This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

• Dalbury's comments on the page were as folllows:
• Image:TR Great White Fleet Sales Kunstler.jpg Description says,

"Mort Kunstler painting, "The Great White Fleet Sails" showing 26th US President, Theodore Roosevelt. Permission was given to post this promotional graphic from his on-line gallery by artist Mort Kunstler via email to submission editor SimonATL to articles The Great White Fleet and Theodore Roosevelt.

URL Source: http://www.mortkunstler.com/gallery/merchant.ihtml?pid=268&step=4 Permission to post graphic granted by artist Mort Kunstler for wikipedia articles on The Great White Fleet and Theodore Roosevelt."

The article is tagged GFDL-self, but Mort Kuntsler has not edited the image page, and it is not clear that he licensed the image under GFDL. It looks the artist gave a limited, Wikipedia-only license, which we cannot use. -- Donald Albury 00:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Uploader has now changed to the {{ promotional}} tag. -- Donald Albury 03:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Uploader SimonATL's response

Dalbury was correct about original so-called "limited use" as opposed to general but only in the sense that this was a typical response from an art studio to request to post an image. Kuntsler was not putting the work of art into the public domain, only disussing the use of a small derivative thumbnail object. Initiallyl I "asked permission" as a courtesy to the artist. Since then, I have become aware that since it was originally a promotional object from his studio's web site, no permission was needed in the first place. Let's remember that this JPG file was only a small thumbnail pic of a large painting, (I've seen some of the artist's paintings at the Atlanta Airport. So my "solution" was simply to remove the "permission obtained" note and change the tag to promotional.

I thought that I was supposed to simply correct the tag on that Theodore Roosevelt image noting that it was from a promotional source and by so doing, I was SUPPOSED to remove the dispute notice. Sorry - I'm not entirely knowledgable about the processes. So after I correct the tag, at least, from my perspective, then what? Thanks. PS - Vandalism is NOT, in any way my intent here. SimonATL 20:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

By policy, Wikipedia cannot use 'limited use' licenses. To be used, images must be in the public domain or be released under an unlimited use license such as the GFDL or the CC-BY-SA. Some use of non-free images is currently allowed in the English Wikipedia under fair use. However, under 'fair use', "The Great White Fleet Sails" could only be used in an article about the painting itself (or, possibly, about the artist), and only if the article discussed specific points about the style and/or contents of the painting. 'Fair use' does not extend to allowing use of the painting in the Theordore Roosevelt article. -- Donald Albury 01:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Uploader SimonATL's response. This whole argument is pointless. It doesn't matter that I sent an a courtesy email to the Kuntsler requesting permission. The fact is, the painting is already promotional under Wikipedia Rules. I asked permission because, with my limited understanding of wikipedia, I thought I had to ask permission. But, now I understand, as a promotional item the graphic needs no permission to post. Reuploading the graphic and I guess this will have to be appealed escalated. SimonATL 23:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Fair use#Promotional material, where it describes 'promotional material' as "an image freely provided to promote an item, as in a promotional photo in a press packet". Posting an image on a website does not make it promotional material as used in our policy. Notice that the specific subdivisions listed for 'promotional materials' are for posters for events and attractions, and comic book artwork relased "without indicia" for purposes of promoting the comic books. I fail to see how someone's work of art qualifies as 'promotional'. -- Donald Albury 00:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Why was the entire page restored? The last post to this page before my archiving of it was on the 19th! That was 7 days, how can it be classed as 'active'? I am going to re-archive the rest.- Localzuk ^(talk) 17:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the exact circumstances, but the image(s) during those days were probably still pending review. -- Iamunknown 22:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If an image is listed here and is a redlink (and is not just a typo) should it be removed, and if yes can a non-admin do this?- Localzuk ^(talk) 18:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say "no." You would end up delinking just about every link since most images listed here are deleted. It's unnecessary. -- Iamunknown 22:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to confess to finding the process of adding images highly confusing. I added the C. elegans image which is now being flagged as 'possibly unfree'. This image was obtained from Zeynep Altun at the Wormatlas project (www.wormatlas.org). She granted permission for it's use. Please let me know what I need to do in order to stop this image being removed. Thanks, Nod 06:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've answered this / am soon going to answer this on your talk page. -- Iamunknown 22:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the usage of these "public domain in country x" templates on Wikipedia. Surely it's the copyright status in the US (where the Foundation and servers are located) which is relevant? It's quite possible for material to be public domain in one country and under copyright in another: Elvis' 1956 recordings are now PD in the UK (50 yrs for audio), but try distributing them from a US site and you'd probably get your butt sued off. -- kingboyk 11:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It tends to be the copyright in the country of origin which is the most relevant. / Lokal _ Profil 13:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't entirely agree with Lokal. Note that {{ PD-Germany}} does not appear on the list at Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Public_domain while {{ PD-GermanGov}} does (since certain official German documents immediately immediately enter the public domain and are thus free in the US). The {{ PD-Germany}} template merely informs German users of Wikipedia that they may have greater freedom to use the tagged image than those in US, in particular, they may be able to make use of such images without an additional license or fair use rationale. To use an image on en:WP it must have a free license (or a fair use rationale) for the US. Take note of the statement at the top of the Other countries tag section: " Whenever an image is tagged using one of these tags, the image description page should also contain some rationale as to whether and why the image is presumed to be in the public domain in the U.S., too!" Some of the templates make this clearer than others, e.g. {{ PD-Canada}}. Many, many, grueling details can be found at Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights. — RP88 14:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

