![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Greetings, ESKog has deleted all of the football helmets I uploaded for use on the football pages. Permission to use these helmets was granted by the copyright holder. What is the problem? Msr iaidoka ( talk) 16:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I've gone through and deleted, under WP:F7 the helmets that were tagged as non-free logos. There were about 5 files that lacked any copyright information, and they have been tagged accordingly. The rest of the helmet files uploaded by Msr iiaidoka are still tagged as non-free, but I believe that they may qualify for PD-text logos + the license of the helmet illustration copyright holder (per the forthcoming OTRS). These images need to have the FUR removed, and a new license tag applied to them, per the OTRS e-mail. I do not know how they are being licensed, so I have not done this myself. Right now they are inappropriately tagged. I hope someone can go through and fix them. Thanks. - Andrew c [talk] 15:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Is the picture at Deutsches SOFIA Institut of SOFIA copyrighted, or is it a work of NASA that we could use? Smallman12q ( talk) 13:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd also like to know whether the photos and videos at these two sites are copyrighted...
Thankyou. Smallman12q ( talk) 13:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I have been shown this photograph, which is of my daughter. Wiki seems to show that I, myself shared this photo and granted copyright use. I did not. This photo is copyrighted as part of a book, and I do NOT grant free use of it to anyone. You may continue to use the photograph, but NOT with a free use permission. If you cannot assert my copyright, please remove the photo. Michelle Harmon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mome23kjnc ( talk • contribs) 20:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
File:Radioshack-logo.svg has both "non-free logo" and "ineligible text logo" templates on it. The logo consists of the text "RadioShack" in a fairly generic sans-serif face and a large registered trademark (®) sign. Which template actually applies? -- Damian Yerrick ( talk | stalk) 14:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I have a question. I'm trying to make a page for Kris Williams (actress) and put up a jpg of her. Now I don't know what the copyright is on the picture being she emailed me the photo directly. What should I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisdlr ( talk • contribs) 02:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
User:Citizen-of-wiki has uploaded three videos about Operation Mar Lewe: File:Operation-Mar-Lewe-Part-1.ogv, File:Operation-Mar-Lewe-Part-2.ogv and File:Operation-Mar-Lewe-Part-3.ogv. The editor has given them a PD-USGov licence. However, they appear to be from a NATO website and have NATO logos on. Is this a copyright infringement? Cordless Larry ( talk) 23:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
To use at the article Turkish Airlines Flight 452, I intend to upload an image of the Turkish newspaper Hürriyet from September 20, 1976 found on the website [1]? Question: may I do it without any problem? CeeGee ( talk) 06:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
What information I have to add File:Street in old Kond.jpg to use it without any problem. Thank you.-- Hovik95 ( talk) 22:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I've been told I need copyrights for these 3 photos from our family album. I changed the descriptions adding this information: The first 2 were taken by Bill Simon's cousin Arnold Simon. The 3rd was taken by his wife who gave permission. I'm totally confused about how to proceed. Please help. File:Billinitaly.jpg, File:Youngbillsimon.jpg and File:Billsmallbw.jpg. 22:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Simonfamily ( talk
Kendra Jade Rossi has asked me to create and upload a Wikipedia page for her. I have two images that she owns that I want to add to the article. May I upload it as though it were her doing it? She does not have the time to do this task.
One is an image of a painting that she recently did. It is currently posted on her Facebook page: [2]
The other is a professional image of herself that she owns.
There is a third image that I will add in the future. Getting in touch with the copyright owner now.
How would you suggest that I handle the categorization of these three images?
fransi ( talk) 01:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)fransi kaye
Just five minutes before, I have uploaded one file named Datta.jpg for my user account Prof. D. S. Vidyasagar. Its my own photograph. I quoted the reason for its uploading and have selected the licensing option to 'own work, release into public domain'. But still the speedy deletion tag on the image is not removed. Please help. --Prof. D. S. Vidyasagar 04:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of File:P-roll.gif was suggested because of use of unsatisfactory tag. This promotional material is obviously more than 100 years old, because the product became obsolete commercially then. Accordingly, any copyright should have expired. Can you please suggest an appropriate template or tag? PraeceptorIP ( talk) 18:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Every time I upload an image, somebody comes along and deletes it.
I upload it and put it to the public domain all over the description. I follow the instructions EXACTLY, and I put them in the public domain exactly as described. Then somebody comes along and deletes my public domain image. I am reminded that 'Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously'. Seriously enough not to read the copyright apparently.
It seems that every time I try to contribute to a subject, I find that I have transgressed on somebody's private little fiefdom where they are trying to get some sort of reward. Or I've transgressed on somebody's public relations effort. Or something.
I thought my images were really cool and added substantially to the articles. I have concluded that despite the potential value of my contributions, I simply don't have time to try to 'learn' anything new. If somebody doesn't tell me what I'm doing wrong and do it really fast, I'm done.
Any responses should be put on my talk page as I am not sure I can remember how to get back to this page.
--
KTrimble (
talk) 03:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I came across File:RuncuGjmap.jpg which appears to be a photo of a map (maybe?) is that legit or not? PDBailey ( talk) 00:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Given that the cover of the book in this image consists of simple geographical shapes, colours, and textual elements, would it (were it cropped to remove the spine and the copyrighted elements thereon) qualify as free content under {{ PD-text}}? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
In #3 of Wikipedia:NFC#Images it states simply, "Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not its subject." However, it seems that this rule is too restrictive in that it does not take into consideration the intent and purpose of commemorative stamps, U.S. and foreign, namely to commemorate some person or event. Therefore, in an article about Albert Einstein, for example, one would not be allowed to use a stamp image to support his notability or the obvious fact that a government has dedicated and commemorated his achievements by putting his image on a postage stamp, one of the greatest honors that a government bestows.
By extension of rule #3, it would likewise be unacceptable to show an image of a statue of Einstein, unless the article was about that statue. Same would apply for a fair use photo of a building, baseball field, airport, street sign, or photo of a Nobel Prize, unless the article was about those things, "not its subject." A fair use photo of Thomas Jefferson's image on Mt. Rushmore would be unacceptable unless the article was about Mt. Rushmore.
I'm aware that U.S. stamps since 1978 have copyrights, but those copyrights offer no more "rights" to the holder than any other copyright. The image on the stamp is meant to be displayed publicly whenever it's put on an envelope. Therefore, because of the commemorative nature of many stamps I propose that the rule be changed to allow the subject of the stamp to be considered relevant, and not denied value, when allowing for its fair use. See also Commemorative Stamps for more facts. -- Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 00:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I recently emailed, and got a reply from, the archives of the Portuguese BNP about their scans of images, which they seem to claim ownership over:
In a general way, the digitized works available on BND (on the internet) are public contents [domain], which means that are not protected by copyright and related rights.
However, digital images are owned by the BNP. Permission to use these images is usually granted, but must be requested for each publication. The publications should refer to the source of images (BNP).
Given recent developments, are we on certain ground using images like this? Is there a breach of contract at play here? Thanks, - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 17:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
This may be one of those sweat of the brow countries. The US, does not enforce the idea of re-gaining protection on public domain works simply because they were digitally imported. ViperSnake151 Talk 02:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I've been searching for a picture of John for a while and I have finally located one at www.dudziarz.e12.pl but I have no idea what it's copyright status may be. Please help.-- Kthapelo ( talk) 19:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Not to be complaining, but it would really help to have SPECIFIC and less OBSCURE directions on meeting whatever "copyright" media requirements you want when telling someone that they haven't met said requirements. The instructions lead to lots of places, lots of templates, little explanation.
THe file mentioned above was created by me for a specific company and is used in an Infobox on a page I created for that company, as directed to do so that company (Juniper Advisory).
What else is needed? Please advise. It is a low resolution logo used to identify the company in an Infobox. An email address to me was also added so that use of the image can be verified if needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dayna Kirk ( talk • contribs) 18:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I want to upload an image of a character from a children's picture book. I assume that Template:Non-free 2D art is the right license to use, but it doesn't seem to appear on the list of licenses on the file upload form. Of course I could upload it license-less and then add it by hand, but I thought I'd check here if its absence from the list meant anything special. So: does it? Olaf Davis ( talk) 18:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I would like to use this image. However, the page for the uploader ow owner has already been deleted. How can I get his/her permission.
Also, if I get the permission, what do I need to do to properly cite wikipedia/wikimedia on my site? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.28.212.253 ( talk) 13:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I have just added 'source' details for a photo I uploaded File:Rich_wiki.jpg; is this correct and enough to prevent it being taken down? Thanks Cronk69 ( talk) 14:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm not that good with images, so I wanted to ask here. Take the example at File:Irish penny coin.png for example. A new editor tagged it for speedy deletion, claiming that the coin is copyrighted and as such, an image of it is a violation of copyright. I think the image of a coin is not a reproduction of the coin but by itself a new work of art and thus not violating the copyright as remanufacturing such a coin would. Could someone clear this up for me? Regards So Why 20:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, I took a picture of my own car without the reg or anything else on it, however it has been marked for deletion, It states a copyright issue but im not sure what copyright tag to put on it. Can anybody help me on this matter? In short what is the exact tag I put into the page to cover that it is my own photograph of my own object and i do give consent for anyone and everyone to use it? Many thanks -Larry Ceb ( talk) 04:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I received a message on my talk page about File:Bianca_c_ship.jpg but after reading the information about providing a rationale, I'm more confused than before. It's the only picture available of this somewhat obscure ship before it was wrecked. I obtained permission from the copyright holder back in 2006 to use it in Wikipedia. How do I put that information into a rationale template? - Etoile ( talk) 12:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I previously released all of my images to the public domain, but have since realized I would at least like recognition if they are ever used elsewhere... I began be researching which tag I should use, and decided upon {{ Cc-by-sa-3.0}}... Am I correct in assuming that this license allows anyone, anywhere, to use the image, just so long as they attribute it to me? Also, how would I go about changing the license on File:White Mitsubishi 3000GT front.jpg, which has since been moved to Commons? - Adolphus79 ( talk) 14:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Does this image have a sufficient fair-use rationale? I think that it's an acceptable fair-use, as it depicts one deceased person (out of five) and two members who are no longer with the band (particularly the lead singer). Literally all of the band's Top 40 hits were under the lineup in this picture. I would think that this would fall under "notability rest[ing] in large part on their earlier visual appearance," so I'm taking this here to make sure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I am working with someone to be able to use a large number of photographs on wikipedia. However, the creator (whose photos are on flickr) is uncomfortable with the provisions in the license that allow users to alter the work. He has no problems with anyone cropping, resizing, adjusting, or modifying photographs in ways that don't change what's depicted, but he doesn't want any mal-use. Is there a flickr license that would allow this? Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr seems to suggest no. Michael miceli ( talk) 03:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Who says that in Germany aair-taken pic can not be copyrighted? That's absolutely wrong. They can and this one is! It was illegally downloaded from a website where All rights are reserved. Or my someone tell me the exact law in which is written that I am wrong -- Münzberg ( talk) 19:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
this is regardin a discussion here last week (maybe 2 weeks ago) about the Bum Bright article being 90% copy-paste copyright violation.... so someone deleted the entire article. but there were actually one or two paragraphs about his sports dealings that were not copyvio they were ordinary work by an editor, with citations. it could have simply been made a stub. i would fix it myself but again its conflict of interest due to me being a distant blood relation. Decora ( talk) 17:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
What is the procedure for dealing with files which have been tagged as CC 3.0, but have bold copyright labels attached. For example, File:Hellhighwater2logo copy.jpg. I tagged it per CSD, but I wasn't sure if I tagged it correctly, or if I am wrong to tag it. Thanks. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I had thought that copyright on music in the U.S. was - to use a technically precise term - all fucked up. In checking out the Bix recordings on the Internet Archives I see "Public Domain" all over the place. Can we trust this and use these recordings? Internet Archive seems to be a pretty trustworthy organization, but thought I'd better ask first. Smallbones ( talk) 22:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
This file ( File:Torchlight help red.png),which is licensed as public domain, is a derivative of File:Torchlight help.png, which is licensed with GNUGPL. Can a derivative of GNUGPL be released under public domain? Smallman12q ( talk) 12:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Would anyone mind explaining to me how the copyright status of flags works, especially flags of non-governmental political groups? It seems like wikipedia considers all flags to be public domain, even flags of non-governmental groups or movements that were created recently (e.g., File:PFLP flag smoothed.svg), which doesn't make sense to me. Prezbo ( talk) 21:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I've recently created the article 1962 Turkish Airlines Taurus Mountains crash, which is about the aircraft with tail number TC-KOP. I discovered an image of this aircraft at [4] and asked the website's owner for permission to use the picture at en:wikipedia. A copy of our conversation is posted below, where my real name and mail address are replaced by my username:
[Emails removed]
Question: May I upload an image of the TC-KOP from that website? If yes, what copyright tag must I add and how must I credit the picture's owner? I appreciate your advise. CeeGee ( talk) 14:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I have been having trouble finding a clear answer in regard to this question, so I thought that this would be an appropriate place to ask. If not, then I apologize.
