Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Media copyright questions
Welcome to the Media Copyright Questions page, a place for help with image copyrights, tagging, non-free content, and related questions. For all other questions please see Wikipedia:Questions. How to add a copyright tag to an existing image On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page. From the page Wikipedia:File copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag: For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators". For a work downloaded from the internet, please understand that the vast majority of images from the internet are not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. Exceptions include images from flickr that have an acceptable license, images that are in the public domain because of their age or because they were created by the United States federal government, or images used under a claim of fair use. If you do not know what you are doing, please post a link to the image here and ask BEFORE uploading it. For an image created by someone else who has licensed their image under an acceptable Creative Commons or other free license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information. Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{Cc-by-4.0}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}}) Hit Publish changes. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below. How to ask a question To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page. Don't include your email address, for your own privacy. We will respond here and cannot respond by email. Note for those replying to posted questions If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template {{mcq-wrong}} and, if possible, leave a note on the poster's talk page. For copyright issues relevant to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally, questions may be directed to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.
Click here to start a new discussion

(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Oregon legislative district maps

I believe the Secretary of State of Oregon claims copyright to images of the Oregon Legislative Assembly's district maps, among other things. Those maps are here, here, and here. I sent an email a few days ago to the Archives Division, the agency that publishes the Oregon Blue Book, asking about the nature of the copyright, but I've yet to get a reply. I'm wondering if the doctrine of fair use applies for these images. Can any of them be used on Wikipedia in any way? Äþelwulf Talk to me. 01:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Those images should all be replaceable by free alternatives, and therefore are not acceptable for us on Wikipedia, even if the doctrine of fair use does apply (which I believe it would under the right circumstances). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. As for the suggestion of using free alternatives: At the bottom of this page, they provide shapefiles. I have downloaded these and played with them, and I have discovered how to make raster images with the data provided by these shapefiles. I feel like I'm on the verge of figuring out how to make vector images too. Would these images qualify as "free alternatives," or are they derived too much from copyrighted materials? If they would not qualify, then I can't think of any free alternatives. Äþelwulf Talk to me. 10:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well the Secretary of State of Oregon cannot copyright the boundaries of the electoral districts, nor the position of roads and rivers, but s/he can (if Oregon law allows it) copyright the "expression" of that information (federal law allows it for state governments, but one or two states have laws which limits the copyright of their own governments). Your alternatives must have a different expression of the same information to be free: eg, you can choose to include different features, in different colors etc. You have the right to manipulate the shapefiles and, if none of the original "expression" remains at the end, the SoSoO will have no copyright on the finished product. Hopefully you will end up with prettier maps than the ones you link to! Physchim62 (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You guys are great. Thanks! Äþelwulf Talk to me. 22:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Can someone help save these images?

Per the discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy/Anarchism#Help.21_Flavio_Costantini.27s_Images_will_be_Deleted.21 here, we have images which, on good authority, the copyright owners consent to be used on Wikipedia. Can someone who knows the formal ins and outs (WP:OTRS/emailing/licenses etc.) lend a hand? On behalf of the Anarchism task force, the skomorokh 11:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As Skomorokh has referred to me as confirming that artwork has been released for Wikipedia, I should clarify the situation. I have spoken to one of the members of the organization in a face-to-face meeting, and have been told that the organization's printed material is released for free use on wikipedia. Our discussion focused on the topic of an original translation of foreign documents, and that these could be hosted on wikisource, and the cover art of their pamphlets, which often utilizes creator released portraits of historic anarchist figures. I was never aware that the KSL hosted a website showcasing the work of this artist, Flavio Costantini, and so never asked if this artist's work was also covered by their disclaimer. As this would now involve two parties, I cannot claim that this work will be released to Wikipedia.

In fact, I have just discovered that the artist's illustrations, several of which have been placed on the commons, are actually used in Without a glimmer of remorse, by Pino Cacucci, a fictionalized account of the Bonnet Gang's history. An inside cover notice states that the illustrations are indeed copyrighted by Costantini. If they are to be hosted by Wikicommons, we must confirm what are the specific conditions the artist holds over them. Are all rights reserved? Some? Can they be released, if freely attributed and used for non-commercial purposes? Etc. --Cast (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the loosely-worded opener Cast. Do we know if Costantini is still alive? the skomorokh 17:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Running a quick search, the Anarchist Encyclopedia, RA Forum, and Costantini's official website hosted by KSL, each fail to mention that he is dead. I think he is still with us.--Cast (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

How inconvenient. I'd say this is a long shot then, unless someone gets a hold of him and gets him to give up the goods. Even then I'm not sure if the publishers permission/personality rights/book author's permission are required on top of that. the skomorokh 17:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia does not accept permission to use content only on Wikipedia or only for non-commercial use. Wikipedia accepts only a free license—one that allows reuse by anyone for anything, including commercial use. (Requiring attribution is OK.) It the copyright owner will grant that, see WP:COPYREQ for how to handle it. —teb728 t c 20:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is an update for the evolving situation: According to the image uploader, a representative of the artist has now given permission for the images to be used, but the exact wording seems to be confused. The wording of the exchange does not explicitly grant Free License. Another email exchange may be needed to confirm this situation.--Cast (talk) 04:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Uploading image to Wikipedia

Hi,

I have been granted the permission to use an image, after I uploaded the image to this location: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Yuyuan.jpg, I found that I might made a mistake, so I uploaded the image to another location: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Yuyuan.jpg.

