not send information out to users via email.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 21:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Any legal action taken against Wikipedia over images?

It's possible I just haven't been looking in the right places, but having checked a number of pages relating to image copyright, fair use, etc., I have yet to see any reference to Wikipedia ever actually facing a legal challenge over the use of an image (referring specifically to images uploaded in good faith as fair use, but for which legal action was taken for their removal or against Wikipedia for damages). Can anyone provide any links to either Wikipedia articles or third-party media to indicate this has ever happened? I'm aware that there may well have been "private" communication regarding such challenges (i.e. Jimbo Wales receiving a lawyer visit at his office or something) which would not necessarily be written out online, but surely given how important this has been deemed by the powers that be, there must be some coverage of Wikipedia either facing a threat or actually being taken to court. (Such information might also aid those who are trying to convince people of the value of things like Betacommandbot.) 68.146.41.232 (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It happens, but things are usually handled quietly by somebody like Cary Bass. east.718 at 14:46, January 12, 2008
We receive a number of complaints through the m:OTRS system every week, though it is very unusual to receive complaints about images with suitable fair use rationales and such, images without such information do cause us a little more trouble. The biggest problem I've found is incorrectly licenced work, uploaders accidentally or wilfully misrepresenting copyright policies on websites in order to upload material. Nick (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Taking Photograph of Artwork

If I take a photograph of a painter's artwork would that be allowed to upload? And what copyright would it fall under? Thanks! Zachiroth (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the painting - can you provide the artist or painting's name? east.718 at 14:46, January 12, 2008

[edit] Speedy deletion of images with an *incomplete* fair use rationale?

Suppose there was an image that had an incomplete fur. What I mean by incomplete is that description, source, and article are filled out in the {{Non-free use rationale}} template, but not the important things like Portion used, Low resolution, replaceability, etc. Can such images be speedied under CSD I6 (no rationale) or another criterion, if at all? Thanks. NF24(radio me!) 19:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like CSD I7 could cover it, since it mentions any fair use image that fails any of the criteria can be deleted under I7. However, they will mostly do it for replaceability issues. Portion used various, but usually is 100 percent of a photo and we can fix the resolution any time. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] brandsoftheworld.com

What our position on images from Brandsoftheworld.com Image:Intel Pentium II Processor Logo.svg Category:Brands of the World Do they need a full fairuse rationale, or just an article backlink only for appropriate articles? MBisanz talk 03:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mbisanz, I think it still requires a rationale. Addhoc (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Drat!. Thanks, I was hoping for an easy NFCC fix for once. MBisanz talk 04:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Depends on what image comes from that website. I have found a few public domain images on there before. Anyways, for that image you linked to, I suggest putting a rationale on that logo image. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion about fair-use

I have been countlessly trying to help out the site by providing relevent images where they are needed in various articles. However, I have received copyright warnings on various occasions, and to my confusion, all seem to dissprove my fair-use claims.

How is it that other users can upload a copyrighted theatrical poster, but when I try, using the same exact templates and guidelines, and with the same intentions of providing helpful information, do I always get the boot?

I'm very confused. I followed the guidelines to the best of my knowledge, made sure I gave credit where credit was due, and still I get shunned by the website and accused of copyright infringement. Am I to believe the countless other film posters and screencaps gathered about the site don't infringe copyright either? I just don't get it, frankly.

All I'm trying to do is help by expanding short, incomplete article stubs, but my efforts are constantly shattered by these confusing image laws.

Please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyswitchblade (talk • contribs)

Hi! Looking at the only image you have left, there's a couple things wrong - you need to link to the article that the image is being used on, and while the rationale itself is a little weak, it's nothing I'd delete it over. Hope this helps! east.718 at 18:58, January 13, 2008

[edit] Index & Links

How to create an index, internal & external links in an article in wikipedia? How to insert picture in the article? prof_sapovadia@yahoo.co.in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.196.235 (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Indexes are automatically created as long as section titles within articles are proceeded and succeeded by two equals signs, e.g. == Demography of China ==.
To place links to internal pages surround the name of the page with double braces, e.g. [[Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk (section)]] or [[Roman Empire]].
To place links to external pages surround the URL with single braces, e.g. [http://www.google.com/]. To make a line of text link to the external page, do it like this [http://www.google.com/ Google search].
The code [[Image:Wiki.png|thumb|200px|CAPTION]] will place an image in an article. Replace "Wiki.png" with the name of any image located on Wikipedia. Replace "200" with the any number representing how much space you wish this picture to consume on the page (measured in pixels).
Jecowa (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Insignia and flags

If a user draws a stylized picture of a rank insignia, would this user be able to use the GFDL tag on this image or would the original designer of the insignia own the rights to all derivited works of the design?

What about photographs of rank insignia? Does the photographer or the crafter of the insignia own the copyrights a photograph of the insignia? It seems that photographs of insignia might fall under the same status as photographs of three-dimensional statues.

See Starfleet ranks and insignia for examples of both photographs and drawings of insignia.

Also, what about drawings and photographs of flags? It seems tricky because all though flag designs are two-dimensional, actual flags are three-dimensional objects that are often found hanging or waving from poles. Would drawings/photographs of flat flags be treated differently than drawings/photographs of flags that show some indication of depth?

See Flag for some photographs of three-dimensional flags and some drawings of two-dimensional flags.

Thank you. Jecowa (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd personally go with the idea that anything to do with Star Trek is going to be a derivative work, with very few exceptions, but there's such a wide range of possibilities, I wouldn't like to comment further without image specific queries. Nick (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, all Star Trek insignia are copyrighted and considered fair use. As for other military insignia, it depends from country to country. Same with flags, so if there is a specific image you mentioned, we could help further. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use of sports team logos in article about series or league.

Is there a conclusion about using non-free logos of sports teams in the article about a league? Example: Image:Birminghammagicians.jpg. I just wrote a fair use rationale for the article Birmingham Magicians (the team itself) which seems fine. But how about the use in Blue Conference? --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of the logo in the article on the league appears to fail WP:NFCC#8. Since you can identify the individual teams by name and wiki article, using a logo is not absolutely necessary. If any reader wishes to learn more about any specific team, they could see that team's logo at the linked article. If you wish to gather more input on the topic, it might be a good idea to do so at WT:NFC. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] sharing photos

If a friend takes pictures and send them to other friends and then someone puts the pictures on their website, what is the legal ramifications? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.143.69 (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There are no legal ramifications, your friend retains his or her copyright on these pictures. For Wikipedia purposes, these pics are non-free content unless your friend explicitly releases them under a free license. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
There also may be issues of personality rights. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Uploading images of cigarette cards.