I would like to upload photos of the members of the band Scale the Summit that I took while watching them on the Progressive Nation Tour about two months ago. I feel that they would add greatly to the article concerning the band. I would like to publish them into the public domain, however, I do not know if they would qualify. I would like to know this before I upload them so that if they can be published into the public domain I can upload them directly into the Commons. Thank you in advance for your help. Cs.Ps. ( talk) 19:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
if I republish an image, under GNU or GFDL, are others allowed to make money from it? they can in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License but they's have to make the image available freely?
Thanks Notpayingthepsychiatrist ( talk) 23:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
1. What copyright tags should I give for a picture that is taken by a friend of mine who has given permission to me? Is it correct to put {{ cc-by-sa}} tag? 2. If I upload a picture that I just take/download from a website, what should I do to clear it from copyright problems/so that it doesn't become object of speedy deletion? Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoko santoso ( talk • contribs) 05:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Last week I received the email reply below from 'permissions'....and I received confirmation on a 'talk' page that the 'deletion notice' for this image would be removed..... However, when I checked the page today the image had gone. I have uploaded it again, so could you please check that I have supplied enough information for it to remain... Thanks Sue
Original Message -----
From: "Permissions" To: [redacted] Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 3:12 PM Subject: Re: [Ticket#2009093010046424] re. image copyright —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cronk69 ( talk • contribs) 15:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear SUE WALLACE,
Thank you for your email.
09/30/2009 17:59 - [redacted] wrote:
> I have been told to email that I am the copyright owner of the following image > Rich_wiki.jpg > on > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Warren_(musician) > > I have amended the licensing details accordingly. > Thanks
Cronk69 (
talk) 12:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I made a short video yesterday, It is a 360 degree panorama of the views visible from Win hill pike,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Win_Hill
I wish to upload this video to the above page.
I am a new user and haven'g the foggiest idea what to do.
Please can you help me upload this video. Tom3t0 ( talk) 14:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand your answer.
I'd uploaded the image and emailed 'permissions' telling them I owned copyright. I received a reply from them and a message on a talk page saying that it was all ok and that the picture would not be deleted.
I found today that it had been deleted so I have uploaded it again ( commons:File:Rich wiki.jpg) and put it into the article Richard Warren (musician) with a different license. Could you please check that this is now correct. Thanks very much
(I have now emailed the following to 'permissions'):
> I hereby affirm that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive
> copyright of Rich_wiki.jpeg (ticket 2009093010046424)
>
> I agree to publish that work under the free license .Creative Commons
> Attribution ShareAlike 3.0
>
> I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial
> product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided
> that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
>
> I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right
> to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others
> make to the work will not be attributed to me.
>
> I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content
> may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
>
> SUE WALLACE
>
> CRONK69
> COPYRIGHT HOLDER
> 12/10/2009
Sue Cronk69 ( talk) 15:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
But he doesn't have a Myspace page? (One of his bands does, but this image is not on that site...) Cronk69 ( talk) 16:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
(Thanks for your help) Cronk69 ( talk) 16:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I have a postcard from France in the 1930s, with a photograph of a monument that was later unfortunately destroyed during World War II. I am unaware of any other available images of the structure, but would like to include an image of the postcard in the Wikipedia article that talks about the monument ( The White Bird). I'm fuzzy on French copyright in this case though. Would anyone know if the image is public domain at this point, or whether there's a good case for Fair Use as it's a historical image with no free equivalent? -- El on ka 22:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I've written a book. It's 95pp right now but could sure use a bunch of images to amplify points. I've looked at umpteen statements and notices and just can't get a handle on this. I surmise not all images on W.commons can be used in print, and if they can the attributions need to be in 47 formats according to the eleventeen license texts. Is there a short way I can (1) determine if I can use a particular image in print, and (2) use a common format for credits? I am the copyright holder of my book (so far). Many thanks in advance for your sage and succinct counsel on this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NCMeredith ( talk • contribs) 22:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
What is the reasoning behind this fair use rational?
2) It's used for a purpose that can't be fulfilled by free material (text or images, existing or to be created)
Couldn't nearly anything be created in the future as a free image? Is this the best rule for inclusion? Wikipedia does everything possible to insure that free images are used, and I understand, I also understand that there are certain rules for using non free images, however, this is unrealistic in my opinion. Waiting for an image that may or may not come along is irresponsible. We have a responsibility not only to the copyright holders, but to our users as well.
Specifically this is in regards to this image: File:Sarita impact.jpg. While it is true that at some point the image could be replaced by a free image, what are the chances of a image that truly meets our requirements could be found? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an excuse, but it does prove a point, how many images are on wikipedia from press events? How many of them could not be replaced by a picture taken by a wikipedia user? How many wikipedia users are walking around hollywood or anywhere else with stars.
Also, Im no copyright expert, but it seems that we are allowing people to bypass this rule anyway by allowing Flickr images on many articles, based just on looking at a few well known people, I can see promotional photos that someone has posted on Flickr, released it, and some user has uploaded here, so it can be freely used. Im not a lawyer, but if I had to guess, this wouldn't hold up in court, Thats not a legal threat, just my opinion. I dont see how this rule is helping the encyclopedia, merely hindering it. Sephiroth storm ( talk) 05:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out exactly what I need to do to include this old Gibson advertisement. I can't precisely date the photograph, but the instrument advertised was manufactured only between 1930 and 1933, so there's only a narrow range of possible dates. I'm sure copyright has lapsed, but how do I demonstrate that?— Kww( talk) 20:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I have taken a picture from inside the Colesseum which I think it might look good on your page, what is the procedure? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.155.116 ( talk • contribs) 14:18, 14 October 2009
The "Permission" section of File:Vlad Tepes 002.jpg bares the claim that "This is a faithful photographic reproduction of an original two-dimensional work of art. The work of art itself is in the public domain..."
I have no quarrel with the second claim – according to historians, the portrait was indeed painted in the later half of the sixteenth century. I do have a serious concern about permission to use this particular image, as it is not in fact "a faithful photographic reproduction" of the painting in question, since it has been cropped. More importantly, I have seen this cropping – and color balance – before. After a trip to the bookshelf, I compared the image on File:Vlad Tepes 002.jpg with the photograph of this painting that appears on the cover of Florescu and McNally's Dracula: Prince of Many Faces(copyright 1989 by the authors, published by Little, Brown and Company, ISBN 0-316-28655-9 (hc), ISBN 0-316-28656-7 (pb)).
Although the two are mirror images of one another, they are indeed identical in all other respects. It seems that someone made a high resolution scan of the image from the book's cover, and then the image was digitally reversed back to the orientation of the original painting.
I do not know what the legalities of this are here, but does this seem like copyright infringement to anyone else? BlueCerinthe ( talk) 05:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I bought a few very fine B&W photos taken in Ladakh (a couple of them hand-tinted) in 1981 from an elderly Kashmiri photographer living at that time in Leh, Ladakh. I gather he has since passed away - but I have no idea exactly when. When I bought them from him I was thinking of writing an article and using the photos in it - I mentioned this to him and he seemed very happy with the idea (of course, I said I would give him proper credit for the photos as I always do). However, I never got this in writing - nor did I write the article. I myself am now not that young (and not that well physically) and I would like to make them available in the public domain while I still can. I would like to upload them to Wikimedia Commons and use them in appropriate articles, if possible, so others can enjoy them too (and make it a requirement that they remain properly attributed). However, I have no idea what the laws are that might apply to them. Can you please tell me if this is possible - or, if not, what I might do to make sure they will be available in public when any copyright restrictions might run out? Many thanks in advance, John Hill ( talk) 13:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, in India, there is a procedure for licencing certain works by petition to the Copyright Office: "Where, in the case of an Indian work referred to in sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) of section 2 [i.e. the author was an Indian citizen when the work was created], the author is dead or unknown or cannot be traced, or the owner of the copyright in such work cannot be found, any person may apply to the Copyright Board for a licence to publish such work or a translation thereof in any language." (See Section 31A of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, and the Copyright Office website.) You'd have to clarify with the Copyright Office if they would allow it to be published as (for example) CC-BY-SA-3.0, or if they require that their own licence terms be used. Maybe there's an Indian Wikipedia user who might be able to assist with the administrative details? (This could involve publishing a notice in an English-language Indian newspaper, and paying a fee.) TheFeds 19:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you both for the detailed and very helpful information. I am in the process of composing a letter to the Registrar of Copyrights in New Delhi to ask him if there is any way the photos can be released and how I might go about getting written permission from the appropriate authority. Many thanks again for your generous help, John Hill ( talk) 02:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi I took a photo of an art exhibition in the United States. I'd like to upload the photo for the article in wikipedia about the this artist. Do I need permission from the artist or the art gallery (The Met museum, New York)? Thanks. Teine Savaii ( talk) 12:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
This question could actually be more interesting that that. After looking at the page, there is a findlaw article on the copyright status of the work itself. PDBailey ( talk) 02:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I found File:District-9_advertising_Canterbury_Tail_25_June_2009.jpg in the District 9 article, and noticed that it had been released under CC-BY-SA. I had some niggling doubts about its copyright status, since it is basically just an image of a poster, but deferred to the judgement of the uploader, and the fact that it is somewhat widely used here. However, when I uploaded a slightly modified version to commons, File:District-9_advertising.jpg, it was drive-by tagged for speedy deletion. Naturally, if that image is deemed to be a copyright violation, then so is the other. I was hoping someone here could provide an explanation why this is not a copyright violation. Thanks, decltype ( talk) 08:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what to do with this except delete it from the public page where it appeared and bring it here. It was taken from a book, uploaded to this link, and the rights given away. Skywriter ( talk) 00:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
Could I get a review of the use rationale on the above? Thanks in advance. MLauba ( talk) 08:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm just wondering whether I can use the image File:NSW Rural Fire Service.png as a part of a userbox, providing the resolution is extremely low (30px)?
