Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use.../Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Copyrights. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Image of José Manuel Barroso, from a political party website. Image located here: [1]. Enterance to photo gallery [2] states "All text and pictures in this Picture Gallery are free for use. However, recognition of the source, EPP-ED Group, would be appreciated." - no reply asking form email asking for clarification on this. - J Logan ^t: 20:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I have found one reasonable photo of this scholar who died in 1944 in an article published by his daughter and son-in-law in 1966, in the scholarly journal "Applied Optics", vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 176, which is now available for free online:

http://ao.osa.org/DirectPDFAccess/616EC5FA-BDB9-137E-C4D388CA8C9DB9D8_14044.pdf?da=1&id=14044&seq=0&CFID=49726628&CFTOKEN=98319483

I have no access to any other photo and have no obvious way to contact his family, since his daughter died in 2003. May I extract the photo of him as an old man and use it? If so, I'm confused about how to credit the photo. Thanks. Apoachroroger.

Hey, Der Schneeman is a German animated film made in the Second World War. It is rare. Can I use a screenshot from [[3]] for the article I've been editing? I can find nothing such as a promotional poster. SIGURD42 15:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Looked into it and figured it out now.... I think. So never mind! SIGURD42 17:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Johnny Gill This image was used on an album cover (Let's Get the Mood Right, Motown, 1996) and is taken from the classic motown page on Johnny Gill. Thanks for your feedback. MissKriss 15:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Terence Todman]. The image appears to be press release photo and there is no copyright info on the website.--Ccson 02:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The boatmen or gemidzii of Thesaloniki . I want the pick for this article . Can't find another :// Kanibalos 20:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Greetings! "Can I use..." the images from the following page for the above article?

This photo on the site with the following copyright information:

Use of images for non-commercial web sites is allowed on condition that credit is given to the Australian National Botanic Gardens and these words are hot-linked to our home page. Any commercial use or publication of these resources without permission of the custodians is strictly prohibited.

Could I use that image under fair use or "with permission" since I'm pretty sure Wikipedia is a non-commerical web site. And if so, where should credit be given? Just on the image's description page? Could it be uploaded to the commons? Thanks in advance for the help! Rkitko 07:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. We don't allow "with permission" or "no commercial use" images except where we would allow fair use of the image. Since we A) already have a free image on the article B) the plant is not extinct or otherwise impossible to take a photo of - the image doesn't fit our WP:FU criteria. It might be easier to find a WP user in Western Australia and ask them nicely to take a photo of the plant in question. Megapixie 08:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, drat. Thanks. I'm having a heck of a time finding FU or GFDL photos of live plants, which was a suggestion to improve the GA genus article (Stylidium). All I can find are the old lithographs which are certainly public domain if old enough. Thanks for the suggestion on finding a user in WA, though the idea of flying there to photograph the plants myself is more appealing :) I'll check into it. So this would also certainly rule out using any FloraBase images, then, eh? Their fair use guidelines nearly gave me a headache just glancing at them. Best, Rkitko 09:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops, nevermind. Didn't see stipulation #1040: "The information will not be used in a web site." Thanks again for the help! Glad I asked first. Rkitko 10:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Greetings! I want to know:"Can I use ..." this image from the following page for the above article?

This photo

Thank you for your help!Goldenphoenix2007 05:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to use this image on the 2006 Rose Bowl article. I believe fair use is acceptable for this since it is a logo, historical, cannot be recreated, the article directly applies to it since it is directly and solely about the 2006 Rose Bowl for which the logo image is for and about. It is also found on the Official Website of the Rose Bowl which therefore concludes how they wish their logo to be represented. I figured I'd ask first though I do think this is (or should be, but that doesn't mean much anymore) acceptable given my past with fair use images. Any support or opposition and comments is encouraged. Thank you. --MECU≈talk 20:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that kind of use is going to get too many arguments. As long as you are using the logo for identification purposes, that should be fine. You're planning to use it similar to the way the Texas logo is used in the infobox of 2006 Texas Longhorn football team or the CFB logo is used at the top of Peach Bowl, right? In both cases, it identifies the subject with a familiar logo as it would be doing in your case. BigDT 21:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. The logo directly represents the event being discussed in the article, and there is no free alternative for a logo. Johntex\^talk 21:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering if I can use text from the Creative Commons website on Wikipedia. Their site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License. Is that compatible with the GFDL? The CC discussion implies they can be (with one caveat), but I'm unclear whether:

• that is official Wikipedia policy
• how to iplement the requirement for an 'invariant' section?