Hi.I would like to upload a cigarette card image, but I'm not sure of the copyright.Here is a link to the card I would like to use. [5].Thanks for the help.Northmetpit (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Half-Life 2 screenshots

Hello.

Recently BetacommandBot went on "tagging spree" against Half-Life 2 computer game related screenshots.

All of the screenshots are under "Non-free game screenshot" copyright tag and are used in articles about the subjects of the screenshots.

Therefore I suggest removing the "di-disputed fair use rationale" tag since it is irrelevant.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's the thing. An image that is fair-use needs to have a rationale posted for EACH AND EVERY article that it appears on seperately. The best way to do this is with {{Non-free use rationale}}--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 13:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at Image:750px-Hl2 lostcoast menu.jpg for an example rationale or follow the guidelines at WP:FURG to create your own. The BetacommandBot tagging likely dealt with those rationales failing WP:NFCC#10c, which requires a wikilink to the article an image is used in. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 13:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image description page

Hi, how can i edit the image i have uploaded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sysconwiki (talk • contribs) 08:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You can edit the description but if you wish to edit the image you need to download a copy, edit the copy of the image, and upload it using the same name. If it was uploaded to commons you need to re-upload it to commons to avoid duplication. The new image will replace the old one and be immediately available. 199.125.109.89 (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image of a character?

What is the rule for using a screenshot of a character on the article of an actor? I would think that on the character page, the image is okay, because there is no free-use image of a copyrighted character, but on an actor page, there should be a free-use image, right? The image I'm talking about is Image:D419.jpg, which depicts the character Marco Del Rossi and is used on that article, but also on the article for Adamo Ruggiero, the actor.

Can someone please let me know if this is okay, and how to tag it/fix it/etc. -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 00:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fairuse overuse

Since by definition, corproate trademarks are used under fairuse, it appears this page is an example of fairuse overuse List of outsourcing companies. I'm not that good with redoing tables, could a more experienced user take a pass to pull out the overused logos? MBisanz talk 07:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Older photos for use

I was thinking of adding some photos to a couple of articles that I'm working on. The thing is that the photos are can be scanned or are available online as an archive. Many of the photos are older than 1950, the majority are pre-1930. I have read somewhere that Public Domain applies after a certain age of the photo, but I can't seem to find it on here, can someone enlighten me so I can enhance my articles? Thank you.--Hourick (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] old photo from 1956 (and also from 1973)

I have an studio photo of Charles Geoffrey Vickers taken in 1956 in Cananda that I would like to upload to his article in place of the current photo from when he was young. I also have a photo of him taken by Professor Melvin Webber in 1973 in the USA, Melvin died in 2006. Can I use either of these photos on CGV's article. PeterIto (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have just noticed a reply to a similar question on the media page and will follow the guidance given:- "Assuming you have the original program looks for anything on it that says "copyright". If there is no copyright notice at all and it was published before 1978 in the US (and not published abroad) then it is in the public domain see Hirtle and the tag {{PD-Pre1978}}" My 1973 US photo has no copyright message so it is ok PeterIto (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How do I add a picture?

I want to add a pic. to an article but I dont know how to get it on the page.

If the name of your picture is foo.jpg, then add [[image:foo.jpg|thumb|right|and put a descriptive caption here]] 199.125.109.89 (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)×

[edit] How do I add a picture?

I want to add a pic. to an article but I dont know how to get it on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MNM 20098 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Getting BetacommandBot to copy an image over to commons

I notice that the image Image:Wind turbine 1941.jpg was approved to be copied over to the Commons, but BetacommandBot couldn't find any category for it on the commons, so it flagged it as no category given. 1) How do I tell BetacommandBot which category to use, and 2) How does one avoid this problem? There is a wind generators category on commons, and a wind turbine category could be created on commons for this and all the other images of wind turbines. 199.125.109.89 (talk) 08:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:MTC βcommand 15:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] help with restoring image history

Sorry, when I updated Image:Arabic speaking world.png, I deleted the page history. I don't see any way to restore it. Can someone revert the mess I made? Just delete my image if you need to; I can update it properly later. kwami (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It is OK, you didn't delete anything! The image you tried to update is actually from Wikimedia Commons here. You can create an account in Commons and update the image there. Bláthnaid 19:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that's a relief. However, I don't see any way to update the Commons image, just to upload a new one. Or is that how it's done in Commons? kwami (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you have to log in to the Commons to upload new revisions of that image. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
It won't allow me to do that because my account "is too new". Thanks. I'll wait the 4 days. kwami (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, then you have two options: you can wait a few days or you can upload the new revision under a different name (Image:Arab speaking world temp.png) and I can upload it to the Commons for you. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Actually, it's already up, a candidate for deletion at Image:Arabic speaking world.png. I'd appreciate it if you could move it. kwami (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Y Done ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:WKDbottles.png & Image:WKDlogo.png

A bot (?) has tagged both of these images as possible invalid rationale. It does not explain what exactly is wrong with the rationale. I've looked over the guidelines and I cannot find how the rationale is invalid for these images, other than specifying the article the images were to be used in. I've added this to both images - does this now comply with the guidelines? --Sagaciousuk (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:WKDlogo.png needed a detailed rationale, which I've added. Unfortunately Image:WKDbottles.png will have to be deleted, because it is a copyrighted image that could be replaced by a free image. Bláthnaid 18:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use on templates

According to WP:FUC #9, fair use images should only be used in article space. How should it be handled if a template uses a fair use image (or in this case, a whole load of them)? The example I encountered is {{Yugoslav wars}}. What should a user do when encountering that situation? Is there anything an admin should additionally do when encountering that circumstance? Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Just remove it from the template. βcommand 15:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Invalid licenses

How should images with invalid licenses be handled? The examples I encountered are: Image:Armija BiH.svg, Image:Vojska znak.jpg and Image:HVO.jpg. These images obviously are ineligible for GFDL licensing as the work of the uploader. Vassyana (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G12 βcommand 16:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Technically, WP:CSD#I9. Although if there's a viable use for the image, it's best to replace the GFDL tags with an appropriate fair use tag. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright status concern

There is an image on Wikipedia that I feel the uploader has lied about the copyright status of it. The image says that the uploader is the copyright holder and he or she releases it into the public domain, but I don't think that the uploader is the actual photographer. What can I do about this? Noah¢s (Talk) 17:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You can list the image at Possibly unfree images, giving your reasons why you think the uploader is not the photographer. Bláthnaid 18:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Starblazer covers