Thanks. JustinSavidge ( talk) 12:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Currently looking at the article for John Mayer's new album Battle Studies and it currently has no album cover. He recently debuted it on his Twitter photo account (which is verified as being him) here: http://twitpic.com/lqtok
Now I know that album covers are permitted at a lower resolution so that they can't be used to replicate the album cover illegally, and I can fill in a good summary on the file page about how it's legal to post it, but the one doubt in my mind is with regards to the source I obtained it from. It's not the official label, it's from, essentially, Twitter (a verified account). Should I just wait until the label releases the image officially before uploading the file, or is it okay for me to do so now? I had a preliminary look and it doesn't appear to be on many sites yet.
Thanks for your help. Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 17:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi.
I got this message:
"Thank you for uploading File:NeutraliseIT.jpg. 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 file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Istcol (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Spillon"
1) If I created the image myself, why is copyright needed?
2) If I am meant to state something, how do I edit the copyright status of the image, I tried but couldn't find how to anywhere.
in wiki's article about stevie ray vaughn, the pic on the top right was made by John T. Commerford, and should be attributed to him. John is a noted rock-and-roll photographer,with a valuable portfolio of images. Unhappilly his images have been used many times without credit. Please fix this.
John Kelly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkkelly47 ( talk • contribs) 13:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Do we have any current consensus on the number of articles for which a fair-use rationale can be validly applied? I'm looking at File:FloridaGators.png, and it seems rather excessive, and contrary to the spirit of WP:NFCC policy. — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 20:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Would it be possible to use an image of a non-free album cover on my user page? TechnicolorNightmare 17:22, 18 October 2009 (Australia/Hobart)
I came across File:82nd WWI insignia.jpg while researching my own user page. It seems to be taken from a commercial web site without permission. I posted the details of what I found at Talk:82nd Airborne Division (United States).
It seems the three year old image still represents an item for sale at the commercial web site. The web site explicitly reserves its copyright in the page footer (see above Talk page for link). I found no evidence of use permission being asked or granted.
My concern is two-fold:
I also proposed nominating the image for a WP:FUR at the above-referenced Talk page, but I'm unclear how to proceed, so I'm asking questions here instead. :-) Thanks for your input. — Aladdin Sane ( talk) 02:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
If i uploaded a picture that i have taken off of google, how can I find a copyright for that image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The911venom ( talk • contribs) 22:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
What i guess you didn't understand is that iam trying to ask as to how i can verify it's source, link to it's source, verify it's copyright the copyright holder released it under, and how I can justify fair use. So if you can help me that would be great, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The911venom ( talk • contribs) 18:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay i think i got the hang of it i have posted 2 images i think that they are good, but one more question if an image says "all rights reserved" does that means i can't upload it to wikipedia common then to add to a bio. By that i mean if i upload a image of vince carter from flickr.com that says "all rights reserved", can i add that to his wikipedia bio page or would that be delete. 68.151.8.97 ( talk) 21:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)the911venom 68.151.8.97 ( talk) 21:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
To whom it may concern:
Bsck in 1993 I was given a hand made clock with two cards (A and J)on the left, in the middle is the clock (with the back ground a 12 noon heart, 3 o'clock club, 6 o'clock diamond & a 9 o'clock spand symbols), and the top right side is a red chip with a very large 'B' and around the B is the words; ROULETTE, top and bottom. On the bottom of the right side ia a red book of matches that reads: HOLIDAY CASINO, ON THE STRIP, BETWEEN SANDS & FLAMINGO HOTELS, address is as follows: 3473 LAS VEGAS BLVD, SOUTH LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89109 (all lettering is in white caps). The frame is AROUND: 2" wide (all around), with a clear glass front.
I have looked all over the internet to see if I could find any item and or casino that even came close to this hanging item, I did come very close to finding a casino on the strip in Las Vegas, which made me fill pretty good. I also found a little info that Holiday Inn bought the Holidy Casino out around the early 70's.
Could you please help me find out some info on this item. I thought that maybe a collector or someone would be insterested in buying it.
I just want to say thank you for your help either way.
Bess Wilkins trouble2uall5@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.134.33 ( talk) 09:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
The file File:Malin Akerman portrait.jpg appears to violate copyright of Cafe.se online magazine. The media description says it was uploaded from Flickr, but the description on Flickr said "... more at Cafe.se... " (paraphrase).
Doesn't this mean the image was lifted from the copyright holder and then posted at Flickr? That would make any claim of rights by the Flickr poster irrelevant as they do not own the image.
The original image, with the magazine's watermark intact, is at http://www.cafe.se/public/templates/v3bildspel.aspx?id=3365&fid=2219&level=4 It's not clear to me who actually owns the copyright on the image, since the Cafe website does not give attribution or copyright details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.48.50.155 ( talk) 10:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I have a question. On various coat of arm images of Canadian provinces, many of them were granted more than 50 years ago, but augmented in the 1990/1980s. Would this put them into the {{PD-Old)), because they were granted more than 50 years ago, or is copyright status renewed when augmented? Connormah ( talk) 13:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
The University of West Virginia "WV" logo ( File:WestVirginiaMountaineers.png) appears to me to qualify under {{ PD-textlogo}} and seems to have no copyright notices/claims associated with it, but User:Hammersoft has consistently disagreed and tagged this as copyrighted. If you could confirm whether this qualifies as {{ PD-textlogo}} I'd appreciate it. Answer on my talkpage if possible. Thanks. BillTunell ( talk) 21:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Can I use a trademark in my blog's name or in the title of a blog post?
- Yes, if it is relevant to the subject of your discussion and does not confuse people into thinking the trademark holder endorses your content. Courts have found that non-misleading use of trademarks in URLs and domain names of critical websites is fair. (Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp. v. Faber, URL http://www.compupix.com/ballysucks; Bosley Medical Institute v. Kremer, domain name www.bosleymedical.com). Companies can get particularly annoyed about these uses because they may make your post appear in search results relating to the company, but that doesn't give them a right to stop you.
- Sometimes, you might use a trademark without even knowing someone claims it as a trademark. That is permitted as long as you're not making commercial use in the same category of goods or services for which the trademark applies. Anyone can sell diesel fuel even though one company has trademarked DIESEL for jeans. Only holders of "famous" trademarks, like CocaCola, can stop use in all categories, but even they can't block non-commercial uses of their marks.
What kind of proof do you want that could possibly show this image (or any other image) is ineligible for copyright? — BQZip01 — talk 20:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Can the following painting, File:Phidias and the Frieze of the Parthenon.jpg, which is in public domain, be uploaded to Commons? JMK ( talk) 13:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The image File:Bareket_Telescope.jpg (recent photo) appears to have been emailed by its author to the GF WP editor user:Chagai, who then uploaded it for use in the article Bareket observatory.
There's an unverifiable text note and no OTRS on the image page:
The problem is that it has then been tagged with {{
PD-user-w|en|wikipedia|Chagai}}
and thus the text
"This image has been (or is hereby) released into the public domain by its creator,
Chagai."
I can see a few problems with this: "free for use" doesn't imply "public domain", secondly the author is mis-credited, thirdly we might have an issue that there's no traceability for this. I for one wouldn't want to have to deal with a future claim of infringement and be reliant on just this as an author's release. Isn't this what OTRS is for? Although I'm sure this example is genuine, imagine the potential for non-GF abuse if this way of working became de facto acceptable.
As an aside, the
Bareket observatory article has been problematic of late and needs to observe policy scrupulously, to avoid any risk of technical issues like this being used as a POV lever.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 15:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The article Steve Fairbairn is without a decent image. It uses a free image of a relief sculpture of his face instead. I propose adding the photo at the top of this page http://www.rowinghistory-aus.info/the-boat-race/index.php as the main image. It is low resolution, irreplaceable by free content, >50 years old, and only a portion of the whole is used (it is clearly a part of a larger team photograph). Does this qualify as fair-use?-- Yeti Hunter ( talk) 18:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Please can you tell me which licence is appropriate for File:MoReq2Paper.JPG given that it is the cover of a (free) publication of the European Commission, and given that the publication bears the following notices:
"Copyright European Communities, 2008 Reproduction authorised for non-commercial purposes, provided the source is acknowledged."
I have tried (really, really, tried )to work it out myself, without success.
Thank you for your advice
Marc Fresko (MMGarth) -- MMGarth ( talk) 08:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
hi, i need help for insert image/picture into my talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishnapyrmca ( talk • contribs) 10:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
i cant upload any files from wiki.is uploading files possible in wiki? can i upload files from wiki? i have logged in as wiki commons but still not working whats the problem? please find me a solution i have to present a presentation in my college.so,please help me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pramoohot ( talk • contribs) 13:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
sorry, this is the first time I have done this and do not understand the instructions on wikipedia.
please help me!
and please don't delete the image yet - I'm travelling over this weekend back across continents and will not get to my mails again till early next week!
The image I loaded was: Eknath Easwaran courtesy of the Blue Mountain Center of Meditation.jpg
I downloaded this off a website www.easwaran.org/media which gave permission to download the image provide a credit line was added
I can't see which category of copyright this is
cleary the image is copyright the Blue Mountain Center of Meditation, but it is neither "free" nor "non-free"
How should I handle this?
thanks!!! DuncanCraig1949 ( talk) 23:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Please tell me how I can upload a logo or a picture for my page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vancouverrob12 ( talk • contribs) 16:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Philippine Integrated National Police logo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatles eric ( talk • contribs) 16:37, 19 October 2009
Hi. I was wondering if I could upload images from a website under these [9] terms and conditions as non free images. The photos cannot be replaced as the sight is now buried making it impossible for me to take my own photos of it. There are schematics of the site and some historical artwork that I would like to us as well. The images come from this [10] page in the website and are located towards the bottom of it. If the sight is ever excavated I would simply take my own and use those. Cheers. ***Adam*** ( talk) 01:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
This photo appears to have been taken from this web site. Whatever the case, I would guess that it is not the user's own work so the pd tag is not correct. Copana2002 ( talk) 05:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Are miniature portraits ( example) considered two-dimensional art (not three dimensional) in the Bridgeman-Corel sense? I mean just the pictures, without its framing and all the trinkets. Some are flat, but others are prominently convex. NVO ( talk) 11:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
There's a new series of The Thick of It and I'd like to use the Press Office image in the episodes table. Is that acheivable? D B D 13:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I have located some CC-licensed images I would like to upload to illustrate an article. They are clearly marked as being under the Creative Commons Attributions Share-Alike 2.0 license. They're on the public web; anyone can verify their state. My plan is to upload the images to Wikipedia linking to both the original page and WebCited version of the page as clear evidence of the grant in perpetutity. Will that be enough? (The images in question are here, in the event that it matters.) — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Urbancanal_full.jpg and Kaineng City loading screen.jpg on the Guild Wars Wiki are both art for the Guild Wars video game series, and the latter is also an in-game screenshot of a loading screen. As the artist has stated in this interview that the images were inspired by Kowloon Walled City, I wish to use one of them in the Kowloon Walled City article as an example of the city's depiction in popular culture. However, I would like to first be sure that this is covered by the non-free 2D art template or (in the case of the latter) the non-free game screenshot template. Would either of these be acceptable? — tk tk tk 00:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
File:Kamloops-lCOA.png, the coat of arms of Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada was created in 1911, according to 1. Would this make this image public domain because of it's age? Connormah ( talk) 03:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
How can download an image from Wikipedia; specifically: File:Coat of arms of the Czech Republic.svg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamjmjones ( talk • contribs) 00:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering what would be the copyright of the letter at the top of this page (Letter from Wheeler Dryden to Edna Purviance): [11] It was sent to the US from India in 1917 and is currently held at the British Film Institute (London). Since it was sent before 1923, it seems it could be public domain, is that right? Laurent ( talk) 16:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I think a good amount of users, including myself, know that while it IS possible to upload images you didn't create, the copyright issue and process is too confusing/intimidating/complex. The result? A good portion of articles have no image at all.