Since I uploaded the image to two different locations, I emailed TWICE the original URL and the URLs of the two 2 different locations with the permission emails to "permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org" and "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org".

I am sorry that I made the mistake. But I would like to know that what is going to happen next? Have I done the correct procedure? Am I still OK with the image that I uploaded?

Sorry for the inconvenience caused. Tinbin (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The permission has been noted on the image page so there is nothing else to do. You only need to upload images once, though — if they are free, they should go to Commons, otherwise, they can go here. Stifle (talk) 11:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone requested to delete a image uploaded by me

Hi, I just checked here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Yuyuan.jpg. Someone requested to delete this image, but I have already sent all the permission emails to OTRS. Could someone tell me what is happening? Tinbin (talk) 06:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the deletion tags were removed so you're all good. Whoever wanted it deleted seriously jumped the gun though. It clearly said OTRS was pending and they couldn't even wait a single day before spamming the page with deletion tags? Lame. -- Hux (talk) 01:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, there seems to be rising abuse of "OTRS pending" by people who must view it as a way to make copyvios look legit (over 1200 images are currently marked pending). This photo had some of the hallmarks of such an image - watermarked, uploaded by a redlinked user with no other contributions, didn't use the actual {{OTRS pending}} template (which means it wouldn't be tracked in the proper category) - so I wouldn't really blame Megapixie for being suspicious. Personally, I favor linking the template or tagging them "npd" - simpler than a full deletion request. --dave pape (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

"uploaded by a redlinked user with no other contributions" Well, that is a very good reason for requesting image deletion. So every first time user's image should be deleted just because it is their first time. You would not blame Megapixie but I would. I followed the instruction here WP:COPYREQ and sent all the permission emails to OTRS, and it was clearly saying "OTRS pending" in the description. It should be up to the editors with OTRS access to decide whether the image should be deleted or not. But a random guy like Megapixie walked pass and proposed to delete an image that I have been trying very hard to get the permission from the author. It is much easier to complain than actually doing some work. People like Megapixie discouraging other people, especially newcomers, from contributing or doing anything for Wikipedia. I am lucky that there is a nice editor with OTRS access who proved I am not guilty of copyright violation. Tinbin (talk) 03:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

dave pape: You make some good points and perhaps I was a little harsh. I can understand being suspicious of OTRS claims that meet certain criteria, but I still think that flagging it so quickly - before it was even possible for OTRS to examine it - is overly strict. Acting that way can cause bad feeling among perfectly innocent, potentially excellent contributors, as you can see above. -- Hux (talk) 05:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

There's over a dozen images in the OTRS pending category here which have been there for over a month. I'm inclined to tag them {{subst:npd}}. Stifle (talk) 11:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

About justifying all of the uploaded images on international wikis

Hi, WP:MCQ, I have a problem which needs some discussion. I'm from the Macedonian Wikipedia where some people are uploading images without any consideration to the copyrights of the author — is the image under a free license, or is it protected. They are trying to justify this by the Macedonian law of free use: that any copyrighted material is free to use if it is for educational purposes. Even a license template was made to slap on all the non-free images (and it wasn't fair use, they are easily replaceable!). I tried to point out to those users that Wikipedia only accepts images that are free to redistribute, modify and use for any commercial/noncommercial purpose, either by one of the free licenses like CC/GFDL, or because those images are in the public domain. Only in exceptional cases we can use copyrighted material under the fair use law of the US (which hosts the WP servers). We can't justify this "free use for educational purpose", because this language edition of Wikipedia is not under the jurisdiction of Macedonian law, but under the policies of the Wikimedia Foundation and the United States law. Now answer me this: am I right about this matter? I got a reply that there were a lot of other Wikipedia language editions that are using this similar kind of justification, for example, the Albanian Wikipedia with this template which is used on this image (a clearly replaceable image!). Like, wtf?! I'm sorry for asking this question here, rather then on meta or some other place. I'm just trying to get a second opinion, because I know this is wrong! Thank you in advance, Brainmachine (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Point them to foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

image RBS_Bank_Note_1919.jpg incorrectly marked out of copyright

RBS_Bank_Note_1919.jpg looks like it dates from 1919 so has been declared as out of US copyright as it predates 1923.

The bank note actually dates from 1964 as it says on the note. The prominent "1919" is just part of the serial number.

Therefore the copyright notice is incorrect.

Chris97 (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It's been retagged as fair use. Stifle (talk) 11:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Otto Perry images

There may be an issue with many of the images in Category:Otto Perry images. Some of them are certainly useful and unreplaceable, such as Image:UintahRailway50.jpg (it shows a line that's no longer there), but I'm not sure about locomotive closeups such as Image:Cincinnati, Lebanon and Northern 17.jpg. I'd like to know if there's a problem, and if so it should be brought to the attention of the Trains WikiProject. --NE2 02:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite a lot of those fail NFCC1, 3a, and/or 8. I would suggest going through the category carefully to investigate the images' usability. Stifle (talk) 11:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Most (if not all) of these were uploaded when Wikipedia's policies in this area were much less precise. However, a good proportion of them depict things that no longer exist and for which no free image appears to be available. If I have time I will work through these in the next few weeks in an attempt to determine which photos are not replaceable or superfluous. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The Fame (album)

Resolved

Please review the album photos on The Fame (album), it is believed that they are a copyright violation, because they are too hi-res to constitute fair-use. They were replaced with 200 px low res images, Image:Lady Gaga The fame.jpg and Image:Album Cover-The Fame.jpg (US version), but these were replaced with the edit summary, "PEOPLE WANT HIGH QUALITY PICTURES". I understand that people want hi-res images, but WP isn't the place to find them. There have been a number of these album covers uploaded, I would suggest tagging the extra ones with some sort of speedy delete template and getting rid of them. Any comments? Apteva (talk) 06:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