Hi, you left a notice on my talk page about two images on the Starblazer article. I believe I have amended them. Is this to your satisfaction. I have been out of touch with Wiki for a wee while, so I might be a bit rusty, if so, just let me know and I will amend it. I have not removed the notification tags. Douglasnicol (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It is almost correct :-) You just need to note the copyright holder of the comic, and state that the image is not replaceable because the comic is under copyright. You can take the deletion notice off the images when you add the rationales. Bláthnaid 18:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The publisher is, as mentioned in the article, DC Thomson, I assume this would be the copyright holder? Douglasnicol (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, mention DC Thomson in the "description" part of the rationale, and you should be OK. Bláthnaid 11:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] safc.gif

Image:Safc.gif has been listed for deletion. I don't understand what the problem is here, there is already a explanation for it given on the image page- its just there for informational purposes and is a identifying logo. --Him and a dog 21:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The name of the article the image is used in needs to be part of the rationale. I've added it in. Bláthnaid 11:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of images of characters

What is the rule for using a screenshot of a character on the article of the actor who plays said character? I would think that on the character page, the image is okay, because there is usually no free-use image of a copyrighted character available, but on an actor page there should be a free-use image, right? The image I'm talking about is Image:D419.jpg, which depicts the character Marco Del Rossi and is used on that article, but also on the article for Adamo Ruggiero the actor who plays Marco.

Can someone please let me know if this is okay, and how to tag it/fix it/etc. -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 01:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. A non-free image cannot be used to identify the actor Adamo Ruggiero, because it could be replaced by a free-use image of that person (the relevant policy is here). Bláthnaid 12:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] permission with use?

Hi,

I'm trying to use a few photos that are TISL property, to make them a page (with permission). How do I list those pictures? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahayes1 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You would need to get TISL, whoever that is, to release the images under a free license (like {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}) and to forward this release to permissions-en@wikimedia.org or indicate on the source website that they are so released. Alternatively, if you can fulfill all the non-free content criteria, then you can upload it under fair use. If you need help figuring out which tags to use, please visit Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Stifle (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] request for permission to republish

How do I request permission to republish a photograph in a text I am writing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forshier (talk • contribs) 00:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're asking. Do you want to reuse a photograph from Wikipedia in something you will publish elsewhere, or do you want to use a photograph from elsewhere in a Wikipedia article? Stifle (talk) 11:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I uploaded two images and I am trying to correct any problems

I uploaded the album art for 2 albums from the Norwegian rock band Kaizers Orchestra. The images are Gul_EP.jpg and Maskineri_Art.jpg. I am trying to resolve any problems, I think I did, but I do not know, please help, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwightevan7 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Each image page needs this sort of information in it. Template:Non-free use rationale. MBisanz talk 01:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] can I safely reference a wikipedia image?

If I copied an image from wikipedia and referenced it to wikipedia, can I safely reference it in a publication? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.142.29.45 (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It would depend on the image. As there are many possible answers depending on the image license, please specify what image you want to copy by quoting the image's title or URL here and then we can help you further. Stifle (talk) 11:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Old postcard

Hi. I own an old postcard (1911), which has on the reverse the publisher's name. As the owner of the postcard, do I hold the copyright? Due to the age, does copyright apply? Basically, I'd like to know if I can upload the image, and if so, how I need to register it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imaginativename (talk • contribs) 20:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If it was first published in the USA before 1923, then upload it with {{PD-US}}. You can also see WP:IT for other copyright tag options. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rhapsody Rabbit fair use disputed

The image bot has disputed the fair use of Image:Rhapsody Rabbit.png. I had followed generally accepted practices when I uploaded the image and gave the rationale for fair use. it is exactly as I describe it, an image from the short used to illustrate the short. because the short is still under copyright, there is no way to find a public domain screenshot from the short to illustrate the short. Please advise. DarkAudit (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to include and wikilink the title of the article so that the bot can ensure the rationale is valid. I've done so. Stifle (talk) 11:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BetaCommandBot screwup: Image:Silverbranchcover.jpg

BetacommandBot just put one of its tags on Image:Silverbranchcover.jpg, which had all the proper fair-use templates in place. The problem is that the article linked, The Silver Branch, had been changed by another editor to a disambiguation page, while the article was moved to The Silver Branch (Sutcliff novel). BetacommandBot apparently doesn't understand how to parse a dab page or the article move history.

Betacommandbot needs to be smarter about this. If ordinary operations like moves and disambiguation pages set this thing off, it needs work. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 05:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Straight redirects from moves don't throw it off, but disambigs do, since it can't tell which of the disambig'd links is the one the FUR should refer to. MBisanz talk 06:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and that's a bug. The move history information is available to 'bots. If an image was tagged as pointing to article A, and the article is moved to B, the 'bot should understand that, even if A is no longer a redirect to B. It could even fix the link in a fair use template. The original uploader of the image (who may no longer be on Wikipedia) only has the obligation to get the fair use link right once, not to track it forever against changes by others. Someone needs to go back through all BetacommandBot actions and check them against move histories to recover any images lost through this bug. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 06:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Good luck with that :( Stifle (talk) 11:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
If only DaB pages were that simple. When a DaB page is created, the person who changes the redirect needs to clean up afer themselfs, changing all incoming links to their proper targets and taking care of the images too. βcommand 15:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed Fair Use Logo on Saint Francis House (Boston) article

The low-resolution image of the Saint Francis House logo was modified by me and edited and it was done with permission of the organisation. I wish that this challenge be lifted to the logo on the Saint Francis House (Boston) article. Please advise. Thanks. -- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This issue appears to have been resolved now, but please post here again if not. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. It was indeed resolved amicably. Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Betacommandbot suggestion: Images used in only one article

Suggest that Betacommandbot be amended to not require an article-specific fair use image when an image is used in one and only one article. As long as an image is used in one and only one article, the boilerplate fair use image should be presumed to apply to the article involved, and moving the article shouldn't affect this. An issue of a need for article-specific fair use image rationales should only arise, and Betacommandbot should only tag for them, when an image is actually used in more than one article. This would save a lot of red tape and annoyed editors with no loss of legal rigor. To be even more helpful, whenever an image belongs to a single article and the article name wasn't included in the fair use rationale, Betacommandbot could actually help out by automatically adding the article name to the image file to produce an automatic default article-specific rationale based on the boilerplate. Editors would have to do it themselvess only when the image is added to a second article and article-specific rationales become relevant. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

very very bad idea. as there are no general non-free rationale, as each rationale should be unique to each use. βcommand 18:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The idea behind the proposal is that when an image is used in a single article but the user forgot to mention the article in the fair use rationale, we can treat this ommission as a simple clerical error that can be rectified behind the scenes without requiring intervention or threats to delete the image. When an image is used in only one article, then the fair use rationale IS unique to one article. The rationale becomes non-unique to a single article only when the use actually involves more than one article -- otherwise, the use really, truly is "unique" to one article by the simple definition of "unique". One doesn't have to justify something that isn't happening. As long as the image is actually being used in only one place, if there is a rationale provided it is a rationale for use in one article. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd like that rationale applied to this image (Image:Queen Yun Returns.jpg) also, please, since that is used only for the article on Queen Yun, and otherwise fits the criteria for fair use as outlined on the image page. Betacommandbot seems to be suggesting that I cut-and-paste my fair use criteria from the image page to the article, which seems excessively bureaucratic and CYA to me. --Dan (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rhodesia Currency