What I want to know is if I can create a rough drawing of the object and upload that. I am a poor artist, but I think that a crude, microsoft paint made image of the object is better than no image at all. Fusion7 ( talk) 23:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Looking to add a photo of a generic product to an article. example of image (though mine won't have a white background, it'll be a photograph of one of those bottles). Would this qualify as fair use on the article for the product in question ( Colloidal silver)? The bottles are made by several different companies that all use the same label design, so I'm not sure if that makes a difference. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
This page says, "These images are in the public domain and are available for download and reproduction." The first three images are obviously fine, but all the rest are credited to state employees. Can I trust that the original owners have given up their copyrights in cases like this, and if so, which tag should I use? -- Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 03:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The question is about picture File:Gatlings2.jpg - I am confused which licence tag to use for this picture. The author is Evija Sidraba (my friend) and she allows to use this picture for free as far as her name is mentioned.-- Ingii ( talk) 10:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Having just discovered this page (it's amazing how many years you can be on WP and still discover new places) I'll ask a question that has come up from time to time. Namely: when placing an audio link on a page, is it necessary (for attribution purposes) to have a link to that file's information page alongside the Media: link to play the sound file? What laws/licensing terms are applicable here? If it's required, what is the minimum form the link label should take (for example, is "info" OK? how about just "i"?) And does it have to be right next to the Media: link? If so, how close? (I know any answers to this will be personal interpretation, but still I'd like to hear some views.)-- Kotniski ( talk) 20:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
OK let me clarify: there are several templates like {{ Audlisten}} which produce something like this: . For giving links to recorded pronunciation within text, this is ideal - compact and to the point. However some people claim there's a legal necessity to design the template so as to include a link to the description as well. My question is whether they are right (and why), and if so, how unobtrusive is that link allowed to be.-- Kotniski ( talk) 07:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
So I guess the answer to this question is "don't know"? Is there anywhere else I might try asking?-- Kotniski ( talk) 10:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Are images from DOCUMERICA public domain? Our article says that they were produced by photographers under contract with the EPA, a US government agency, so it sounds as if its photos are similar to HABS images that are sometimes taken by contractors. Conversely, I just discovered this DOCUMERA image on Flickr, and it's tagged with a free CC license, but not shown as PD. Nyttend ( talk) 01:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I would like to know on what grounds I am asked for copyright information for three images of paintings that I have posted to the page "Houben R.T." I own the rights to these images; I have posted them more than once and more than once they have been proposed for deletion. I work for Houben's studio and all of the paintings are shot with his camera.
How should I mark these images so that they are no longer proposed for deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdg2118 ( talk • contribs) 01:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
{{Non-free fair use in|Houben R.T.}}
. Keep in mind
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (if that applies) and that Wikipedia's policy is to minimise non-free content so one rather than three fair use image would be better.--
Commander Keane (
talk) 02:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)The text indicates an Erfle eyepiece has 5 elements. In Chris Lord's "Evolution of the Astronomical Eyepiece" page 36, the generally accepted variant of the Erfle are: ERFLÉ I - A 1-2-2 design having a 60° field but eye relief only 0.3Fe. The glasses used were SF2, PSK3, FK5 and SF10. ERFLÉ II - A 2-1-2 design using the same glass types having a 70° field and 0.6Fe eye clearance. Patented after Erflé’s death in 1923. ERFLÉ III - A 1-2-2 design using the same glass types having a 55° field and eye clearance of 0.32Fe. Patented after Erflé’s death in 1923.
The image shown is a 6 element eyepiece which is a Modified Erfle which is much closer to the KASPEREIT - A modification of Erflé’s designs by Kaspereit having a 2-2-2 for m, giving fields in excess of 68° and eye r elief 0.3Fe+. The glasses used in modern variants are SF2, BK7, SK20 and SF10. Some W.W.II (World War II) variants using Thorium or Uranium glass have fields wider than 70°.
I would suggest using an image which more correctly depicts one of the generally accepted Erfle designs such as the Erfle I or Erfle II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.96.96 ( talk) 05:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
The image File:Wpt.gif has blatantly been lifted from here, and is obviously not the authors original creation (other than they've changed the colouring.) How do we go about getting it properly flagged and removed from commons? And File:Goggles.jpg blatantly from here. Canterbury Tail talk 12:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
{{copyvio|url}}
to the image description page on Commons, replacing url
with the URL from which you think it was copied. I've already done this for the two images you mentioned.
Physchim62
(talk) 13:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)One Commons administrator and one Wikipedia administator states Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kerry slug/archive2, that images in Kerry slug article are incorrectly tagged. It would be alarming situation, if these administrators are not correct. Could someone add a short note to the FAC review, please? -- Snek01 ( talk) 21:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Can somebody check out the OTRS tag on File:StarAirServiceIreneIrvine.jpg. It says, “Permission has been received from the copyright holder to license this material under Fair Use.” I can’t figure out what that could possibly mean: I thought fair use was use without permission. — teb728 t c 00:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Can a creator of a work withdraw permission for use after he's released it into the public domain? I'm wondering about Fiskeharrison's actions. -- NeilN talk ♦ contribs 17:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
NB As I have said elsewhere, I did not have the right to release these images into the public domain in the first place. I erroneously rushed through the upload process to get them up there without properly reading the small print and did so in contravention to the wishes of the copyright owners. Therefore I am not 'withdrawing permission' so much as trying to prevent Wikipedia, and myself, from continuing this breach of copyright law. -- Fiskeharrison ( talk) 15:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea how these permission things work and merely tried to tick the correct boxes as quickly as I could, for which I apologise. My headshot, by Marco Windham, has permission - purchased when I purchased the headshot. The photograph 'Before The Duel' from the play, by Matt Jamie, has permission recently negotiated in my capacity as producer of that production of the play - the others from that play do not. This isalso true of the Pendulum flier, designed by Andy Cooke with photograph by Matt Jamie. I have no permission for this form of reproduction (I thought I did as I had the right to print it for the play as producer - I did not realise they had retained electronic rights). Best Cape is a detail of a photo by Nicolas Haro for which I have negotiated permission (he works with me on my book 'The Last Arena'.) However, I had forgotten his image of Cayetano, for which I do not have permission to license in this way (although I do to place it on my blog). Please delete that one. -- Fiskeharrison ( talk) 17:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Browsing through recent changes I came across a large chunk of text taken from WikiTravel. This site is licensed CC-BY-SA-1.0. At first I thought this was okay, but after thinking I began to wonder if it was actually compatible or not.
According to CreativeCommons themselves an "or any later version" clause did not appear until 2.0. (Share Alike Across Borders section). Furthermore it says The version 1.0 licenses required that derivative be published under the exact same license only.
Since 1.0 does not equal 3.0, you cannot add this text to wikipedia as contributions cannot be re-licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and the GFDL.
Unfortunately to add to the confusion the FAQ says this is fine, can anybody clarify? Q T C 05:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
←Just thought I'd add a bit of context here, because the question and the way they're asked can make a big difference. :) I presume you all know that I can't post Mike's e-mails here, but I can post mine (I hereby authorize me to do so :D). These are the two e-mails I sent him (well, the two that matter. In the third, I just said thanks.)
Extended content
|
---|
|
I have resisted the urge to clean up my glaring typo. Rereading his (brief) e-mails, I see I have misattributed the word "subset" to him; the word he used was "superset." -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
It's a screenshot from the Roblox Outrageous Builders Club page (make sure you click the icon with yellow and black hardhat!) Where could I get permission? Jeremjay 24 21:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Please help me to determine an appropriate licence. I have made multiple attempts to upload an image for Jane Aagaard but have had them all rejected and deleted. The image is of the Hon. Jane Aagaard MLA, who is the Speaker of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly in Australia. The image is owned by the Northern Territory Government and is a publicity photo provided as part of a media release from the Department of Legislative Assembly, NT Government. It's location was brought to my attention by the office of Jane Aagaard. It would seem to me to be a no-brainer that the NT Government intends this to be used and everybody bar WP is using it freely but after expending an enormous amount of time searching through WP I can see no appropriate licence. What should I do? As far as I can see, which may not be very far right now, Jane Aagarde herself would be unable to make this stick. I note that the US Government pictures are all available for use once they have placed them in the public domain and there is a USG Licence template just for this. I am sure that Australia and most of the western world are exactly the same. Help. E x nihil ( talk) 05:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Image on Page " Diogo Andrade" is not copyrighted, was taken by me. What should I do in order not ot be deleted? Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmdma ( talk • contribs) 11:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
The Little Outfit Schoolhouse was added to the National Register of Historic Places (Santa Cruz County, Arizona) early in 2009. I want to add an image of the schoolhouse to the Wikipedia page. I have characterized the image as being in the public domain with no constraint on its usage but one of the monitors has removed the image saying no proof has been shown that the image is, in fact, in the public domain. I have two questions:
1) Is my proof (see below) sufficient?
2)If my proof is sufficient, how and where do I post the proof (or the conclusion that the proof is sufficient) so that other monitors can will see it and not remove the image again?
My case that the image is in the public domain is that it has been copied from a school brochure which was published in 1943 (or close thereto)by a private school advertising the benefits of the school. I led the effort to have this school (schoolhouse) put on the U.S. Government's National Register of Historic Places so I have made a thorough study of the school's history and what is available as photographs or documents to make the case for inclusion on the register. The school closed as a school in 1950, the owners sold the ranch, school records and files were discarded, and the last of the owners died in 1980. I have talked to the two surviving children of the owners and there are no claims to rights on any of the schools properties. The photograph in question was probably taken by Charles Herbert, an uncle of one of the students when I was there myself in the mid-40s. Herbert was a well known photographer and left a large collection of his work. When he died in 1976 his company, Western Ways, closed its doors. When Herbert's wive died the company's records were donated to the Arizona Historical Society. The Society has given me a complete set of its photographs of the Little Outfit taken by Herbert and the image I have chosen to include is not among them. In several years of hunting for Little Outfit memorabilia I have never encountered anyone other than the Arizona Historical Society who has claimed rights to such objects related to the Little Outfit. My conclusion is that there is no "ownership" of any kind associated with this image and that anyone is free to use it as they will. Thank you for your help in resolving this matter -- I look forward to your directions on how I (we?) should make the above proof more generally available.