We are meant to use as low-res as possible. SD or resize. Guy0307 (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a speedy tag for that: {{db-i1}} is for deleting the lower resolution file. The hi-res versions should be IFDed using WP:NFCC#3 as a reason. —teb728 t c 09:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Apteva (talk) 03:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Actors in Public Domain Commercials

I was going to use a public domain TV commercial in a video I am producing but was just told that even if the commercial has fallen into the public domain, that the actors (or their estate) still have to grant permission to use their images/voices. Is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhulett (talk • contribs) 21:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you are asking for legal advice, but we are not allowed to give legal advice. You should contact a lawyer for that. This forum is for questions about media uploaded to Wikipedia. Sorry —teb728 t c 21:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

How to upload personal photos?

Hi, few years ago i got problems on uploading several photos to wikipedia. I took those photo by myself. What should i do then? Anton.nurcahyo (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to upload a photo you took yourself, go to [1]. Stifle (talk) 11:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

can I copy maps from Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provinces_of_Italy#Abruzzo_Region

I would like to use a map (as above) in an article I want to place on my website. Can I do that, if I link it to the source, or show copyright of Wikipedia. Nelleke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.198.231.160 (talk) 07:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if you click on the map, it takes you to Image:Abruzzo Provinces.png. If you look down the page, you will see a tag that says the image has been released into the public domain. That means that the author has released his copyright on the map. So you can use it however yoou want. Other images may have other tags, and you have to look at the tag to see what rights you have if any. —teb728 t c 08:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Use of image in educational materials

I have a North American client (educational publisher) who would like to use the following image in a textbook Image:Edinburgh_fringe_royal_mile_street_performance.jpg. Does the client need to formally apply for permission to use the image, or will a credit line with the photographer's name suffice (i.e., is the image considered to be in the public domain)? 99.242.54.203 (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If you go to Image:Edinburgh fringe royal mile street performance.jpg, you will see that the photo is licensed under GNU Free Documentation License and the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 license. You client does not need to apply for permission, but he must comply with the terms of one of those licenses. The Creative Commons license is less cumbersome than the GFDL. But it requires in addition to attribution, “For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work.” —teb728 t c 19:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm the photographer of that image -- I may have a higher resolution version on disc somewhere, if you need it. My email is the_jps @ hot (spamtrap) mail . com The JPS^{talk to me} 08:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pardus.png

According to the official Pardus website Template:Tr, the logo is copyrighted and cannot be used without permission. However, it has been uploaded here under the GFDL with disclaimers license. Can someone please resolve this discrepancy? Thanks. --Pinar (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Does it say copyright, or does it say trademark? My Turkish-English online translator shows me only "trademark", but that could be erroneous.

It is a possibly interesting case because the logo was uploaded 2 months before the first official release of Pardus, suggesting the uploader may have had some direct affiliation with the company. On the other hand, it would not be unusual for someone to upload a logo under an invalid licensing claim. Dragons flight (talk) 06:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I can’t read Turkish, but the English version says Pardus is distributed under the GPL. And it says explicitly, “Information and documents on Pardus web pages can be used freely anywhere with original source credit.” —teb728 t c 07:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Then it's just a case of tagging it with the proper logo. Stifle (talk) 10:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bulgarian police Macedonia 1942.JPG

Image:Bulgarian police Macedonia 1942.JPG carries a tag which was just created by the uploader of the image. The tag, {{Free use RM}}, was originally created using the gray crossed-out copyright image associated with public domain images, but it refers to articles 31–42 of Macedonian copyright law here (also in English, thankfully), which sound to me (but IANAL) very much like circumstances under which "fair use" may be claimed, and not like circumstances under which an image may be considered to be public domain or otherwise freely licensed under Wikipedia's usual definition. Accordingly, I changed the tag so it uses the red copyright symbol and explicitly says images bearing the tag need a fair use rationale (and the image does have a rationale), but I'd definitely appreciate more input from other people regarding this tag. Image:Bulgarian police Macedonia 1942.JPG is the only image using it so far. —Angr 11:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. I quite agree with your analysis. I've had dealings with the user in question before; he's generally a good-faith editor trying to do the right thing about historical images like this, but his understanding of the rules may be lacking at times. If we agree this is not a legitimate public-domain situation, I don't think we should really have an extra template about it; these ought to go under the normal historical-photograph fair use procedures. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: In any case, I don't see that any of the fair-use provisions in that law would really cover us anyway. Macedonian law is apparently a good deal more concrete than US fair use law, and, while fairly liberal in some respects, certainly would not cover "fair" re-publishing of entire works on a high-visibility, freely accessible world-wide web site. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think he was thrown off by the fact that the Macedonian law apparently uses a word normally translated as "free", but they pretty clearly don't mean "freely licensed" in the way we mean it, but rather "you're free to use this image under the following set of circumstances", and the set of circumstances does not include commercial reuse or derivative works. If the template seems unnecessary because its usage is already covered by the historical-photograph tag, we should take it (the former) to WP:TFD I guess. —Angr 12:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Angr and Future. I think that this template will be a great contribution to Macedonia related articles. The status of contents in the R.Macedonia made during WW2 and afterward is like this - all photos, official correspondence, newspapers and so on made during this time had no copyright. Once in a local newspaper I saw a very interesting photo, and called the direction of the newspaper to ask them where did they get the photo from and what is its status. They simply answered me that they took it from a Macedonian historical book published in the 70s. They told me that earlier they have consulted the State Archives and they told them that every photo taken from the beginning of the WW2 until 1950 is free to be used by anyone without questions, because nobody knows who made those photos - all of them were simply donated to them. The law in R.Macedonia is very liberal on this subject, and about historical photos from WW2 nobody even questions if they are copyrighted, because everybody uses them in every occasion. While I was a student in the Skopje University, I frequently visited the National Library in Skopje. They have a separate archive which contains a vast collection of photos from the Macedonian partisans during WW2. These photos are for sure public domain and can be used by everyone, because the employees guarantee me that when I made the research about this subject - the same thing was told to me by the Museum in my native Bitola, but pictures I find on websites (like these [2] and [3]), I upload as fair use (although i am sure that they are public domain). Further more, the Law on copyright of R.Macedonia explicitly states that these kind of images are in free use. Gentlemen I am sure that this template (whose legal power is backed by the provisions in a whole subsection in the R.Macedonia copyright law) will help a lot while illustrating Macedonia related subjects and will be of benefit to all of those people who are making research on military and historical subjects. Regards. --Revizionist (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't find time to follow up on this earlier. We seem to have a mixture of different topics here. First, there's the general climate of carelessness about copyright in your country that you describe. Then, there may be something that those national librarians know about some of their historical images that really makes them legally free. I don't know what that would be, but there might be something. But whatever it is, it has nothing to do with what those particular sections of the copyright law say. There's nothing that I can find in the sections you cited in the template that would even remotely apply to images on Wikipedia. Whatever it is that makes those WWII images legal, it is not in there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:98B-011.jpg