How so? -- kingboyk 14:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

For an example of an image which is PD-Canada and includes a rationale for PD-US, see Image:VerePonsonby.jpg. — RP88 15:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Iamunknown, you've mentioned that you feel that it is the legal obligation of an uploader to specify which tag their images are uploaded under per WP:FU and argue that no one other than the uploader should touch these tags. I think that is a plausible argument, although I disagree, so I thought some discussion might be worthwhile. I'd argue that under WP's policy a user who does an upload has agreed to assume the responsibility for the legality of their upload - by uploading they've asserted "I have determined that it is legal for this image to appear on WP." Third parties who assist the uploader by making corrections to an image's wiki tags are at little or no risk - the uploader's original tags will always remain in the image history and are available to anyone who wishes to inspect them. — RP88 03:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I didn't consider that. I never, at least not mainly, considered the third party to be legally liable. I still intend to maintain distance, however, not because I myself feel legally liable, but because I, in some cases, feel I simply cannot know the exact source of and copyright status of the image. For example, I rarely anymore tag images that would obviously be fair use if they do not supply a source. If a album cover or computer video game box, for example, is retrieved from Amazon.com, I consider it less free than if I just take a picture of it. This, I've always considered, is because the artwork is copyrighted by the label/artist and the photograph itself is copyrighted by the distributer/website. I do, however, occasionally switch around PD tags if, as an example, the source links to one United States department as opposed to the other. Does that make sense? -- Iamunknown 22:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, images that do not supply a source are eligible for speedy deletion and the fair use tags state that they're only valid if source information is present, so I certainly don't argue with you there. I'm comfortable adding source information if I can unambiguously determine the ultimate source of the image - which is generally only going to be the case for famous artwork or historic photos. If an uploader provides accurate source information but uses the wrong tag for something that can only be used under fair use, I'm willing to assist by writing a fair use rationale if it is reasonable. -- RP88 13:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I avoid famous artwork and historic photographs. It certainly is easy to find out when the artist/photographer lived, the circumstances surrounding their work, etc. I, however, have never to my recollection been able to find the exact source of such an image I come across, specifically because there generally exist so many fascimiles of the image online.