When the 'Rhodesia Embassy' gave me permission to place the images of those bills in Wikipedia, I didn't expect you to come along and say - to all intents and purposes - "your pics not wanted". You are actually doing more to kill my contributing to Wikipedia. so why don't you just go ahead and wipe them off? I just don't care any more. Expatkiwi 13:03, 24 January 2008 (PST)

No one is saying that your images are not wanted, your efforts in obtaining them are much appreciated. You received a series of notices because the images you uploaded were tagged for deletion by a bot. To keep them on wikipedia, simply add a fair use rationale to each one. Thanks, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Tag

Hi. I am a new user to Wikipedia. I have added a picture to my editorial. However, it was removed due to it not having a copyright tag. It was a picture taken by myself. I don't know how to add the tag so please could you help me carry this out so the image can be published as soon as possible. My account is 'shelim786'. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelim786 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You have to release your photograph under a free license in order to use it on Wikipedia. Edit the image page and add one of the license tags listed at WP:ICT/FL. Please note, however, that it is inappropriate to add photographs of minor local sports teams to articles on their home city. You should discuss the merits of using this photograph at the relevant talk page before adding it to the article. Thanks, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image

I have found this image on the internet. It is not copyrighted in any way. Can I upload it to Wikipedia. If so,what image template can I use? Btline (talk) 11:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No, all photographs are covered under copyright. Check the disclaimer on the website that hosts this image, it states:
You are welcome to download any information and retain it for your own use but please act responsibly and respect the rights of the various copyright owners. Where copyright is held by the MIAC we will gladly consider requests for the use of our photographs but please ask for permission first. Similarly if you have any material that you wish to see on this site or wish to donate we'd be delighted to hear from you.[6]
You could send them an e-mail requesting that they release this photograph under a free license and then forward the permission to WP:OTRS. There's a great guide for how to do this at U:RFC. If they give you permission to upload this image under an acceptable free license, it may be used on Wikipedia. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photo image of out of copyright artwork

I'm having some difficulty finding any sort of case law for this(specific case) so I figured I could ask it here, how does copyright apply to a photographic image of an out of copyright painting/engraving? this would have been created prior to 1752(along with everything Parrocel's ever painted/engraved as that was his year of death) am I correct to assume that that could safely be uploaded as a PD image? Also is there any links anyone has with various info on this, say a painting is not out of copyright, would a picture of it be copyright the original author(I believe this is true) or the photographer. Dureo (talk) 06:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are looking for Template:PD-art or commons:Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag. But perhaps someone else can provide a better answer, as I don't fully understand the rules here. Kingdon (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Perfect, second link is just what I was looking for, thanks. Dureo (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reporting images with questionable copyright tags

For instance Image:Jon Bon Jovi-Foo Fighters.jpg. I assume that the editor composed it from two screenshots (derivative work) and I doubt that the editor has the authority to relinquish NBC's copyright. What's the correct process? Thanks. Otto4711 (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Tag the image with {{PUIdisputed}} (or just {{PUI}}) and follow the instructions on the tag to list the image. Stifle (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This collage comprises two commercially produced and watermarked images yet it was tagged with {{GFDL}} by the uploader. It qualifies for speedy deletion as a blatant infringement of copyright. ˉˉanetode╦╩

[edit] Discography in The Bluetones

I think it's conflict with WP:NFCC. ~ kintup 12:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Might well be. The images don't have a valid fair use rationale so I'm going to tag them as such for the moment. Stifle (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help with fair use on Image:Rezko.jpg

Can someone far more familiar with Wikipedia's fair use policy take a look at Image:Rezko.jpg and tell me if it is a proper fair use on Tony Rezko? There's a slow edit war over the image on Tony Rezko and whether or not the image can be used on Wikipedia or not. The problem with the image is that the true source (who took it and when) is currently unknown.--Bobblehead (rants) 19:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added a tag to dispute the given rationale. Current usage on Wikipedia violates WP:NFCC 1,2,&8. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
It could also probably take a {{subst:nsd}}. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, that's the more important issue. The rationale concerns have been addressed at Image talk:Rezko.jpg. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 10:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How Can I Delete An Image I Uploaded

how can i delete an image i uploaded? ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoshipupdude (talk • contribs) 22:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Add {{db-author}} to the image description page. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of Images

Hi,

I uploaded the image htni.jpg. The image was that of the cover of a music album. This was sourced from a fan site http://www.ilaiyaraja.com/Raja/Album_How_To_Name_It.asp I am not sure of the copyright issues. Hence, I am not using it in wikipage of the album. You can proceed to delete the image!

Cheers Balaji —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebigbee (talk • contribs) 06:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] help needed for image conflict

hello all,the image at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Eichmann.jpg has been debated for deletion because editor User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) claims that it's not free(without providing proof of his/her claims) even though it clearly says under the photo at its original location that this image is from NARA's archives.are User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s "claims" valid??thanksGrandia01 (talk) 08:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Runaway

I took a screenshot of Bon Jovi performing Runaway Image:Runaway.jpg. The screenshot shouldn't be a problem - it doesn't affect Bon Jovi's sales or anything because they're not selling screenshots. Yet the picture is still under a "disputed fair use rationale" thing. Any help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dealer Camel (talk • contribs) 23:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to write a fair use rationale for the image - be sure to include the article(s) it's being used on. See WP:FURG for help on how to write one. east.718 at 12:56, February 3, 2008

[edit] Order of rationale / license tag

Just wondering, why is it that the fair use rationales always seem to be in the Summary section of the image description page, with the license tag afterwards in the Licensing section? Is this de jure policy, or just something that's done de facto? Wouldn't it make more sense to explain the fair use rationale after the license of the media has been stated? • Anakin (contribs • complaints) 23:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

it's de facto, there is no policy reguarding its placement. βcommand 00:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Okey dokey. Thanks! • Anakin (contribs • complaints) 15:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anon adding images to articles for which the image lacks a fair use tag.