Hello,

I emailed the manufacturer of a new product, asking for an image of their new item that I could use on Wikipedia. This image was sent back to me from the company, and is a promotional photo (from a press kit). I just got off the phone with the media contact of the company, and she just sent me an email stating "I am giving you permission to use the attached photo for use on Wikipedia." I was just wondering if someone more knowledgable on the subject of images/copyrights/etc. could take a look to ensure that I tagged the image properly, and there won't be any problems.

- Adolphus79 (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Permission to use it on Wikipedia isn't enough. The photograph has to be free for anyone to use and redistribute, including for commercial purposes and in derivative works. As it stands, the image is replaceable with a free equivalent because someone else could take a picture of the gun and upload it here. We don't have to use the promotional photo if the manufacturer is unwilling to license the image freely. —Angr 17:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

See WP:COPYREQ for the permission we need and how to handle it. —teb728 t c 20:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've sent another email to Barrett with the new information describing what we needed, asking for GFDL, and pointing them to WP:COPYREQ and WP:CONSENT... hopefully they don't mind... thanks for the help... we'll see what happens... - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Public domain photographs in Canada

I'm aware that photographs created before January 1, 1949 in Canada are in the public domain in Canada (this is referenced on Commons:Template:PD-Canada-photo and Template:PD-Canada) and have made fairly extensive use of this clause. It just occurred to me today, though, that I have no idea why this is the case; is anybody able to explain it to me? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

See Template_talk:PD-Canada. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Man, that should have occurred to me. Thanks! Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Indian Economy

What is the impact of CRR on inflation? and to what extent it is going to effect inflation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumati sethia jain (talk • contribs) 20:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If you can't find a clue starting at CRR, try asking at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. They answer general knowledge questions, but they will not do your homework for you. This forum is for media copyright questions. —teb728 t c 20:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Arial photos?

You know, like from Mapquest and Google Earth? How are those categorized? I need to know!— Supuhstar * § 02:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You know, this looked like "anal photos" in my watchlist. Anyway, they are unfree and thus not allowed here. The main exception (for the U.S., at least) is USGS aerial photos, available from TerraServer-USA. --NE2 03:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

What's "unfree"?— Supuhstar * § 19:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyrighted and not released under a free license. --NE2 21:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

How is a mostly nondescript photo of a public area from above by a non-affiliated company that is released to the public domain copyrighted??? — Supuhstar * § 00:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Just because they are viewable on the internet, doesn't make them public domain. They, as all images, are copyrighted to the photographer/organization that took them until rights are specifically released. Mfield (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Now you might be able to make the legal argument that the images are non-creative, and simply copies of what's on the earth, but I don't believe anyone's tried that in court, and without a lot more discussion we can't do that. (P.S.: it's "aerial". "Arial" is a font.) --NE2 01:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Like this?— Supuhstar * § 02:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio. Well it be posible to make a case otherwise under US law but untill someone makes that case we have to assume copyvio (you will note most google earth pictures are taken when it is sunny). If you really want an arial pic perhaps kite photography.Geni 02:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear. You didn't spend the money to rent a helicopter/airplane/satellite and shoot the image, so you don't own the copyright and that is only theirs to give away. It would be possible to shoot another image of this yourself. The fact that it would be expensive for you or anyone else to do so doesn't make the image irreplaceable by any standard and definitely doesn't make it OK to steal one from someone else. The companies in question are in business providing a service with this same data right now and there would be financial implications to them giving away their data which I would say would preclude any claim of fair use. See Wikipedia:Fair_use#Images #3 about maps and #11 for the profiting issue.Mfield (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

What if I were to upload a 100% acurate to-scale drawing of the property done by me? Then could I say I did it? I'm pretty sure that surverers do it all the time! — Supuhstar * § 02:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

actuly that would get you into the fun area of building design copyright.Geni 02:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Not if it's vague enough: outlines, paths, streets, etc.— Supuhstar * § 03:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