Durward3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Durward3 ( talk • contribs) 19:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Greetings, ESKog has deleted all of the football helmets I uploaded for use on the football pages. Permission to use these helmets was granted by the copyright holder. What is the problem? Msr iaidoka ( talk) 16:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I've gone through and deleted, under WP:F7 the helmets that were tagged as non-free logos. There were about 5 files that lacked any copyright information, and they have been tagged accordingly. The rest of the helmet files uploaded by Msr iiaidoka are still tagged as non-free, but I believe that they may qualify for PD-text logos + the license of the helmet illustration copyright holder (per the forthcoming OTRS). These images need to have the FUR removed, and a new license tag applied to them, per the OTRS e-mail. I do not know how they are being licensed, so I have not done this myself. Right now they are inappropriately tagged. I hope someone can go through and fix them. Thanks. - Andrew c [talk] 15:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Is the picture at Deutsches SOFIA Institut of SOFIA copyrighted, or is it a work of NASA that we could use? Smallman12q ( talk) 13:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd also like to know whether the photos and videos at these two sites are copyrighted...
Thankyou. Smallman12q ( talk) 13:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I have been shown this photograph, which is of my daughter. Wiki seems to show that I, myself shared this photo and granted copyright use. I did not. This photo is copyrighted as part of a book, and I do NOT grant free use of it to anyone. You may continue to use the photograph, but NOT with a free use permission. If you cannot assert my copyright, please remove the photo. Michelle Harmon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mome23kjnc ( talk • contribs) 20:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
File:Radioshack-logo.svg has both "non-free logo" and "ineligible text logo" templates on it. The logo consists of the text "RadioShack" in a fairly generic sans-serif face and a large registered trademark (®) sign. Which template actually applies? -- Damian Yerrick ( talk | stalk) 14:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I have a question. I'm trying to make a page for Kris Williams (actress) and put up a jpg of her. Now I don't know what the copyright is on the picture being she emailed me the photo directly. What should I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisdlr ( talk • contribs) 02:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
User:Citizen-of-wiki has uploaded three videos about Operation Mar Lewe: File:Operation-Mar-Lewe-Part-1.ogv, File:Operation-Mar-Lewe-Part-2.ogv and File:Operation-Mar-Lewe-Part-3.ogv. The editor has given them a PD-USGov licence. However, they appear to be from a NATO website and have NATO logos on. Is this a copyright infringement? Cordless Larry ( talk) 23:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
To use at the article Turkish Airlines Flight 452, I intend to upload an image of the Turkish newspaper Hürriyet from September 20, 1976 found on the website [1]? Question: may I do it without any problem? CeeGee ( talk) 06:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
What information I have to add File:Street in old Kond.jpg to use it without any problem. Thank you.-- Hovik95 ( talk) 22:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I've been told I need copyrights for these 3 photos from our family album. I changed the descriptions adding this information: The first 2 were taken by Bill Simon's cousin Arnold Simon. The 3rd was taken by his wife who gave permission. I'm totally confused about how to proceed. Please help. File:Billinitaly.jpg, File:Youngbillsimon.jpg and File:Billsmallbw.jpg. 22:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Simonfamily ( talk
Kendra Jade Rossi has asked me to create and upload a Wikipedia page for her. I have two images that she owns that I want to add to the article. May I upload it as though it were her doing it? She does not have the time to do this task.
One is an image of a painting that she recently did. It is currently posted on her Facebook page: [2]
The other is a professional image of herself that she owns.
There is a third image that I will add in the future. Getting in touch with the copyright owner now.
How would you suggest that I handle the categorization of these three images?
fransi ( talk) 01:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)fransi kaye
Just five minutes before, I have uploaded one file named Datta.jpg for my user account Prof. D. S. Vidyasagar. Its my own photograph. I quoted the reason for its uploading and have selected the licensing option to 'own work, release into public domain'. But still the speedy deletion tag on the image is not removed. Please help. --Prof. D. S. Vidyasagar 04:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of File:P-roll.gif was suggested because of use of unsatisfactory tag. This promotional material is obviously more than 100 years old, because the product became obsolete commercially then. Accordingly, any copyright should have expired. Can you please suggest an appropriate template or tag? PraeceptorIP ( talk) 18:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Every time I upload an image, somebody comes along and deletes it.
I upload it and put it to the public domain all over the description. I follow the instructions EXACTLY, and I put them in the public domain exactly as described. Then somebody comes along and deletes my public domain image. I am reminded that 'Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously'. Seriously enough not to read the copyright apparently.
It seems that every time I try to contribute to a subject, I find that I have transgressed on somebody's private little fiefdom where they are trying to get some sort of reward. Or I've transgressed on somebody's public relations effort. Or something.
I thought my images were really cool and added substantially to the articles. I have concluded that despite the potential value of my contributions, I simply don't have time to try to 'learn' anything new. If somebody doesn't tell me what I'm doing wrong and do it really fast, I'm done.
Any responses should be put on my talk page as I am not sure I can remember how to get back to this page.
--
KTrimble (
talk) 03:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I came across File:RuncuGjmap.jpg which appears to be a photo of a map (maybe?) is that legit or not? PDBailey ( talk) 00:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Given that the cover of the book in this image consists of simple geographical shapes, colours, and textual elements, would it (were it cropped to remove the spine and the copyrighted elements thereon) qualify as free content under {{ PD-text}}? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
In #3 of Wikipedia:NFC#Images it states simply, "Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not its subject." However, it seems that this rule is too restrictive in that it does not take into consideration the intent and purpose of commemorative stamps, U.S. and foreign, namely to commemorate some person or event. Therefore, in an article about Albert Einstein, for example, one would not be allowed to use a stamp image to support his notability or the obvious fact that a government has dedicated and commemorated his achievements by putting his image on a postage stamp, one of the greatest honors that a government bestows.
By extension of rule #3, it would likewise be unacceptable to show an image of a statue of Einstein, unless the article was about that statue. Same would apply for a fair use photo of a building, baseball field, airport, street sign, or photo of a Nobel Prize, unless the article was about those things, "not its subject." A fair use photo of Thomas Jefferson's image on Mt. Rushmore would be unacceptable unless the article was about Mt. Rushmore.
I'm aware that U.S. stamps since 1978 have copyrights, but those copyrights offer no more "rights" to the holder than any other copyright. The image on the stamp is meant to be displayed publicly whenever it's put on an envelope. Therefore, because of the commemorative nature of many stamps I propose that the rule be changed to allow the subject of the stamp to be considered relevant, and not denied value, when allowing for its fair use. See also Commemorative Stamps for more facts. -- Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 00:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I recently emailed, and got a reply from, the archives of the Portuguese BNP about their scans of images, which they seem to claim ownership over:
In a general way, the digitized works available on BND (on the internet) are public contents [domain], which means that are not protected by copyright and related rights.
However, digital images are owned by the BNP. Permission to use these images is usually granted, but must be requested for each publication. The publications should refer to the source of images (BNP).
Given recent developments, are we on certain ground using images like this? Is there a breach of contract at play here? Thanks, - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 17:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
This may be one of those sweat of the brow countries. The US, does not enforce the idea of re-gaining protection on public domain works simply because they were digitally imported. ViperSnake151 Talk 02:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I've been searching for a picture of John for a while and I have finally located one at www.dudziarz.e12.pl but I have no idea what it's copyright status may be. Please help.-- Kthapelo ( talk) 19:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Not to be complaining, but it would really help to have SPECIFIC and less OBSCURE directions on meeting whatever "copyright" media requirements you want when telling someone that they haven't met said requirements. The instructions lead to lots of places, lots of templates, little explanation.
THe file mentioned above was created by me for a specific company and is used in an Infobox on a page I created for that company, as directed to do so that company (Juniper Advisory).
What else is needed? Please advise. It is a low resolution logo used to identify the company in an Infobox. An email address to me was also added so that use of the image can be verified if needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dayna Kirk ( talk • contribs) 18:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I want to upload an image of a character from a children's picture book. I assume that Template:Non-free 2D art is the right license to use, but it doesn't seem to appear on the list of licenses on the file upload form. Of course I could upload it license-less and then add it by hand, but I thought I'd check here if its absence from the list meant anything special. So: does it? Olaf Davis ( talk) 18:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I would like to use this image. However, the page for the uploader ow owner has already been deleted. How can I get his/her permission.
Also, if I get the permission, what do I need to do to properly cite wikipedia/wikimedia on my site? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.28.212.253 ( talk) 13:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I have just added 'source' details for a photo I uploaded File:Rich_wiki.jpg; is this correct and enough to prevent it being taken down? Thanks Cronk69 ( talk) 14:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm not that good with images, so I wanted to ask here. Take the example at File:Irish penny coin.png for example. A new editor tagged it for speedy deletion, claiming that the coin is copyrighted and as such, an image of it is a violation of copyright. I think the image of a coin is not a reproduction of the coin but by itself a new work of art and thus not violating the copyright as remanufacturing such a coin would. Could someone clear this up for me? Regards So Why 20:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, I took a picture of my own car without the reg or anything else on it, however it has been marked for deletion, It states a copyright issue but im not sure what copyright tag to put on it. Can anybody help me on this matter? In short what is the exact tag I put into the page to cover that it is my own photograph of my own object and i do give consent for anyone and everyone to use it? Many thanks -Larry Ceb ( talk) 04:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I received a message on my talk page about File:Bianca_c_ship.jpg but after reading the information about providing a rationale, I'm more confused than before. It's the only picture available of this somewhat obscure ship before it was wrecked. I obtained permission from the copyright holder back in 2006 to use it in Wikipedia. How do I put that information into a rationale template? - Etoile ( talk) 12:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I previously released all of my images to the public domain, but have since realized I would at least like recognition if they are ever used elsewhere... I began be researching which tag I should use, and decided upon {{ Cc-by-sa-3.0}}... Am I correct in assuming that this license allows anyone, anywhere, to use the image, just so long as they attribute it to me? Also, how would I go about changing the license on File:White Mitsubishi 3000GT front.jpg, which has since been moved to Commons? - Adolphus79 ( talk) 14:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Does this image have a sufficient fair-use rationale? I think that it's an acceptable fair-use, as it depicts one deceased person (out of five) and two members who are no longer with the band (particularly the lead singer). Literally all of the band's Top 40 hits were under the lineup in this picture. I would think that this would fall under "notability rest[ing] in large part on their earlier visual appearance," so I'm taking this here to make sure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I am working with someone to be able to use a large number of photographs on wikipedia. However, the creator (whose photos are on flickr) is uncomfortable with the provisions in the license that allow users to alter the work. He has no problems with anyone cropping, resizing, adjusting, or modifying photographs in ways that don't change what's depicted, but he doesn't want any mal-use. Is there a flickr license that would allow this? Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr seems to suggest no. Michael miceli ( talk) 03:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Who says that in Germany aair-taken pic can not be copyrighted? That's absolutely wrong. They can and this one is! It was illegally downloaded from a website where All rights are reserved. Or my someone tell me the exact law in which is written that I am wrong -- Münzberg ( talk) 19:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
this is regardin a discussion here last week (maybe 2 weeks ago) about the Bum Bright article being 90% copy-paste copyright violation.... so someone deleted the entire article. but there were actually one or two paragraphs about his sports dealings that were not copyvio they were ordinary work by an editor, with citations. it could have simply been made a stub. i would fix it myself but again its conflict of interest due to me being a distant blood relation. Decora ( talk) 17:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
What is the procedure for dealing with files which have been tagged as CC 3.0, but have bold copyright labels attached. For example, File:Hellhighwater2logo copy.jpg. I tagged it per CSD, but I wasn't sure if I tagged it correctly, or if I am wrong to tag it. Thanks. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I had thought that copyright on music in the U.S. was - to use a technically precise term - all fucked up. In checking out the Bix recordings on the Internet Archives I see "Public Domain" all over the place. Can we trust this and use these recordings? Internet Archive seems to be a pretty trustworthy organization, but thought I'd better ask first. Smallbones ( talk) 22:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
This file ( File:Torchlight help red.png),which is licensed as public domain, is a derivative of File:Torchlight help.png, which is licensed with GNUGPL. Can a derivative of GNUGPL be released under public domain? Smallman12q ( talk) 12:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Would anyone mind explaining to me how the copyright status of flags works, especially flags of non-governmental political groups? It seems like wikipedia considers all flags to be public domain, even flags of non-governmental groups or movements that were created recently (e.g., File:PFLP flag smoothed.svg), which doesn't make sense to me. Prezbo ( talk) 21:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I've recently created the article 1962 Turkish Airlines Taurus Mountains crash, which is about the aircraft with tail number TC-KOP. I discovered an image of this aircraft at [4] and asked the website's owner for permission to use the picture at en:wikipedia. A copy of our conversation is posted below, where my real name and mail address are replaced by my username:
[Emails removed]
Question: May I upload an image of the TC-KOP from that website? If yes, what copyright tag must I add and how must I credit the picture's owner? I appreciate your advise. CeeGee ( talk) 14:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I have been having trouble finding a clear answer in regard to this question, so I thought that this would be an appropriate place to ask. If not, then I apologize.