[7] and [8].

Image:Jyllands-Posten-pg3-article-in-Sept-30-2005-edition-of-KulturWeekend-entitled-Muhammeds-ansigt.png Does not have a fair use rationale for use on Freedom_of_speech_versus_blasphemy, although it does have so for use on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. I have warned the anon, although I have no guarantee that he will log on with the same IP. Taemyr (talk) 08:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for Image:Xbox 360 portal logo.png and Image:Wikiproject Xbox logo.png

I spent a considerable amount of time on these logos and I was wondering if anyone had any ideas about how to make these free images or if they are permissable at the present (I doubt they are, but I'm not sure). If no one can come up with anything, I will voluntarily nominate them for deletion via db-author. Any and all input is greatly appreciated. Thingg⊕⊗ 03:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have the image that was the inspiration for these? Generally, a simple geometric shape isn't copyrightble, so if your green X was simple and different from the X-box X, it might pass muster. MBisanz talk 05:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I made these images from scratch by using the logos and a picture of the Sun from space. Question: if I did a generic "X", would having the 3D effect fail it? Thingg⊕⊗ 19:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to keep the logo the way it is, that is if there's nothing wrong with it. Is there any problems with the logo? Thanks DJS --DJS24 (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

They are derivative works of copyrighted logos, so I would suggest to change them now. I suggest you can use a plain green x instead of the stylized X that Microsoft uses. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a question, would there be any way these would qualify as free images because they are quite different than the copy-righted version of the logo? Just wondered, because I really do like them a lot as they are now. Thingg⊕⊗ 05:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The basic rule of thumb is that its infringement (at least to me) is a reasonable person would possibly confuse the two or that the second was derived from looking at the first. A generic green X wouldn't, since there are so many green Xs, but once you give it MS style, 3-D, starburst, etc, its now based on the copyrighted image. MBisanz talk 05:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I uploaded new versions. How are they now? Thingg⊕⊗ 19:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't confuse them, but I notice now that they are on wikimedia's commons site. You'd probably be best off checking there for approval to put stuff on their site. MBisanz talk 19:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Monumental Texts / Texas Landmark Description

What is the legal status of publicly displayed historical texts? I infer the implication that the sign was willfully designed for public education, and that a copyright would be contradictory and practically ludicrous in nature. But at the same time, I do know that some works of U.S. state governments hold copyrights. Just to be safe, I'd like to know the true legal status of both the text itself, and what type of copyright status applies to pictures that contain it.   — C M B J   05:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] inserting images

how do i insert images? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelaishard (talk • contribs) 07:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Go to Wikipedia:Upload. :-) east.718 at 12:54, February 3, 2008

[edit] Fair Use on Userpages

Are fair use images allowed on User pages? I've come across a few and I'm not sure whether or not I should flag them.

Also, is a fair use rationale required for user pages? I've also encountered some of these. Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 09:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Non-free images are not allowed anywhere but articlespace. east.718 at 12:54, February 3, 2008
So you don't have to flag them or anything; just remove and cite the policy page. If that doesn't work, let us know and we can see what we can do. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] why

why is downloading and copyright a bad thing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.200.220 (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

That's too long a question for us to answer here, other than to say that violating it with the wrong person tends to land you with a lawsuit. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My image and google

Hello,

Thank-you for taking the x to read this. I cannot find my wikipidea account when I type my name on google, Cheryl Bogart... and also, there is a problem it says potentially with my image. I own that picture so I don't know what to do re: keeping it. The picture belongs to me as it is me.

Your attention to both these matters will make me feel much better, as I use wikipidea for business..

Kindest Regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladyboardwalk (talk • contribs) 22:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you're talking about Image:CherylBogart7.jpg, is that right? Now, that image only belongs to you if you took it (which is unlikely) or you have an agreement with the person who took it to transfer the copyright to you. Please clarify whether this is correct. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] White Star Line

I did not upload this image (Image:WhiteStarLogo.jpg) and have no other information than is currently shown, but there seems to be a problem with its source and licensing. It shows as bring being in the public domain and as copwritten. I bring it to the attention of editors and admins to patrol this page. Thanks, Daysleeper47 (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this is the sort of error that exists from when all the logo cates were renamed to non-free logo cats. My suggestion would be to elimiante the logo cats, since its obviously in the public domain. I might run a cross-cat on these two cats later to see just how large the problem is. MBisanz talk 18:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] does my article edit solve the problem with invalid rationale?

I received a message about disputed fair use rationale for Image:The Appleseed Cast - Two Conversations (album cover).jpg <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:The_Appleseed_Cast_-_Two_Conversations_%28album_cover%29.jpg>.

I made a change (I added a 'Fair use in Two Conversations' section) but I have no idea if this is what I was supposed to do.

Could please check this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chopeen (talk • contribs) 20:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Stifle (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Posting Pictures

How do I post a picture on a Wiki page? Gopita (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC).

After you've uploaded it, see Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. Elf | Talk 02:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adding image categories

Not sure where else to post this (yes, I'm an admin, but not coming to WP as often as I used to). There are a zillion dog photos identified by this series of deleted pages

  1. Wikipedia:List of images/Nature/Animals/Dogs/Breeds1
  2. Wikipedia:List of images/Nature/Animals/Dogs/Breeds2
  3. Wikipedia:List of images/Nature/Animals/Dogs/Breeds3
  4. Wikipedia:List of images/Nature/Animals/Dogs/Breeds4
  5. Wikipedia:List of images/Nature/Animals/Dogs/Breeds5
  6. Wikipedia:List of images/Nature/Animals/Dogs/Misc1

referenced by this deletion debate, which I missed entirely. The fallacy of the argument ("this is now handled by commons") is that the majority of the photos listed here are not on commons and it's a tremendous amount of work to do that. The big problem is that, if the photos aren't listed somewhere, somehow, it's impossible to find them all.

I'm intending to undelete these pages long enough to be able to flag all of the images listed there to make them easy to find again. But my question is--what's an appropriate way to flag the images by current WP policy? Is it OK for me to just add, say, Category:Dog photos to all the images? They won't be sorted in any reasonable way (which the lists of images were--by breed, which, incidentally, all took literally hundreds of hours of work on my part) but it would be better than nothing, which is what we've got now. Elf | Talk 02:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think images are categorized per se on Wikipedia. I suggest undeleting the pages, moving them to your userspace, deleting the redirect, then moving the images to Commons at your own speed (or possibly enlisting a couple of people to help), and categorizing them there. Stifle (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] copyright ?