[4] is free (tag it {{PD-USGS}}). Problem solved. --NE2 02:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

That was going to be my next suggestion - we taxpayers did pay for that helicopter/airplane/satellite so we do own the copyright and thus it falls into PD. Mfield (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not the reason. It's PD because the U.S. federal government made it. --NE2 03:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

At the end of the day it really is the reason. US copyright law does state "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government". That is the facts and the legalese. But the spirit and reason behind why works of the US federal government are PD is that the federal government is the body that represents the taxpaying public I referred to. That was my point. Mapquest may have paid for the originally discussed image, but 'we the people' paid for the Terraserver one. Mfield (talk) 03:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

If the government funds a private project, the results aren't public domain. --NE2 05:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

"Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government". That's all that needs be said. I believe this debate is over. — Supuhstar * § 03:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That's what I said, innit? --NE2 03:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to put stress on the "Copyright protection under this title is not available", as in it is not copyrighted as in it is public domain as it it can be used as in I believe this "debate" is over and my "side" "wins".— Supuhstar * § 05:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

We're not having a debate here... and Image:Collins Hill High School property.PNG is still unfree, because the federal government did not apparently take the photo. --NE2 05:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's told you that this image is not copyrighted. You need to re-read this whole section. We've told you the exact opposite. It was pointed out that you could take an image off Terraserver and that would be PD, that's where this lower discussion came from. The original image under discussion is copyrighted to a commercial entity and no reasonable claim of fair use can be made whilst they are in business using this same data. Mfield (talk) 05:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay... but The image I replaced the Google Maps one with is from terraserver, so is it okay now?— Supuhstar * § 06:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You should upload it with a new file name and let the old one be deleted completely as there are versions of the copyvio image still accessible from that image page. You also need to fill in the full template with source information etc. That would be another reason to just start again. Mfield (talk) 06:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

done. Image:CHHS aerial photo.png— Supuhstar * § 17:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Image upload on behalf of local government

I am uploading images for a local council as i work for them and am creating Wikipedia content for them. The images belong to the Council. We don't mind if other people use them.

What copyright should i choose in this case? Thanks! Adele (Leicestershire County Council, UK) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdeleBeeby (talk • contribs) 08:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You need to follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission to get the Council to release the images into the public domain so they can be used on Wikipedia. Also you need to be aware of the guidelines about conflict of interest if you are editing articles related to Leicestershire County Council. MilborneOne (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

As an alternative to public domain, any license from WP:ICT/FL will do too. Stifle (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

COI and an Image

I was going through images a few days ago and came across Image:Warwick Cary Jordan 1.jpg. It looks like an ad slick that Warwick basses use to cross promote an artist who uses their product. This image is "licensed" under the "GNU Free Documentation License", there is not "Fair Use" rationale being used. The image summary says: Warwick Endorser Cary Jordan A.K.A. Cary The Label Guy. Also is bassist for Fusebox Funk and J.Dash, seen here with his Warwick "Cary Jordan" custom Streamer Stage 1 six string bass. Photo by Jenny Balsalmo. Before I placed a PUI on it, or an IFD at the least, I wanted to check the users other contributions.

Now it gets slightly involved. The short version is that I looked at Teamxrsxs contributions and this led me to become involved in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cary The Label Guy discussion. There is a COI involved with Teamsrx and the subject of the article and this brings us back to this image. Today (October 17, 2008) Teamxrsx stated in the AfD discussion: "Also, i am not associated with the band in any way." If one reads and accepts that, than this image is a copyvio. (If one wants to see another ad slick from Warwick featuring an image from the same photographer, appearing to have been done at the same shoot, it can be viewed here: Teamxrsx Warwick Ad) Could another set (or a few sets) of eyes asses the situation in regards to the image? Thanks Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Is Teamxrsx (talk · contribs) Jenny Balsamo? If not, I'd tag the image {{subst:nsd}} as the source info is not sufficient to verify the GFDL claim. —Angr 14:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If one believes the comment made by Teamxrsx in the AfD discussion it would mean it was not the photographer. It also would mean it was not someone who worked for Warwick either. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Pictures of each capital

Hi, I am working in Brazil to develop a DVD-Rom, with a complete ATLAS for the Brazilian Deaf, based on the Brazillian Signal Language. We gonna put lots of informations there, that we already own, but we are seeking for free/public pictures of each capital, of each country of the world. I was thinking on using the pictures disposed on Wikipedia. I see in terms of rights management, it must be a little difficult to have all the necessary permissions. There are more then 200 countries in the Globe and we cannot wait for the permissions of every author, case by case. I would take more time than we can wait. But this DVD-Rom is for a very good cause, and it will be totally free of cost for the Brazillian Deaf. So, cant we get an special permission to use all Wikipedia Pictures of the capitals of the World? Thx Very Much —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedrosimao (talk • contribs) 16:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact, most photos on Wikipedia (which should include pretty well all pictures of capital cities) are released under free licenses, which usually means that you can reuse them for any purpose provided only that you properly attribute them (to their authors, not to Wikipedia). For information on the conditions of re-use of any given image on Wikipedia, just click on it and you'll be taken to a page that provides its licensing information. More information can be found at WP:REUSE. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of images here (and at Wikimedia Commons, where you should also look) require that derivative works carry the same free licensing. The GFDL and CC-BY-SA licenses require this, for example. If you use images with those licenses in your DVD-ROM, then your DVD-ROM must also be freely licensed. —Angr 18:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Sort of. The DVD as a whole doesn't need to be a under a free license. Just the individual image (and its derivatives) does. The rest of the DVD can remain under a proprietary license, which is why Encyclopedia Britannica Online uses GFDL images from Commons. --Rob (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