I would like to upload photos of the members of the band Scale the Summit that I took while watching them on the Progressive Nation Tour about two months ago. I feel that they would add greatly to the article concerning the band. I would like to publish them into the public domain, however, I do not know if they would qualify. I would like to know this before I upload them so that if they can be published into the public domain I can upload them directly into the Commons. Thank you in advance for your help. Cs.Ps. ( talk) 19:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
if I republish an image, under GNU or GFDL, are others allowed to make money from it? they can in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License but they's have to make the image available freely?
Thanks Notpayingthepsychiatrist ( talk) 23:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
1. What copyright tags should I give for a picture that is taken by a friend of mine who has given permission to me? Is it correct to put {{ cc-by-sa}} tag? 2. If I upload a picture that I just take/download from a website, what should I do to clear it from copyright problems/so that it doesn't become object of speedy deletion? Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoko santoso ( talk • contribs) 05:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Last week I received the email reply below from 'permissions'....and I received confirmation on a 'talk' page that the 'deletion notice' for this image would be removed..... However, when I checked the page today the image had gone. I have uploaded it again, so could you please check that I have supplied enough information for it to remain... Thanks Sue
Original Message -----
From: "Permissions" To: [redacted] Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 3:12 PM Subject: Re: [Ticket#2009093010046424] re. image copyright —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cronk69 ( talk • contribs) 15:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear SUE WALLACE,
Thank you for your email.
09/30/2009 17:59 - [redacted] wrote:
> I have been told to email that I am the copyright owner of the following image > Rich_wiki.jpg > on > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Warren_(musician) > > I have amended the licensing details accordingly. > Thanks
Cronk69 (
talk) 12:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I made a short video yesterday, It is a 360 degree panorama of the views visible from Win hill pike,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Win_Hill
I wish to upload this video to the above page.
I am a new user and haven'g the foggiest idea what to do.
Please can you help me upload this video. Tom3t0 ( talk) 14:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand your answer.
I'd uploaded the image and emailed 'permissions' telling them I owned copyright. I received a reply from them and a message on a talk page saying that it was all ok and that the picture would not be deleted.
I found today that it had been deleted so I have uploaded it again ( commons:File:Rich wiki.jpg) and put it into the article Richard Warren (musician) with a different license. Could you please check that this is now correct. Thanks very much
(I have now emailed the following to 'permissions'):
> I hereby affirm that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive
> copyright of Rich_wiki.jpeg (ticket 2009093010046424)
>
> I agree to publish that work under the free license .Creative Commons
> Attribution ShareAlike 3.0
>
> I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial
> product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided
> that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
>
> I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right
> to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others
> make to the work will not be attributed to me.
>
> I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content
> may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
>
> SUE WALLACE
>
> CRONK69
> COPYRIGHT HOLDER
> 12/10/2009
Sue Cronk69 ( talk) 15:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
But he doesn't have a Myspace page? (One of his bands does, but this image is not on that site...) Cronk69 ( talk) 16:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
(Thanks for your help) Cronk69 ( talk) 16:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I have a postcard from France in the 1930s, with a photograph of a monument that was later unfortunately destroyed during World War II. I am unaware of any other available images of the structure, but would like to include an image of the postcard in the Wikipedia article that talks about the monument ( The White Bird). I'm fuzzy on French copyright in this case though. Would anyone know if the image is public domain at this point, or whether there's a good case for Fair Use as it's a historical image with no free equivalent? -- El on ka 22:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I've written a book. It's 95pp right now but could sure use a bunch of images to amplify points. I've looked at umpteen statements and notices and just can't get a handle on this. I surmise not all images on W.commons can be used in print, and if they can the attributions need to be in 47 formats according to the eleventeen license texts. Is there a short way I can (1) determine if I can use a particular image in print, and (2) use a common format for credits? I am the copyright holder of my book (so far). Many thanks in advance for your sage and succinct counsel on this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NCMeredith ( talk • contribs) 22:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
What is the reasoning behind this fair use rational?
2) It's used for a purpose that can't be fulfilled by free material (text or images, existing or to be created)
Couldn't nearly anything be created in the future as a free image? Is this the best rule for inclusion? Wikipedia does everything possible to insure that free images are used, and I understand, I also understand that there are certain rules for using non free images, however, this is unrealistic in my opinion. Waiting for an image that may or may not come along is irresponsible. We have a responsibility not only to the copyright holders, but to our users as well.
Specifically this is in regards to this image: File:Sarita impact.jpg. While it is true that at some point the image could be replaced by a free image, what are the chances of a image that truly meets our requirements could be found? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an excuse, but it does prove a point, how many images are on wikipedia from press events? How many of them could not be replaced by a picture taken by a wikipedia user? How many wikipedia users are walking around hollywood or anywhere else with stars.
Also, Im no copyright expert, but it seems that we are allowing people to bypass this rule anyway by allowing Flickr images on many articles, based just on looking at a few well known people, I can see promotional photos that someone has posted on Flickr, released it, and some user has uploaded here, so it can be freely used. Im not a lawyer, but if I had to guess, this wouldn't hold up in court, Thats not a legal threat, just my opinion. I dont see how this rule is helping the encyclopedia, merely hindering it. Sephiroth storm ( talk) 05:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out exactly what I need to do to include this old Gibson advertisement. I can't precisely date the photograph, but the instrument advertised was manufactured only between 1930 and 1933, so there's only a narrow range of possible dates. I'm sure copyright has lapsed, but how do I demonstrate that?— Kww( talk) 20:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I have taken a picture from inside the Colesseum which I think it might look good on your page, what is the procedure? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.155.116 ( talk • contribs) 14:18, 14 October 2009
The "Permission" section of File:Vlad Tepes 002.jpg bares the claim that "This is a faithful photographic reproduction of an original two-dimensional work of art. The work of art itself is in the public domain..."
I have no quarrel with the second claim – according to historians, the portrait was indeed painted in the later half of the sixteenth century. I do have a serious concern about permission to use this particular image, as it is not in fact "a faithful photographic reproduction" of the painting in question, since it has been cropped. More importantly, I have seen this cropping – and color balance – before. After a trip to the bookshelf, I compared the image on File:Vlad Tepes 002.jpg with the photograph of this painting that appears on the cover of Florescu and McNally's Dracula: Prince of Many Faces(copyright 1989 by the authors, published by Little, Brown and Company, ISBN 0-316-28655-9 (hc), ISBN 0-316-28656-7 (pb)).
Although the two are mirror images of one another, they are indeed identical in all other respects. It seems that someone made a high resolution scan of the image from the book's cover, and then the image was digitally reversed back to the orientation of the original painting.
I do not know what the legalities of this are here, but does this seem like copyright infringement to anyone else? BlueCerinthe ( talk) 05:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I bought a few very fine B&W photos taken in Ladakh (a couple of them hand-tinted) in 1981 from an elderly Kashmiri photographer living at that time in Leh, Ladakh. I gather he has since passed away - but I have no idea exactly when. When I bought them from him I was thinking of writing an article and using the photos in it - I mentioned this to him and he seemed very happy with the idea (of course, I said I would give him proper credit for the photos as I always do). However, I never got this in writing - nor did I write the article. I myself am now not that young (and not that well physically) and I would like to make them available in the public domain while I still can. I would like to upload them to Wikimedia Commons and use them in appropriate articles, if possible, so others can enjoy them too (and make it a requirement that they remain properly attributed). However, I have no idea what the laws are that might apply to them. Can you please tell me if this is possible - or, if not, what I might do to make sure they will be available in public when any copyright restrictions might run out? Many thanks in advance, John Hill ( talk) 13:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, in India, there is a procedure for licencing certain works by petition to the Copyright Office: "Where, in the case of an Indian work referred to in sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) of section 2 [i.e. the author was an Indian citizen when the work was created], the author is dead or unknown or cannot be traced, or the owner of the copyright in such work cannot be found, any person may apply to the Copyright Board for a licence to publish such work or a translation thereof in any language." (See Section 31A of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, and the Copyright Office website.) You'd have to clarify with the Copyright Office if they would allow it to be published as (for example) CC-BY-SA-3.0, or if they require that their own licence terms be used. Maybe there's an Indian Wikipedia user who might be able to assist with the administrative details? (This could involve publishing a notice in an English-language Indian newspaper, and paying a fee.) TheFeds 19:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you both for the detailed and very helpful information. I am in the process of composing a letter to the Registrar of Copyrights in New Delhi to ask him if there is any way the photos can be released and how I might go about getting written permission from the appropriate authority. Many thanks again for your generous help, John Hill ( talk) 02:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi I took a photo of an art exhibition in the United States. I'd like to upload the photo for the article in wikipedia about the this artist. Do I need permission from the artist or the art gallery (The Met museum, New York)? Thanks. Teine Savaii ( talk) 12:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
This question could actually be more interesting that that. After looking at the page, there is a findlaw article on the copyright status of the work itself. PDBailey ( talk) 02:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I found File:District-9_advertising_Canterbury_Tail_25_June_2009.jpg in the District 9 article, and noticed that it had been released under CC-BY-SA. I had some niggling doubts about its copyright status, since it is basically just an image of a poster, but deferred to the judgement of the uploader, and the fact that it is somewhat widely used here. However, when I uploaded a slightly modified version to commons, File:District-9_advertising.jpg, it was drive-by tagged for speedy deletion. Naturally, if that image is deemed to be a copyright violation, then so is the other. I was hoping someone here could provide an explanation why this is not a copyright violation. Thanks, decltype ( talk) 08:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what to do with this except delete it from the public page where it appeared and bring it here. It was taken from a book, uploaded to this link, and the rights given away. Skywriter ( talk) 00:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
Could I get a review of the use rationale on the above? Thanks in advance. MLauba ( talk) 08:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm just wondering whether I can use the image File:NSW Rural Fire Service.png as a part of a userbox, providing the resolution is extremely low (30px)?