Hi I am Frederic RESSEGUIER I'm fench, My english so bad !! but I have a problem with my images... Where and what kind of copyrights must I use ??? All the images are myself made. I put this text "User-created GFDL images" under them but I don't know if it's the good choice or if I'ts at the good place ! Thank you for response. Fredox See this page : [[9]] You can write me at fred@systemtv.fr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredox (talk • contribs) 16:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You put the {{GFDL-self}} on your userpage instead of on the image page. I've moved it for you. If you would like help in French you can email info-fr@wikimedia.org.
Vous avez mis {{GFDL-self}} sur votre page d'utilisateur au lieu de sur la page de l'image. Je l'ai mis à la bonne page. Si vous cherchez aide en Français vous pouvez envoyer un email à info-fr@wikimedia.org. Stifle (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] WHAATT??

Resolved.

Hi,i took a screenshot of the game Master of Olympus - Zeus the Image is that...but then i got this comment saying it was copyright....i used "Non-free game screenshot" for the images....what is wrong...?? Don-farrell (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You have to include a fair use rationale with all copyrighted images. Take a look at this image for an example.   — C M B J   00:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help with image upload

Resolved.

I uploaded this image Image:Pony in brecon.jpg, and uploaded it as my own work, which it is but there is tag underneath saying it is going to be deleted. Can you help please? Samasnookerfan (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This is because you did not specify a license when uploading. For free content such as this, you can use one such as {{GFDL}} or {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. I would also strongly suggest uploading any of your free content to the Commons, because it also makes the image available to Wikipedia, as well as all of its sister projects.   — C M B J   03:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I want to post a screenshot...

I'm just asking this because I want to post something in the Wheel of Fortune (Philippine game show) article a few screenshots from a video in Youtube. I know I will mark the video itself with a fair use rational, and the specific copyright, but... is uploading a screenshot from a Youtube video allowed. Sorry if this is not the correct place to ask this. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 15:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Do not delete Image:Nandini's photo.jpg

  • This image is okay. It was uploaded by her Husband. Jccort (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shougo.jpg

Why has the Betacommandbot stated at the List of X characters talkpage that the image Shougo.jpg is to be deleted as it has no fair use rationale? It has one that I wrote last November! Dave-ros (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Using a self-made version of a "corporate" logo

The image in the infobox at People's Party (Spain) was removed long ago based on image copyright issues. It has been recently replaced by a low-res version (Image:Logo PP.JPG), which as specified on the image page qualifies as fair use. My question is: would I be able to create a SVG or good-res PNG version of the logo by myself and then contribute it to Wikipedia? Or are we restricted to the crappy-looking version? Habbit (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

A logo may be used under a fair-use rationale. The only criteria is that it be low resolution (less than 550 px on its longest axis) and that it properly sourced (to you) and rationaled. There is no requirement that it look bad, in fact for logos, we usually prefer either ones from the org or ones that are as close as possible, to avoid misrepresenting the brand. When you upload it, feel free to drop a line here or at my talk page to check the rationale template. MBisanz talk 00:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. Got the logo from the party website, shrunk it to 200px wide and uploaded it as Image:Logo PP (Spain).png, then substituted it in the article. I've put a fair use rationale with the "logo fur" template. By the way, if the use of this image gets approved, the old one (which is no longer linked to by any page) could be deleted. Habbit (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Image and rationale are good. I tagged the old version to be deleted. Thanks for the contribution. MBisanz talk 03:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LOGO - do or don't?

I have written an article called Štark, about a company in Serbia that makes sweets. I uploaded logo of the photo, and now it has been flaggeg as invalid and marked for deletion. This whole licencing business is becoming soooooooo confusing, so I just need a simple answer:

  1. Can I use pic of a logo in an article about a company to which the logo belongs?
  2. what rationale I upload it under (fair use, logo use - which one)???

I just need to know so when I upload logos to match the articles, I want have to come again here and waste someone's times in answering me. As of now logo for ExxonMobile is being used the same way as logo for Stark, exept Stark is marked for deletion and ExxonMobile's logo is not?! I don't get it...

Thanks to anyone who can explain me what do to!

p.s. I am Svetlana Miljkovic

74.92.22.209 (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Avala Fixed it for you. You can use logos that are copyrighted, they just need a fairuse rationale, a statement stating the source, article used in, and reason its used. Thanks for the contribution. MBisanz talk 00:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I made a mistake when I put the license, I was confused on what was tha right one. The fact is "I scanned and crooped the image, so it's given on Public Domain by its creator, which is me. I think now I put the right type of license. Rockk3r Talk 21:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you did here, but generally cropping and scanning an image does not remove the original owner's copyright. --Haemo (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Test Card Girl.jpg

The above image had a "disputed fair use" tag. I looked at it and it appears to me that the problem was that the uploader referred to the wrong article (Life On Mars, a link to a disambiguation page, instead of Life on Mars (TV series). I've fixed that and also added some words describing the fair use case in addition to a bit of boilerplate that was added by the uploader.

What do I do now? Should I just remove the tag? --Tony Sidaway 03:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, just remove the tag and your all set. MBisanz talk 03:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bill Kennedy in Superman 66 Joey.JPG

What's the issue? The bot is saying the specific article is not listed. But it IS listed. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

you have the wrong article listed. Bill Kennedy (actor) is not Bill Kennedy βcommand 16:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
It was correct when I first posted it. I'll fix it and then we're good, right? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. The image was uploaded in Nov 2006 when the article was simply "Bill Kennedy". In February of 2007, someone created the disambiguation page and renamed the original article to "Bill Kennedy (actor)". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About Image:Tubla N Flute.ogg

I've been very careful about the copyright issue when uploading this file back in May, 2006. I had given all the justifications I could provide for using the Non-free audio sample template, when uploading this file. The file is used in the article about the artist, namely: Remo Fernandes. The fair use criteria for the file is related to only that article so I'm a bit confused about its invalidation citing WP:NFCC#10c. Plz help me re-assert the fair use rational. I sincerely believe it meets it! --hydkat 12:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It's cool; you've got it fixed now. It looks like it just wasn't detecting the article name and ignored the rest. --Haemo (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Nice Bot BTW :) -hydkat 07:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:5W Logo.JPG

Image:5W Logo.JPG What am I missing here? I am fully authorized to upload and use the 5W Logo image. What kind of proof do I need to provide for Wiki? Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Your statement on the talk page is confusing. To state you have the right to use it with attribution, which requires you to send a written legal document to OTRS. However, you also claim that it's fair use; which requires a fair use rationale that includes the article's name. Could you clarify this? --Haemo (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for images challenged on Vic McGlynn article