What Rob said. The SA component of CC-by-SA applies only to derivative works, and it doesn't sound like any are contemplated here. As for the image itself, since Pedrosimao and co. wouldn't own the copyright to it, it's obvious that they couldn't license it under any license, non-free or otherwise. As well, some of the licenses include requirements that any media in which they're used include the licensing information (such that if you're using somebody else's freely-licensed work in your project, your project must make clear that the work is freely-licensed), but all of this varies by license, which is why I told him to click on an image for more details. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:RickettsCrest.jpg

I believe that User:Stifle's talk page directed me here, but it is entirely unclear why he wishes others to respond re. an administrative decision that he made. Stifle deleted Image:RickettsCrest.jpg because it was not properly tagged. This image should be restored due to poor procedure.

Stifle stated that User:FairuseBot should have notified the image uploader of the issue. That did not happen. The talk page for the article that used the image was also un-pinged. Because there was not sufficient notification, deletion may have been premature. On restoration, a proper notice could be made on the user's talk page & on the article's talk page. If the issue was not addresses 7 days after this proper notification, I'd have no objections to deleting the image. --Karnesky (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

As I suggested, I'm happy to restore the image so that you can add a rationale. However, please note that the criteria for deletion don't require anyone to be notified, although the step is encouraged. Stifle (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the image. I wasn't really trying to wikilawyer--regardless of whether notification is encouraged or required, I thought that you'd like to know that there seemed to be insufficient notification in this case. Thanks again --Karnesky (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:MisterAlcohol Beer.png

I'm John Wansted, one of Alberto's friends, and I'm currently on holiday using this IP. My friend has been recently complaining that this beer glass image has been deleted. I am writing this on behalf of him. Whoever did this should have known that Alberto would be changing the tag to a proper one.

Also, Alberto confirmed that he actually created it himself. It was his copyright and he published it into the public domain when his website first went online in 1995. If you restore the image, Alberto will change the tag to the correct one.

Thanks for reading. — John Wansted on 92.16.12.245 (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

He should send an email to [email protected] or insert a notice on his website indicating that the image is released into the public domain. If he quotes the name of the image in the email, it'll be restored; if he adds a notice to the website, drop a note back here and someone will check and restore it. Stifle (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Palin nowhere.jpg

I was informed that there is a problem with the copyright on this, but as noted on that image page, an email has already been sent to you referring to Bob Weinstein's copyright ownership, and his full release of it under the listed license. Where is the problem? Duuude007 (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Best I can tell the relivant OTRS ticket number is 2008091810048421 and the problem is the lack of an explict CC release.Geni 02:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I've asked a couple OTRS people to check that ticket and drop a message here. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I am an OTRS person I was describeing the ticket.Geni 15:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Duuude007, for what I can see the discussion stalled before we received a clear Creative Commons license from the copyright holder. If you wish I can try to email him? -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem with that. Mayor Weinstein did say that he had already explicitly sent an email himself (because of that email reply to me referring to the need of explicit consent) from the kpu.net address. Did you receive that one? Please keep in mind that there are multiple images that this copyright applies to, as it was cropped for alternate article uses. There is also: Image:Nowhere 99901 (Crop2).jpg and Image:Palin Nowhere 99901.jpg in the commons, and because of this problem, they are also apparently being flagged for deletion. Please help assure that they also do not get deleted, while his copyright is being reconfirmed, thank you. Duuude007 (talk) 06:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Duuude, Did Mayor Weinstein’s email license the images under a specific license, or did it grant general permission for use on Wikipedia? From what Geni and lucasbfr say, OTRS received an email, but it did not grant a specific CC license. (BTW, I don’t think multiple images are a problem as long as he licenses Image:Palin Nowhere 99901.jpg. The other images are derivative from that, right?) —teb728 t c 08:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I find no email from him (I checked with the email address you forwarded, and his name) on our records. I've sent him an email. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Check the OTRS number given above.Geni 14:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

we recived an email yes. We did not get a solid CC release.Geni 14:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I know, Duuude007 was talking about Mr Weinstein's email. As you can see I've sent an email using this OTRS ticket. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Selby Shattered.JPG

I'm hopeless when it comes to copyright, but what tag do I put if the image was provided by the author of the book? Fairusebot recently informed me about the image but I don't know what to do. Sp3000 (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

If the copyright holder hasn't released the image under a free license, then you need to tag it with a non-free image copyright tag (which you have) and include a rationale with details of the exact reason why the image can be used on this article (which you haven't). See WP:NFURG and Template:Book cover fur for a guide. Make sure that your rationale includes the name of the article. Stifle (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, tell me if I did it right :) Sp3000 (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine. Stifle (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Walter Inglis Anderson

I added an image of a painting by Walter Inglis Anderson to that page. I got a warning from an administrator that the image would be deleted if I did not follow the instructions for adding an image. I went back, and once again did my level best to follow all instructions, but evidently that wasn't good enough, because a bot deleted the image anyway. I followed all the instructions to the best of my ability. Either there is something wrong with my ability, or there is something wrong with the instructions. In either case, I think that to illustrate an article about an artist with art by that artist is certainly reasonable, and I would appreciate help in doing so. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:Reflection in a Pool by Walter Anderson.jpg was deleted because there was no rationale indicating how it qualifies for fair use. You tagged that image as a book cover — normally pictures from book covers are only used on the article about the book, rather than the author or someone who happens to be in that book. Can you explain how the non-free content criteria are complied with in respect of this image?