Also, depending on the administrator, images without sources are not necessarily candidates for speedy deletion: I have nominated some images for deletion and was rebuked because they apparently didn't need a source (namely PD-ineligible images) or because I wasn't assuming good faith.-- Iamunknown 20:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to list "promotional images" that provide no source here? I'm not going to start doing it en masse, but there was one I came across, have reverted removals of the speedy tag twice, and don't intend to revert again as it will just be a 3RR violation. (Oh, the image is Image:Simpsons1313.jpg, which is now magically a TV screenshot) — Iamunknown 23:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverting removal of a speedy tag is not a violation of 3RR. You should treat the removing of the tag as vandalism, and put the appropriate template on the user's talk page (and report him to the admins if he persists). — Chowbok ☠ 23:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I listed many images having {{ PD-India-Gov}} as possibly unfree on 27th February, but they have remained in the holding cell for long enough without being either deleted or cleared. Is there something that is holding action on these images. If there are any issues to be discussed, I am willing to clarify further. In short, the problem I found with these images is as follows: Websites hoisted on nic.in servers are required to explicitly state the copyright status of the images on them. The images in question have been taken from websites under nic.in that have not yet complied with the guideline mentioned above, i.e. they do not write anything about the copyright status of the images. The uploaders opine that unless otherwise stated to be copyrighted, the images may be assumed to be free, while I hold that unless otherwise stated to be public domain, images are assumed to be copyrighted. I believe that the summary above explains the case neutrally. I request administrators to please go through this case and close it according to Wikipedia's policies. Regards, — Ambuj Saxena ( talk) 06:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The images you listed are gone. So is the template, which is now redirected to Template:No license since it's not free enough for Wikipedia. Garion96 (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless stated to be copyrighted, the image is not a copyrighted image in the nic.in websites. It is very unfair to remove the non-copyrighted images stating them to be copyrighted or having a copyrighted status, where no such status exists. The NIC rule clearly states so. I request the admins to upload all the removed images from the NIC website and undo the damages. Chanakyathegreat 05:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Chanakyathegreat, we assume that an image is copyrighted and unlicensed unless explicit evidence is given to suggest otherwise. Do you have such evidence to suggest that all images from nic.in are licensed for use on Wikipedia under the GFDL license? -- Iamunknown 05:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The images I uploaded has a fair rationale and a site but another editor has said that the images will be deleted because its from an "unconfirmed website". What does "unconfirmed site" mean and how do I fix the problem? Good friend100 12:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the image link? IvoShandor 12:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Multiple, apparently. [1] I looked at a sampling and they all seem to be a problem. Good friend, the trouble here is twofold. First, in some cases you claim permission for educational purposes only. The problem is that we cannot use such images. Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, and any license we have to use copyrighted material must not be that restrictive. See WP:NONFREE for a more complete explanation of the policy.

The second problem is that where you claim fair use, the rationale you give are questionable. You typically list:

1. It is a picture of historical nature showing a historical battle
2. In absence of free graphic material which can be used for this purpose Wikipedia admits copyright images in low resolution can be uploaded to Wikipedia servers based on US Wikipedia.
3. The picture is used only for informational purposes,
4. The historical relevance of the following picture adds detailed information to the article and its inclusion on it makes clear how the events developed, to the general public.

Number 1 may be true, but doesn't speak to fair use. Any competent artist can make a picture of an historical battle from a description; these are not unique. Number 2 is simply a statement of policy, and not a rationale at all. The correctness of 4 is questionable. These images were not made at the time. Most of them are of modern origin, and even those that were not weren't made on the spot. They illustrate, and are decorative, but don't really give any information.

You furthermore do not always give the name of the copyright holder. This is not necessarily the website where you found it. This information must be included to make a valid claim of fair use.