Betacommand bot put a challenge on the Vic McGlynn article. These are low resoultion captures from the in-studio webcam at BBC 6 Music. I then edited the photo and made a new one and uploaded it. The image in question is "Image:VicMc3.jpg" . It is fair use. Please advise. I think the betacommand bot is not working out well. Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You need to not only assert that it is fair use, but also provide a fair use rationale on the image's page. Filling out the following template is the easiest way:

{{Non-free use rationale |Article= |Description= |Source= |Portion= |Low_resolution= |Purpose= |Replaceability= |other_information= }}

Hope this helps. --Haemo (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned photo

The Beta bot orphaned the photo I uploaded because it couldn't direct itself to the correct link. I forgot an exclamation point (!) at the end of the article link, so it thought the image I uploaded was orphaned. Please don't delete this image:

50px

Thank you. --Xiaoyung (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2008 (MDT)

Don't worry. It's safe now. --Haemo (talk) 05:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned Images in Draft Article on Subpage

I've uploaded two images

Image:TGOA-MGCA-Map.gif Image:TGOA-MGCA-Emblems.gif

and am using them in an article that I am composing for Wikipedia in the subpage

User:KudzuLou/The Gardeners of America/Men's Garden Clubs of America

One of the images has been tagged as orphaned, and no doubt the second one will too, because they are not used in a Wikipedia article. Is there some way to allow these images to persist until I can finish the article, and post it on Wikipedia, sometime in the next 30 days?

These two images are preliminary, and I plan to upload better quality images soon.

How can someone write a long article with images for Wikipedia without posting a grossly incomplete article that will be revised by other editors before the original author can even finish it?

Lou (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Technically, you're not supposed to have non-free images in userspace, even for a draft article. If you're planning on replacing them anyways, then why not use a placeholder image like Image:Example.jpg instead? --Haemo (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image uploaded from website

Dear Help Desk,

I uploaded an image from a website which is the logo of the organisation. How do I add the copyright information? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bullet350 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Go to the image page (by clicking on the image or entering its URL; see contribs to find it otherwise), click Edit at the top, and add whatever information you are going to add (which will probably be {{Non-free logo}} and {{logo fur}}. Stifle (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Betacommandbot mis-using Section 10c rationale.

Betacommandbot is misusing the [Wikipedia:NFCC#10c] Section 10c rationale in posting numerous tags on the images. The bot controller is more desirous to create a huge bureaucratic problem (where no problem exists) by adding inappropriate warning tags and then deleting images instead of actually fixing problems, which would be the right thing to do, and easy enough for the bot writer/controller to do.

Specifically, the bot quotes Section 10c on images that are album covers that are already labelled with a Wikipedia that quite clearly states (in bold letters) "solely to illustrate the audio recording in question"; images which equally clearly are quite clear only used to in one article to illustrate the audio recording in question.

The bots activity are in violation of the spirit and the letter of Wikipedia. It should be stopped and removed and the owner prohibited from running amok like this. Hu (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It also says that "please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use"; and fair use rationales need to be specific for each article they are used in. In addition, the text refer "solely to illustrate the audio recording in question" leaves open the question where you are illustrating it — it could be on an article about the CD, about the specific track, or about the band in different contexts. A fair use rationale is required for each of these uses. --Haemo (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
And to be honest, it's catching hundreds of images that don't really meet the fair use criteria in the first place, like magazine covers used to illustrate the person on the cover and fair use photos of living people. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How to Classify Copyright so that it's not deleted?

I am new to all this and sort of need guidance as to how to classify copyrighted images. I uploaded an image for Inubaka, this image is from a photograph I personally took of the manga book I own so that the wikipedia page could have a picture for visual association. I can't claim that the author gives permission, so how would I go about fixing the copyright so that it's not deleted? (I was flagged by the bot) Obviously I'm not making money off my efforts, I'm just trying to support the product.

Thanks for you time, I hope I can come to understand this a little better so that I might upload more in the future to benefit viewers of wikipedia! Bluehazelojos (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Use the template {{Book rationale}}. Follow link for further explanation. Taemyr (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale template added - what now?

I just added a fair use rationale template following BetacommandBot expressing concerns. What am I to do now? I've added the information requested and everything, can I remove the warning on the image, or is it someone else's responsibility to control that everything is good? Manxruler (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you can remove it. --Haemo (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Issue with Betacommandbot warning

I recieved the following warning:

Thanks for uploading Image:French university icon.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Blah, blah, you know. However, I don't see any "fair use" license, and I don't believe I uploaded the image with one. The image is a composite of two PUBLIC DOMAIN images, and I've included all the source information and copyright tags for those. Why did I get a message? Alekjds talk 21:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

see [10] it was tagged as non-free. βcommand 21:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

So now screenshots [11] and logos [12] are also not allowed anymore, do I see this correct? Gryffindor 00:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Their permitted. In the case of the logo, you backlinked to Lenzing instead of Lenzing AG. MBisanz talk 00:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
You still need to add fair use rationales to both, though. Try the template, below. --Haemo (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Little me NB.jpg

I don't get about the copywrite. Melbrooksfan101 talk 23:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You need to add a fair use rationale. The best way to do this is to fill out this template on the image's page:
{{Non-free use rationale |Article= |Description= |Source= |Portion= |Low_resolution= |Purpose= |Replaceability= |other_information= }}
Hope this helps! --Haemo (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Which license to use???

Im uploading a bunch of iamges today or tonight but i dont no which license to use. I created them and want to maek them free to use as long as my name or username is mentioned if possible. Could anyone give me an idea or some alterntives. BonesBrigade 02:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's kind of up to you; there are a couple you can choose depending on your licensing preferences. For instance, any of the licenses here with an attribution option are free but require people to attribute the work to you. --Haemo (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks :) BonesBrigade 02:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can you stop this bot? It's anti-Wikipedia!