For the record, I deleted the image and I'm not a bot :) Stifle (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The image you deteted was from an exhibition catelog, not from a book. The exhibition was a solo exhibition of the work of Walter Anderson. When you flagged the image for deletion, I went back and tried to explain this in more detail, but you deleted the image from the image file and then the bot deteted the link to the now deleted image from the Walter Anderson page. It seems reasonable to me that Wikipedia articles about an artist should be illustrated with an example of that artist's work. Unless a Wikipedian owns an original by that artist, the natural place to obtain such an image is an exhibition catelog. The image was a low resolution image from such a catalog. I'm sure this has come up in other articles about artists. Please let me know how I should go about illustrating this article with an example of the artist's work. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll restore the image so that you can add a full rationale to it. Note that the rationale must address how each of the non-free content criteria are addressed, include a link to the article where the image is used, and particularly explain how the image substantially increases readers' understanding of the article. See WP:NFURG for more information. Note that the image may be redeleted if you do not add a rationale or if the rationale is considered insufficient. Stifle (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I've put the image back up, and added what I think is what is needed. If I've done it wrong, please let me know. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The image still needs a fair use rationale template added which you will find details of here. Add it to the image and fill in ALL the details, otherwise it is likely to be deleted again. A prose rationale is no longer acceptable; you must use the template. ww2censor (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I have made another attempt, using the template. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Good, but the resolution's too high. I've tagged it as {{fairusereduce}}. Stifle (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll rescan it at a lower resolution. What resolution should I use? Rick Norwood (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Image Copyright

How do I classify a scanned copy of an old photograph (in my possession) of my great, great Grandfather when it was taken around ~1900 and the photographer is unknown ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertsonal (talk • contribs) 19:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this the image you mean? ww2censor (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you know what country the photo was taken in? --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

No - that is not the image. I have several similar scanned photos and they were all taken in the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertsonal (talk • contribs) 20:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

According to {{PD-UK}}, copyright for anonymous works in the UK expires 70 years after they were created. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair use or cc-by?

This image is licensed cc-by-2.0 on flickr [5]. Does using this image violate the copyright of the billboard itself? Should I move the image from commons to en, where it easily qualifies as fair use? --Duk 19:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The flickr user probably doesn't have the right to license it under cc-by, so fair use is the only way it can be used. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Check for freedom of panorama though. Stifle (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. It was photographed in Israel and doesn't specifically satisfy the blurb on Commons (although I didn't check the external link). So I've uploaded a fair use one on en. --Duk 19:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Leo Strauss

I want to upload a photo of the subject found here: [6] in the New York Times. This is to be used in the article Leo Strauss. I cannot find any free use image and want it considered under "non-free image fair use" criteria. Can I do this? ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Since he was a University of Chicago professor, consider checking University publications like yearbooks or campus newspapers from the 50s or 60s. If U of C was like other schools, there's a chance they either didn't include a copyright notice, or failed to renew (search for renewals at copyright.gov). Lack of notice before 1978, or lack of renewal for something from before 1964, would make the publication PD. (I base this on a recent check of my own university's archives, where notices didn't start showing up until the 60s.) --dave pape (talk) 03:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you suggest how to get a hold of these sources? ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The University of Chicago's library will have them, so look for an editor located in Chicago (try Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago) who'd be willing to take on the task. Preferably someone familiar with the University's library, since these may be non-circulating or on microfilm. When asking, you could note that there are probably a number of other notable 20th-century faculty & alumni whose photos could be obtained from the same source (might make the job more interesting). --dave pape (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Unknown License Tag for Image:TheFirmGurantee.png

This is an image from [7] and is copyrighted by Gaiam Americas Inc. but doesn't have a matching license tag. It is a type of non-free image that refers to a motto or guarantee. Jscorp (talk) 00:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably {{Non-free promotional}}, possibly {{PD-ineligible}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 04:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright tags

Which image copyright tags can be used for the image that has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder and its copyright is expired? Aquitania (talk) 05:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Check the tags from Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Public_domain. You can tag it with two tags, one for each reason. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 05:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion notice in photo caption?

For several photographs that are proposed for deletion on licensing grounds, Stifle has edited articles by removing the substantive caption and substituting the standard deletion notice. I've never encountered this before. Is it considered standard practice? It seems like a very bad idea to me. As long as the image remains on Wikipedia, it should be used in a way that's helpful to the reader.

For example, some sort of question has been raised about the license for Image:Palin nowhere.jpg. Putting the notice on the image page makes perfect sense. In one of our most widely read articles, however, we now have the notice in a caption. See Sarah Palin#"Bridge to Nowhere" and Knik Arm Bridge. With no caption, it shows the bio subject inexplicably holding up a t-shirt with wording that's not self-explanatory. I don't see what's accomplished by this.