Thanks. JustinSavidge ( talk) 12:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Currently looking at the article for John Mayer's new album Battle Studies and it currently has no album cover. He recently debuted it on his Twitter photo account (which is verified as being him) here: http://twitpic.com/lqtok
Now I know that album covers are permitted at a lower resolution so that they can't be used to replicate the album cover illegally, and I can fill in a good summary on the file page about how it's legal to post it, but the one doubt in my mind is with regards to the source I obtained it from. It's not the official label, it's from, essentially, Twitter (a verified account). Should I just wait until the label releases the image officially before uploading the file, or is it okay for me to do so now? I had a preliminary look and it doesn't appear to be on many sites yet.
Thanks for your help. Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 17:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi.
I got this message:
"Thank you for uploading File:NeutraliseIT.jpg. 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 file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Istcol (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Spillon"
1) If I created the image myself, why is copyright needed?
2) If I am meant to state something, how do I edit the copyright status of the image, I tried but couldn't find how to anywhere.
in wiki's article about stevie ray vaughn, the pic on the top right was made by John T. Commerford, and should be attributed to him. John is a noted rock-and-roll photographer,with a valuable portfolio of images. Unhappilly his images have been used many times without credit. Please fix this.
John Kelly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkkelly47 ( talk • contribs) 13:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Do we have any current consensus on the number of articles for which a fair-use rationale can be validly applied? I'm looking at File:FloridaGators.png, and it seems rather excessive, and contrary to the spirit of WP:NFCC policy. — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 20:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Would it be possible to use an image of a non-free album cover on my user page? TechnicolorNightmare 17:22, 18 October 2009 (Australia/Hobart)
I came across File:82nd WWI insignia.jpg while researching my own user page. It seems to be taken from a commercial web site without permission. I posted the details of what I found at Talk:82nd Airborne Division (United States).
It seems the three year old image still represents an item for sale at the commercial web site. The web site explicitly reserves its copyright in the page footer (see above Talk page for link). I found no evidence of use permission being asked or granted.
My concern is two-fold:
I also proposed nominating the image for a WP:FUR at the above-referenced Talk page, but I'm unclear how to proceed, so I'm asking questions here instead. :-) Thanks for your input. — Aladdin Sane ( talk) 02:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
If i uploaded a picture that i have taken off of google, how can I find a copyright for that image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The911venom ( talk • contribs) 22:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
What i guess you didn't understand is that iam trying to ask as to how i can verify it's source, link to it's source, verify it's copyright the copyright holder released it under, and how I can justify fair use. So if you can help me that would be great, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The911venom ( talk • contribs) 18:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay i think i got the hang of it i have posted 2 images i think that they are good, but one more question if an image says "all rights reserved" does that means i can't upload it to wikipedia common then to add to a bio. By that i mean if i upload a image of vince carter from flickr.com that says "all rights reserved", can i add that to his wikipedia bio page or would that be delete. 68.151.8.97 ( talk) 21:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)the911venom 68.151.8.97 ( talk) 21:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
To whom it may concern:
Bsck in 1993 I was given a hand made clock with two cards (A and J)on the left, in the middle is the clock (with the back ground a 12 noon heart, 3 o'clock club, 6 o'clock diamond & a 9 o'clock spand symbols), and the top right side is a red chip with a very large 'B' and around the B is the words; ROULETTE, top and bottom. On the bottom of the right side ia a red book of matches that reads: HOLIDAY CASINO, ON THE STRIP, BETWEEN SANDS & FLAMINGO HOTELS, address is as follows: 3473 LAS VEGAS BLVD, SOUTH LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89109 (all lettering is in white caps). The frame is AROUND: 2" wide (all around), with a clear glass front.
I have looked all over the internet to see if I could find any item and or casino that even came close to this hanging item, I did come very close to finding a casino on the strip in Las Vegas, which made me fill pretty good. I also found a little info that Holiday Inn bought the Holidy Casino out around the early 70's.
Could you please help me find out some info on this item. I thought that maybe a collector or someone would be insterested in buying it.
I just want to say thank you for your help either way.
Bess Wilkins trouble2uall5@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.134.33 ( talk) 09:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
The file File:Malin Akerman portrait.jpg appears to violate copyright of Cafe.se online magazine. The media description says it was uploaded from Flickr, but the description on Flickr said "... more at Cafe.se... " (paraphrase).
Doesn't this mean the image was lifted from the copyright holder and then posted at Flickr? That would make any claim of rights by the Flickr poster irrelevant as they do not own the image.
The original image, with the magazine's watermark intact, is at http://www.cafe.se/public/templates/v3bildspel.aspx?id=3365&fid=2219&level=4 It's not clear to me who actually owns the copyright on the image, since the Cafe website does not give attribution or copyright details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.48.50.155 ( talk) 10:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I have a question. On various coat of arm images of Canadian provinces, many of them were granted more than 50 years ago, but augmented in the 1990/1980s. Would this put them into the {{PD-Old)), because they were granted more than 50 years ago, or is copyright status renewed when augmented? Connormah ( talk) 13:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
The University of West Virginia "WV" logo ( File:WestVirginiaMountaineers.png) appears to me to qualify under {{ PD-textlogo}} and seems to have no copyright notices/claims associated with it, but User:Hammersoft has consistently disagreed and tagged this as copyrighted. If you could confirm whether this qualifies as {{ PD-textlogo}} I'd appreciate it. Answer on my talkpage if possible. Thanks. BillTunell ( talk) 21:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Can I use a trademark in my blog's name or in the title of a blog post?
- Yes, if it is relevant to the subject of your discussion and does not confuse people into thinking the trademark holder endorses your content. Courts have found that non-misleading use of trademarks in URLs and domain names of critical websites is fair. (Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp. v. Faber, URL http://www.compupix.com/ballysucks; Bosley Medical Institute v. Kremer, domain name www.bosleymedical.com). Companies can get particularly annoyed about these uses because they may make your post appear in search results relating to the company, but that doesn't give them a right to stop you.
- Sometimes, you might use a trademark without even knowing someone claims it as a trademark. That is permitted as long as you're not making commercial use in the same category of goods or services for which the trademark applies. Anyone can sell diesel fuel even though one company has trademarked DIESEL for jeans. Only holders of "famous" trademarks, like CocaCola, can stop use in all categories, but even they can't block non-commercial uses of their marks.
What kind of proof do you want that could possibly show this image (or any other image) is ineligible for copyright? — BQZip01 — talk 20:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Can the following painting, File:Phidias and the Frieze of the Parthenon.jpg, which is in public domain, be uploaded to Commons? JMK ( talk) 13:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The image File:Bareket_Telescope.jpg (recent photo) appears to have been emailed by its author to the GF WP editor user:Chagai, who then uploaded it for use in the article Bareket observatory.
There's an unverifiable text note and no OTRS on the image page:
The problem is that it has then been tagged with {{
PD-user-w|en|wikipedia|Chagai}}
and thus the text
"This image has been (or is hereby) released into the public domain by its creator,
Chagai."
I can see a few problems with this: "free for use" doesn't imply "public domain", secondly the author is mis-credited, thirdly we might have an issue that there's no traceability for this. I for one wouldn't want to have to deal with a future claim of infringement and be reliant on just this as an author's release. Isn't this what OTRS is for? Although I'm sure this example is genuine, imagine the potential for non-GF abuse if this way of working became de facto acceptable.
As an aside, the
Bareket observatory article has been problematic of late and needs to observe policy scrupulously, to avoid any risk of technical issues like this being used as a POV lever.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 15:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The article Steve Fairbairn is without a decent image. It uses a free image of a relief sculpture of his face instead. I propose adding the photo at the top of this page http://www.rowinghistory-aus.info/the-boat-race/index.php as the main image. It is low resolution, irreplaceable by free content, >50 years old, and only a portion of the whole is used (it is clearly a part of a larger team photograph). Does this qualify as fair-use?-- Yeti Hunter ( talk) 18:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Please can you tell me which licence is appropriate for File:MoReq2Paper.JPG given that it is the cover of a (free) publication of the European Commission, and given that the publication bears the following notices:
"Copyright European Communities, 2008 Reproduction authorised for non-commercial purposes, provided the source is acknowledged."
I have tried (really, really, tried )to work it out myself, without success.
Thank you for your advice
Marc Fresko (MMGarth) -- MMGarth ( talk) 08:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
hi, i need help for insert image/picture into my talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishnapyrmca ( talk • contribs) 10:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
i cant upload any files from wiki.is uploading files possible in wiki? can i upload files from wiki? i have logged in as wiki commons but still not working whats the problem? please find me a solution i have to present a presentation in my college.so,please help me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pramoohot ( talk • contribs) 13:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
sorry, this is the first time I have done this and do not understand the instructions on wikipedia.
please help me!
and please don't delete the image yet - I'm travelling over this weekend back across continents and will not get to my mails again till early next week!
The image I loaded was: Eknath Easwaran courtesy of the Blue Mountain Center of Meditation.jpg
I downloaded this off a website www.easwaran.org/media which gave permission to download the image provide a credit line was added
I can't see which category of copyright this is
cleary the image is copyright the Blue Mountain Center of Meditation, but it is neither "free" nor "non-free"
How should I handle this?
thanks!!! DuncanCraig1949 ( talk) 23:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Please tell me how I can upload a logo or a picture for my page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vancouverrob12 ( talk • contribs) 16:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Philippine Integrated National Police logo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatles eric ( talk • contribs) 16:37, 19 October 2009
Hi. I was wondering if I could upload images from a website under these [9] terms and conditions as non free images. The photos cannot be replaced as the sight is now buried making it impossible for me to take my own photos of it. There are schematics of the site and some historical artwork that I would like to us as well. The images come from this [10] page in the website and are located towards the bottom of it. If the sight is ever excavated I would simply take my own and use those. Cheers. ***Adam*** ( talk) 01:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
This photo appears to have been taken from this web site. Whatever the case, I would guess that it is not the user's own work so the pd tag is not correct. Copana2002 ( talk) 05:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Are miniature portraits ( example) considered two-dimensional art (not three dimensional) in the Bridgeman-Corel sense? I mean just the pictures, without its framing and all the trinkets. Some are flat, but others are prominently convex. NVO ( talk) 11:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
There's a new series of The Thick of It and I'd like to use the Press Office image in the episodes table. Is that acheivable? D B D 13:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I have located some CC-licensed images I would like to upload to illustrate an article. They are clearly marked as being under the Creative Commons Attributions Share-Alike 2.0 license. They're on the public web; anyone can verify their state. My plan is to upload the images to Wikipedia linking to both the original page and WebCited version of the page as clear evidence of the grant in perpetutity. Will that be enough? (The images in question are here, in the event that it matters.) — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Urbancanal_full.jpg and Kaineng City loading screen.jpg on the Guild Wars Wiki are both art for the Guild Wars video game series, and the latter is also an in-game screenshot of a loading screen. As the artist has stated in this interview that the images were inspired by Kowloon Walled City, I wish to use one of them in the Kowloon Walled City article as an example of the city's depiction in popular culture. However, I would like to first be sure that this is covered by the non-free 2D art template or (in the case of the latter) the non-free game screenshot template. Would either of these be acceptable? — tk tk tk 00:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
File:Kamloops-lCOA.png, the coat of arms of Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada was created in 1911, according to 1. Would this make this image public domain because of it's age? Connormah ( talk) 03:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
How can download an image from Wikipedia; specifically: File:Coat of arms of the Czech Republic.svg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamjmjones ( talk • contribs) 00:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering what would be the copyright of the letter at the top of this page (Letter from Wheeler Dryden to Edna Purviance): [11] It was sent to the US from India in 1917 and is currently held at the British Film Institute (London). Since it was sent before 1923, it seems it could be public domain, is that right? Laurent ( talk) 16:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I think a good amount of users, including myself, know that while it IS possible to upload images you didn't create, the copyright issue and process is too confusing/intimidating/complex. The result? A good portion of articles have no image at all.