I am already tired of deletinng the unjustified warnings of speedy deletion of this silly bot. Logos do not need fair use rationale and this bot is just unable to realize it. Sop it now! --Sugaar (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Logos require fair use rationale like all non-free images, per WP:LOGO. However, the rationale template {{logo fur}} may be used to quickly generate one. --MASEM 02:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How to get license and copyright for my image

I have just loaded my image by my name Pranshu Ghosh. I want to know that how will i get a license and copyright of my image. Please guide me asap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.252.172.235 (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're asking here. Is it your image? Did you make the image, or did someone else? --Haemo (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits of images that later get disputed use rationale by BetaCommandBot

Regarding Image:Cdn-dime-obverse.jpg and Image:Cdn-dime-reverse.jpg I wasn't the creator of this image. It was user 'thirty-seven'. My work on this image is merely as follows, from the work log of the image:

"Modification of previous (thirty-seven's) image; JASC Paint Shop Pro, convert to Monochrome followed by contrast enhancement, to remove offending copper color from our dime which is silver colored. For original credits, please refer to previous image." Mdrejhon (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

So, I don't think I'm the correct person to send the warning to, since I merely downloaded the image, adjusted the saturation/contrast/brightness, and re-uploaded. Since I only retouched, what do I do now? Relay the message to user 'thirty-seven' or ignore the message, or am I responsible for removing the images even though I only retouched existing Wikipedia images? Mdrejhon (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Mdrejhon, the bot notifies all uploaders. it notified thirty-seven also. βcommand 17:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Would someone check my fair use rationales?

Having read a conversation on ANI (I think?), I decided to try to add some fair use rationales to images without them. However, I'm not too confident about doing them - could someone please check and make sure I'm not doing it wrong? Also, is it okay to remove the dispute tag once the rationale has been added? Image:1000000zaz.jpg, Image:1000 Kip(1996).jpg are my first two

Thanks, --Kateshortforbob 20:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

These look good. Excellent work. --Haemo (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for checking! --Kateshortforbob 22:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] All good things must come to an end

Idiocy like the unending red tape of image uploads will eventually destroy Wikipedia. I was once a frequent contributor. I used to edit a lot of articles, add my knowledge, share my expertise, and publish my research into topics of interest to people. Now, automated bots decide that my reasoning behind declaring an image to be of fair use isn't good enough. Wikipedia's greatest strength is its human element-- that it's an exchange of ideas. But I'm not going to argue with a bot. So have at. I'm done. Delete my contributions at will.Iamvered (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're upset, but unfortunately Wikipedia has a serious problem with people uploading the copyrighted images of under people and claiming fair use without a proper justification — indeed, many "fair use" claims made are invalid. The Foundation has developed a series of policies and guidelines for dealing with this issue which are very precise, and comprehensive, because the legal requirments behind a defense of fair use can be stiff.
Part of this is because Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia; emphasis on free. Copyrighted material needs to meet the policies outlined by the Foundation for inclusion — and one of these conditions is the rationale. If you disagree with the automated tool's assessment of your image, then remove the tag. However, I notice that your image does, indeed fail our policy on non-free images and thus the bots notification was correct, and should help you remedy the problem with the image. I hope you reconsider your decision to leave, and decide that meeting the Foundation's requirements is not too onerous a task to continue your valuable contributions. --Haemo (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photos of photos

I just took a picture of a photo of a building that no longer exists. There is no date (I wouldn't be surprised if it was pre-1923, but can't be sure). The photo was at the Washington State History Museum. It didn't have any credit given or anything like that. Is there any rationale I can use for uploading this photo? Murderbike (talk) 05:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Just claim fair use using this template: Template:Non-free fair use in. The rationale would then be like this:
Non-free / fair use media rationale - WARNING: <name of article> DOES NOT EXIST
Check capitalisation and enter only the exact name (title) of a single article with no additional formatting. It is also possible the indicated article was deleted.
Description

A image of the now-collapsed buidling
Source

<url>
Article

[[<name of article>]]
Portion used

xxx by xxx image etc
Low resolution?

Yes
Purpose of use

Illustrate the building in question
Replaceable?

No

 
--Haemo (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi I have a link on the page called "ambigrams". robert w petrick

My question concerns the Angel logo under the music catagory I wanted to use an example of the logo which I designed and sold to the band angel in 1976 and was published by Casablanca Records in 1977 I uploaded a file (angel.png) but it said-

Image copyright problem with Image:Angel.png Thank you for uploading Image:Angel.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted it to have the image to represent it how can I accomplish this. Thanks, Robert W Petrick

You haven't told us what the copyright status is. Is it yours? You can release it under a free license, or claim fair use in a particular article. --Haemo (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] submitting my own copyrighted article

I have written a copyrighted article that I would like to submit. How do I proceed?--Martin1987 (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Martin E. Stearn

There is a page describing the process at WP:DCP. I believe you must certify that you allow Wikipedia to use the material, either by email to an official Wikipedia address, or by posting a message to that effect where you have originally posted the material (for example, on your own website). --Kateshortforbob 18:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Old winery logo card images

I have some chateau info card images from an old book (Image:Ausone 1931 chateau card.JPG) for winery article illustration, and have tagged them as fair use of logos. Could someone experienced tell me if this is an ok approach or an unwise choice? MURGH disc. 22:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure on this one. It's such a rare and specific sort of thing; perhaps you should just claim generic fair use, and make up your own template. --Haemo (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Really, it's that different from common logo illustration? How about old advertisement, how is that expressed? Ok, if customising a generic fair use is the advised thing, I'll do that. MURGH disc. 23:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, my usual pattern is just to make my own when in doubt. Boilerplate is just supposed to make things easier, not constrain you in how you do things. --Haemo (talk)
So do you think applying {{Non-free fair use in|Château Ausone}} would be preferable to the current logo one? MURGH disc. 01:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
That's what I would do. It's a little bit more work, but not that much and you can be a lot more specific with your rationale. --Haemo (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Allright. Thank you. MURGH disc. 02:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Government copyrights

I am really confused with the recent bots going around tagging government images as requiring fairuse rationale. Can someone please explain why a US government license tag does not need a Fairuse rationale, but every other country does?? This is not making sense.

Here is an image (Image:Compu class.gif) from a HK government license.
Here is an image (Image:USATopographicalMap.jpg) from a US government license.

It is not clear as to why a US government image automatically fits into the public domain without any fairuse needed. I can run down the list and go with other countries and point out similar examples. The bots should be skipping these government licenses. Can I get some opinions here? There is no misuse of the images and the {{HKCrowncopyright}} license already fits all the criteria. Benjwong (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the country. The United States, and some other countries, automatically release their works into the public domain if they are produced by state agencies in their everyday business. However, other countries (like Hong Kong and many Canadian provinces, for instance) do not release their work into the public domain — works of the Hong Kong government are under copyright, which is held (usually) by the government is question. This means they're not free, and thus require a fair use rationale — since the use of copyrighted material in this context is legal under a claim of fair use. The bots do not skip over these government images since from a legal standpoint, and the position of the Foundation, they are both non-free forms of media and are equivalent in terms of copyright to something owned by an artist or company. Hope this clears up the confusion! --Haemo (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_copyright_help_desk"
Personal tools