I looked at a handful of the images in Category:Disputed non-free images as of 18 October 2008. The only ones where the deletion notice appeared as a caption where ones where Stifle had placed it. Do others agree with this procedure? JamesMLane t c 15:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like an error with Twinkle adding the caption to images. The caption should be added below the existing one, and should not replace it. I assure you it wasn't intentional and I will check back over my recent image taggings to correct this anywhere I find it. Stifle (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I've also notified AzaToth, who maintains Twinkle, about this so that he can look into the issue. Stifle (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that clarifies the matter. Having the deletion notice under the "real" caption is still disconcerting, but I suppose it might be helpful to the editors monitoring the article, so that the photo doesn't suddenly disappear without warning. On the other hand, even regularly active editors might not notice it there. Perhaps there should be no deletion warning in the article at all, but there should instead be a notice on the talk page. I don't know whether Twinkle could handle that. JamesMLane t c 02:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Photo containing personal information

Though Image:Public_Nudity_-_Buttocks.jpg was licensed under "Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0", it contains quite personal information and is placed on an article giving an explanation about mooning. I am not related to this person in any way, and neither is this question fully copyright-related, but my question remains: is this appropriate? Saphalon (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That image is on Commons; you can propose it for deletion there if you wish. We can't do anything about it. Stifle (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand (to be honest I was pretty much just curious about the policy and therefore won't propose it for deletion). Thanks for the reply! Saphalon (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh! Cards

What image copyright tag should I use for the images of my Yu-Gi-Oh! Cards that I take a picture of it? Is Wikipedia has the same rules as Yu-Gi-Oh! Wikia has? In Yu-Gi-Oh Wikia, the rules was write in this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquitania (talk • contribs) 19:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You can't upload any images of Yu-Gi-Oh! cards unless the non-free content criteria are complied with fully. In short, the images would need to significantly add to the readers' understanding the topic and their omission would need to be detrimental to that understanding. You would need to provide a rationale for their use on Wikipedia, as well as attributing the image source and copyright holder. If you are able to provide the required details, consider scanning the cards rather than photographing them. Stifle (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Old image

I believe this image falls into non-free fair use because it is of a deceased woman. The photo was taken in the 1920's, but I'm not sure which license to choose when uploading. It isn't a poster or a book cover, etc. http://acadian.info/acadmusic2.jpg Thanks --Michael miceli (talk) 00:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This is from the United States I assume? {{PD-Pre1978}} or {{PD-Pre1964}} might apply; see if either could apply to the photo. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 02:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoa... How do you know the photo was published at all? If you can prove it was published, how do you know it was published without copyright notice? What does the fact that the woman is dead have to do with anything? As it is, i don't think those templates have anything to do with this photo.--Celtus (talk) 05:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I said "might". Still missing a lot of information, so can't be more certain. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 06:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Images of things under trademark (Burberry Check)

I need some help understanding some things. The Burberry Check is a trademarked design. There's an image of it on the commons here -> Image:Burberry check pattern.png. What's the deal with including images of things which are trademarked, is there a rationale you have to fill out (fair use)?--Celtus (talk) 05:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Trademark rights aren't usually relevant on Wikipedia — we're not trying to pass off a product or anything. However, the image in question is likely to be copyrighted and I've nominated it for deletion at Commons. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Presently the image has a free use tag on Commons. If hypothetically that tagging is correct, no use rationale would be needed. —teb728 t c 09:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Map of Top Gear Australia Test Track

I have made an image of the Top Gear Australia test track to put on this page Top Gear Australia which is entirely my own work except that it uses a screenshot from Google Earth on which the track is overlaid. What licence would this come under, and would it be allowed?

Thanks Bentos (talk) 09:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Google Earth images are copyrighted, and your work qualifies as a derivative work. As a result, it would have to comply with the non-free content criteria, and I don't think any image from Google Earth will pass criteria 2 and 8. Stifle (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Fake free images

what should one do when one suspects that images tagged as free use are not? user:Stanleyashenbach (talk) has uploaded numerous images, all tagged as self created and released for free use. But some are book covers, and even if he were the artist (which i don't think he is), the covers would belong to the publisher, yes? And they look to be downloaded, not personally scanned (eg. cos they have stickers attached for marketing).

Questions about copyright status for other images have been overridden by re-tagging them as free, so something more than discussion is needed.

These images are by different artists, so is very unlikely that one uses has the right to release any of them to public domain.

Examples:

Yobmod (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Nominate them for Images and media for deletion or perhaps even better at Possibly unfree images. ww2censor (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Rapha Christian Fellowship

Hello, I just started a Page on Rapha Christian Fellowship.

When I did, a thing came up and told me that information was copied from raphachristianfellowship.com/aboutus.aspx

I did obtain that information from there. The reason I did, is because I am the owner of that website. I gave Rapha Christian Fellowship permission to copy everything that they got! Please tell me why I cannot use it!

Andy Driver Media Ministry Coordinator for Rapha Christian Fellowship —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raphachristianfellowship (talk • contribs) 23:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Air Balloon April 2008 Logan.jpg

This image claims to be self-made, but I can see a copyright watermark on it across the centre of it (and can't make it out entirely, but it looks like it might be a company name ("above imograph..?"). Watermarked images, even if watermarked by the publisher, aren't entirely free for use on Wikipeidia, are they?  SEO⁷⁵ 01:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

They surely can be, but as this one reads "Copyright" in the green area to the left of the highway, this one isn't. Nyttend (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyright Question

I took digital pictures of a bouquet of flowers and a garden gate at a lavender farm in Maui, Hawaii. Now, I'd like to use the pictures to create some note cards and sell them on a web site. Does the lavender farm have rights to these pictures, or can I consider them original art that I created?

Thank you, Rboyce825 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rboyce825 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Question about use in talk page

I want to use an image in my talk page before puting it in an article, a bot came over and told me that an image not being used in an article was grounds for deletion. True? Thanks. Beanbuff