The answer to the question in the subject header is that you can't make these images free without express permission from the copyright holder to release them under a free license, such as the GFDL. Most commercial artists are unwilling to do this. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This project page does not have an archive that I am aware of. Should there be a monthly archive or similar where old discussions are kept to make it easier to see what happened, rather than having to go back through the article history? (Note I know that this talk page has a history, I am referring to the project page.) -- After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Two copyrighted map images on Operation Chengiz Khan ( Image:IAF western airfields.jpg and Image:IAF Southern Airfields.jpg) are claimed by their uploader to be fair use because of the Indian Information Act, a legal structure which I am unfamiliar with. Can someone with more experience and legal background (US and Indian?) check these out and tell me whether they count as fair use for the purpose of Wikipedia? JRP 23:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If the images aren't free, they don't meet Wikipedia's requirements for non-free content. New maps can be drawn that present the same data. I don't know anything about the Indian Information Act but the image description page seems to indicate limited use and should not be treated as a free license. Jay32183 23:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This pic was tagged on March 4: [2] no one has gotten around to resolving it. Quadzilla99 20:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the tag. Seems reasonable that it is US public domain. Nice contradiction btw, you state that direct source is German wikipedia. The german Wikipedia states that the image came from the English wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Garion96 ( talk • contribs) 23:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Now, I know we all need something to do after the SXC image roundup (:-P), so if you're ever bored, head on over to Category:Conditional use images, where many possibly unfree images await. The ten images I listed under May 11 are all from there, and there appear to be many more. I personally would like to list them all simply because the image copyright tag {{ CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} does not expressly permit unrestricted, non-exclusive and non-revocable commercial reuse and derivative works, but I'm not currently up to the task. (What do you all think of that, btw?) -- Iamunknown 10:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Just spotted this, I'm not very observant. Definitely a category worth ploughing through - although just because there is a condition it does not necessary breach the free license i.e. a condition which states that "image must be attributed where used" (which I've had to put on an image recently) - is effectively the same as the CC Attribution license. Anyway, good find! Madmedea 20:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

this image [:Image:Sorbus-americana.jpg] is attributed to "RHW" at the page it appears on and this is associated with "RHW - R. Harrison Wiegand, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife and Heritage Service. www.dnr.state.md.us" at the linked photo credits page. The photo credits page says that the images may or may not be copyrighted and does not note if they are on an author by author basis. Any ideas? Pdbailey 12:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have an additional copyright question. Is there anywhere I can go for answers? Obviously this wasn't the right forum. Pdbailey 22:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add some more text the introductory paragraph of the Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images page as I've noticed an increasing number of comments that start with "keep" or "oppose".

As far as I understand it this page is not a debate in quite the same way that IFD and AFD are. The focus is not the deletion of an image, but investigating the copyright status of images. Yes, if the copyright status cannot be established the image is likely to be deleted. But that is up to the admin who processes this page.

Our job as editors of this page is to use any knowledge we have - of images, of copyright law etc. - to make a conclusion about the copyright status of the image that has been tagged. By thinking in terms of "keep" or "oppose" I think we are distracting ourselves, and any newcomers to the page (including uploaders) as to what the primary purpose is. What do you think? Madmedea 20:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree we should make it clear that it's not a !vote or a matter of consensus but an administrative decision. That being said, there are plenty of knowledgeable users who are not admins, and it can't hurt to have the benefit of their observations, in a nonbinding fashion. They might raise a critical point that cuts either way. -- Butseriouslyfolks 02:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. A copyvio is still a copyvio, despite the number of people who vote to "keep" the image. MER-C 10:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. howcheng { chat} 00:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup. -- Iamunknown 03:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC) Not much left to say :-P

I will get around to this, honestly ;-) Madmedea 08:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

All I can say is I do have permission to use this picture. Would you need the person to email you direct with confirmation? Apart from this I don't know how to flag it????

Looking at Special:Contributions/Iwanafish, I see that there are a lot of pictures uploaded that claim "fair use", but are also released under {{PD-Self}}. A large number of them look professionally produced.