What I want to know is if I can create a rough drawing of the object and upload that. I am a poor artist, but I think that a crude, microsoft paint made image of the object is better than no image at all. Fusion7 ( talk) 23:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Looking to add a photo of a generic product to an article. example of image (though mine won't have a white background, it'll be a photograph of one of those bottles). Would this qualify as fair use on the article for the product in question ( Colloidal silver)? The bottles are made by several different companies that all use the same label design, so I'm not sure if that makes a difference. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
This page says, "These images are in the public domain and are available for download and reproduction." The first three images are obviously fine, but all the rest are credited to state employees. Can I trust that the original owners have given up their copyrights in cases like this, and if so, which tag should I use? -- Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 03:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The question is about picture File:Gatlings2.jpg - I am confused which licence tag to use for this picture. The author is Evija Sidraba (my friend) and she allows to use this picture for free as far as her name is mentioned.-- Ingii ( talk) 10:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Having just discovered this page (it's amazing how many years you can be on WP and still discover new places) I'll ask a question that has come up from time to time. Namely: when placing an audio link on a page, is it necessary (for attribution purposes) to have a link to that file's information page alongside the Media: link to play the sound file? What laws/licensing terms are applicable here? If it's required, what is the minimum form the link label should take (for example, is "info" OK? how about just "i"?) And does it have to be right next to the Media: link? If so, how close? (I know any answers to this will be personal interpretation, but still I'd like to hear some views.)-- Kotniski ( talk) 20:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
OK let me clarify: there are several templates like {{ Audlisten}} which produce something like this: . For giving links to recorded pronunciation within text, this is ideal - compact and to the point. However some people claim there's a legal necessity to design the template so as to include a link to the description as well. My question is whether they are right (and why), and if so, how unobtrusive is that link allowed to be.-- Kotniski ( talk) 07:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
So I guess the answer to this question is "don't know"? Is there anywhere else I might try asking?-- Kotniski ( talk) 10:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Are images from DOCUMERICA public domain? Our article says that they were produced by photographers under contract with the EPA, a US government agency, so it sounds as if its photos are similar to HABS images that are sometimes taken by contractors. Conversely, I just discovered this DOCUMERA image on Flickr, and it's tagged with a free CC license, but not shown as PD. Nyttend ( talk) 01:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I would like to know on what grounds I am asked for copyright information for three images of paintings that I have posted to the page "Houben R.T." I own the rights to these images; I have posted them more than once and more than once they have been proposed for deletion. I work for Houben's studio and all of the paintings are shot with his camera.
How should I mark these images so that they are no longer proposed for deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdg2118 ( talk • contribs) 01:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
{{Non-free fair use in|Houben R.T.}}
. Keep in mind
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (if that applies) and that Wikipedia's policy is to minimise non-free content so one rather than three fair use image would be better.--
Commander Keane (
talk) 02:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)The text indicates an Erfle eyepiece has 5 elements. In Chris Lord's "Evolution of the Astronomical Eyepiece" page 36, the generally accepted variant of the Erfle are: ERFLÉ I - A 1-2-2 design having a 60° field but eye relief only 0.3Fe. The glasses used were SF2, PSK3, FK5 and SF10. ERFLÉ II - A 2-1-2 design using the same glass types having a 70° field and 0.6Fe eye clearance. Patented after Erflé’s death in 1923. ERFLÉ III - A 1-2-2 design using the same glass types having a 55° field and eye clearance of 0.32Fe. Patented after Erflé’s death in 1923.
The image shown is a 6 element eyepiece which is a Modified Erfle which is much closer to the KASPEREIT - A modification of Erflé’s designs by Kaspereit having a 2-2-2 for m, giving fields in excess of 68° and eye r elief 0.3Fe+. The glasses used in modern variants are SF2, BK7, SK20 and SF10. Some W.W.II (World War II) variants using Thorium or Uranium glass have fields wider than 70°.
I would suggest using an image which more correctly depicts one of the generally accepted Erfle designs such as the Erfle I or Erfle II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.96.96 ( talk) 05:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
The image File:Wpt.gif has blatantly been lifted from here, and is obviously not the authors original creation (other than they've changed the colouring.) How do we go about getting it properly flagged and removed from commons? And File:Goggles.jpg blatantly from here. Canterbury Tail talk 12:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
{{copyvio|url}}
to the image description page on Commons, replacing url
with the URL from which you think it was copied. I've already done this for the two images you mentioned.
Physchim62
(talk) 13:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)One Commons administrator and one Wikipedia administator states Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kerry slug/archive2, that images in Kerry slug article are incorrectly tagged. It would be alarming situation, if these administrators are not correct. Could someone add a short note to the FAC review, please? -- Snek01 ( talk) 21:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Can somebody check out the OTRS tag on File:StarAirServiceIreneIrvine.jpg. It says, “Permission has been received from the copyright holder to license this material under Fair Use.” I can’t figure out what that could possibly mean: I thought fair use was use without permission. — teb728 t c 00:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Can a creator of a work withdraw permission for use after he's released it into the public domain? I'm wondering about Fiskeharrison's actions. -- NeilN talk ♦ contribs 17:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
NB As I have said elsewhere, I did not have the right to release these images into the public domain in the first place. I erroneously rushed through the upload process to get them up there without properly reading the small print and did so in contravention to the wishes of the copyright owners. Therefore I am not 'withdrawing permission' so much as trying to prevent Wikipedia, and myself, from continuing this breach of copyright law. -- Fiskeharrison ( talk) 15:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea how these permission things work and merely tried to tick the correct boxes as quickly as I could, for which I apologise. My headshot, by Marco Windham, has permission - purchased when I purchased the headshot. The photograph 'Before The Duel' from the play, by Matt Jamie, has permission recently negotiated in my capacity as producer of that production of the play - the others from that play do not. This isalso true of the Pendulum flier, designed by Andy Cooke with photograph by Matt Jamie. I have no permission for this form of reproduction (I thought I did as I had the right to print it for the play as producer - I did not realise they had retained electronic rights). Best Cape is a detail of a photo by Nicolas Haro for which I have negotiated permission (he works with me on my book 'The Last Arena'.) However, I had forgotten his image of Cayetano, for which I do not have permission to license in this way (although I do to place it on my blog). Please delete that one. -- Fiskeharrison ( talk) 17:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Browsing through recent changes I came across a large chunk of text taken from WikiTravel. This site is licensed CC-BY-SA-1.0. At first I thought this was okay, but after thinking I began to wonder if it was actually compatible or not.
According to CreativeCommons themselves an "or any later version" clause did not appear until 2.0. (Share Alike Across Borders section). Furthermore it says The version 1.0 licenses required that derivative be published under the exact same license only.
Since 1.0 does not equal 3.0, you cannot add this text to wikipedia as contributions cannot be re-licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and the GFDL.
Unfortunately to add to the confusion the FAQ says this is fine, can anybody clarify? Q T C 05:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
←Just thought I'd add a bit of context here, because the question and the way they're asked can make a big difference. :) I presume you all know that I can't post Mike's e-mails here, but I can post mine (I hereby authorize me to do so :D). These are the two e-mails I sent him (well, the two that matter. In the third, I just said thanks.)
Extended content
|
---|
|
I have resisted the urge to clean up my glaring typo. Rereading his (brief) e-mails, I see I have misattributed the word "subset" to him; the word he used was "superset." -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
It's a screenshot from the Roblox Outrageous Builders Club page (make sure you click the icon with yellow and black hardhat!) Where could I get permission? Jeremjay 24 21:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Please help me to determine an appropriate licence. I have made multiple attempts to upload an image for Jane Aagaard but have had them all rejected and deleted. The image is of the Hon. Jane Aagaard MLA, who is the Speaker of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly in Australia. The image is owned by the Northern Territory Government and is a publicity photo provided as part of a media release from the Department of Legislative Assembly, NT Government. It's location was brought to my attention by the office of Jane Aagaard. It would seem to me to be a no-brainer that the NT Government intends this to be used and everybody bar WP is using it freely but after expending an enormous amount of time searching through WP I can see no appropriate licence. What should I do? As far as I can see, which may not be very far right now, Jane Aagarde herself would be unable to make this stick. I note that the US Government pictures are all available for use once they have placed them in the public domain and there is a USG Licence template just for this. I am sure that Australia and most of the western world are exactly the same. Help. E x nihil ( talk) 05:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Image on Page " Diogo Andrade" is not copyrighted, was taken by me. What should I do in order not ot be deleted? Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmdma ( talk • contribs) 11:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
The Little Outfit Schoolhouse was added to the National Register of Historic Places (Santa Cruz County, Arizona) early in 2009. I want to add an image of the schoolhouse to the Wikipedia page. I have characterized the image as being in the public domain with no constraint on its usage but one of the monitors has removed the image saying no proof has been shown that the image is, in fact, in the public domain. I have two questions:
1) Is my proof (see below) sufficient?
2)If my proof is sufficient, how and where do I post the proof (or the conclusion that the proof is sufficient) so that other monitors can will see it and not remove the image again?
My case that the image is in the public domain is that it has been copied from a school brochure which was published in 1943 (or close thereto)by a private school advertising the benefits of the school. I led the effort to have this school (schoolhouse) put on the U.S. Government's National Register of Historic Places so I have made a thorough study of the school's history and what is available as photographs or documents to make the case for inclusion on the register. The school closed as a school in 1950, the owners sold the ranch, school records and files were discarded, and the last of the owners died in 1980. I have talked to the two surviving children of the owners and there are no claims to rights on any of the schools properties. The photograph in question was probably taken by Charles Herbert, an uncle of one of the students when I was there myself in the mid-40s. Herbert was a well known photographer and left a large collection of his work. When he died in 1976 his company, Western Ways, closed its doors. When Herbert's wive died the company's records were donated to the Arizona Historical Society. The Society has given me a complete set of its photographs of the Little Outfit taken by Herbert and the image I have chosen to include is not among them. In several years of hunting for Little Outfit memorabilia I have never encountered anyone other than the Arizona Historical Society who has claimed rights to such objects related to the Little Outfit. My conclusion is that there is no "ownership" of any kind associated with this image and that anyone is free to use it as they will. Thank you for your help in resolving this matter -- I look forward to your directions on how I (we?) should make the above proof more generally available.
Durward3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Durward3 ( talk • contribs) 19:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)