However, looking at the Metadata indicates that they were all taken with the same type of camera, so it's entirely possible that PD-Self is the correct tag, and the summary is incorrect. Any thoughts?-- SarekOfVulcan 14:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Mmmmm my initial thoughts are that this needs to be discussed with the user as there are so many images involved. If they are all taken by the user - as the identical metadata would indicate - then the comment about free or fair use in the image summary just needs removing and ideally descriptions adding! Some of them, however, are images of works of art, sculptures etc. that may still be under copyright and therefore any images of them are derivatives works and therefore fall under the original license meaning the correct fair use tag would be needed. This needs digging into... Madmedea 15:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I've left a friendly message on the user's talk page - User talk:Iwanafish#Images - to ask him for some more information about the images he has uploaded. Madmedea 19:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Use has indicated on his talk page that he is the copyright holder for all the images he has uploaded - whether he is going to go back and edit the image summaries I don't know. Madmedea 09:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks for looking into this, Madmedea.-- SarekOfVulcan 13:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Since this page is getting heavy traffic, which is 15+ listings per day, not to mention the other edits for discussions, I'd like to change the format so that each day is it's own page as a subpage off of PUI, something like: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/July 1 2007. It would make it easier to archive each day whereas it seems there isn't an archive for items, the text is just removed from this page and when admins finish a date, it could be marked as an archive. Further, it would make listing easier especially using the quickimgdelete tool since it has to load and send the entire page each time an image is brought here. Also, monitoring discussions will be easier so that someone could watchlist the individual date an image they are interested in instead of PUI as a whole. The subpages would just be listed off the PUI page, such as {{/June 1 2007}} and the dates just added on as needed and removed as needed. There were a question above about archiving the page that went unanswered, so an archive could help. Can anyone see any disadvantages or reasons not to do this? Or perhaps a better system? Any interest or other suggestions? MECU≈ talk 17:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds like a good idea to me. Madmedea 19:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• So basically like Wikipedia:Copyright problems is done? Would work for me. Garion96 (talk) 01:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• I think that a sub-page system would be a great idea. I wish that a we could work with a different system (such as faster action for obviously non-free images), but I do not think such changes would appropriate at this time. I will notify Howcheng; hopefully he can update his JavaScript code to work with the new system. -- Iamunknown 04:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No problem. Let's keep the date format the same as other log pages though: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2024 July 31. howcheng { chat} 16:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    • P.S. I proposed this almost a year ago: Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree images/Archive 2#Proposal: Log pages. :) howcheng { chat} 18:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Lets do it. Good for archiving and watchlisting for sure - SCEhard T 20:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, closing admins can leave a link to the archive in the deletion summary - SCEhard T 20:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, quickimgdelete.js is ready to go. Just say the word and I will push the dev version to production. howcheng { chat} 23:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello folks, I do not really know much about your copyrights. But I'm afraid Image:Nuremberg stadtplan.jpg is no free image and can't be licensed by using GFDL. Please have a look. Best regards -- Achates 19:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Correct, I believe. I have listed it on the main page. - SCEhard T 20:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You hit edit, you go look for the entry you want to comment on, and it's not there. Sweeet! So what's the trick? Maury 21:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Try scrolling down to the entry you want to comment on and clicking the [edit] link for that section. — Remember the dot ^{( talk)} 22:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on, you think I didn't try that? There's no edit button on my page. The text does not appear in the edit window either. It's templated in, and there's no obvious way to edit it. (and who thought this was trolling?!) Maury 23:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Go to your preferences, look under the "Editing" tab, and make sure there's a checkmark beside "Enable section editing via [edit] links". — Bkell ( talk) 00:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That works, of course, but that should not be required. We need a simpler way to get to the templated pages. Maury 20:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

One possibility is to follow the link in the instructions. _{→ Aza Toth} 20:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've seen that after links to PDF-files there is a symbol: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d3/Test.pdf

I think it's from this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/icons/fileicon-pdf.png

It looks very much like Adobes PDF-icon, which is definitely copyrighted: Image:PDF.png

Is there a way to read copyright notices for that kind of "Wikipedia-internal" images that are part of CSS and such stuff...?

(BTW, is there a way to show externaly linked images in wikipedia? I guess not, since that would make it difficult for readers to know what's part of WikiPedia and what's not...) -- Algotr 22:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's one of those things we just don't worry about because we know Adobe's not going to sue anyone for displaying a tiny Adobe icon next to a link to a document that requires Adobe software to read. — Remember the dot ^{( talk)} 23:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)