Thanks for your help! Drernie 18:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I'm afraid not. All text MUST be GFDL licensed (with a minor loophole for fair use quotes). Images are different because they are seperate works we just embed in a page, but we can't blend CC and GFDL text togeter. --Sherool (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Odd, the CC people just told me that [CC::BY content can be relicensed under the GFDL, since the GFDL ensures that Attributions are no less protected than they are under CC::BY. I realize that isn't true of all CC licenses, but it sounds like it is true of this one.Drernie 18:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure we can, with loose CC licenses like attribution. GFDL preserves attribution. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

NO. There is a glaring incompatibility between CC-BY and GNU Free Documentation License. See discussion on Wikisource-l. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 21:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to include a screenshot from the Wikipedia in an article I am writing. Can I do this under the copyright guidelines or do I need additional permission? Mcc6676 19:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)mcc6676

Is this image being used in a Wikipedia article? If so, tag the image with {{Wikipedia-screenshot}}. Make sure, unless there is a fair use reason for doing so, that your screenshot does not include any non-free images. (In other words, you can't take a screenshot of a Microsoft logo and turn it into a free image.) If you are talking about using a Wikipedia screenshot on your own website or publication, please see Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content for the answer to that question. In short, there is no need to ask for permission, but you either need to release your work under the GFDL or have a fair use justification for doing so. I hope this answer helps. BigDT 19:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The screenshot is a Wikipedia screenshot and it is for an article I wrote about wikis for a library journal. I believe that fair use would apply in this case, but I want to make sure. I read the Wikipedia Copyright FAQs and the Reuse articles, but I wasn't 100% sure. Thanks for your input!Mcc6676 19:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)mcc6676

In that case, I would say that fair use would definitely apply. BigDT 19:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think so too! Thanks a bunch! 129.49.250.165 20:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)mcc6676

Among other issues, there may be a copyright violation in the WP category and subcategories discussed here. Comments from knowledgeable people would be appreciated. KarlBunker 14:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It would depend on how they generated the list. Facts are non-creative and thus not copyrightable. So if a book compiled a list of, say, every college football player who caught at least 10 passes each year, that may be an interesting fact, but it's still not copyrightable. On the other hand, if they are listing their 100 favorite college football players, we cannot use that. I don't know the subject matter or not, so I don't know if the lists you asked about are exhaustive lists of publically available information or if they are lists of people the author felt was important or otherwise creative. Regardless of copyright issues, I suggest delete - they are unencyclopedic categories. BigDT 15:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This webpage was linked to as a "see also" link in an article ... I think the website may violate copywrite, and thus not be useable as a link, but I am not sure. Could someone please check? Thanks Blueboar 19:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking says that we should not link to websites that we know to be copyright violations. The material can be copyrighted, but cannot be a copyright violation. In other words, you can link to cnn.com (even though everything on cnn.com is obviously copyrighted), but you cannot link to some guy's geocities page where he copies and pastes a cnn.com article. That said, I looked at the link you gave and it looks like it is a promo page for the book in question. If the page was created by the author or publishing company and includes text for the purpose of selling the book, then that's not a copyright violation. Also, it is possible (although there is no way to know without doing research) that the copyright on that book has expired. If, however, the book is still under copyright and the author/publisher did not authorize that website, the link to it should be removed. BigDT 20:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a promo... it is actually the text of an entire book transcribed onto the website. Note that the book in question is one cited often by various conspiracy theorists. Now, in the context of the article where this is linked, it would be appropriate to include the text of the book, as long as doing so does not violate copywrite. I raise this issue now only because it is common for conspiracy theory enthusiasts to disregard copywrite, and to include copywrited material on their "fan" sites. My guess is that the book is either out of print or rare, and so a fan has put the text on-line so that it can be available to other consipracy fans. The hosting page does not look to be a publishing company, and the publishing date of the book is 1958. I do not know if the book was even originally copywrited, if the copywrite has expired, or what (thats why I asked about it here)... Please take a second look, and see if this can be determined. Blueboar 14:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Can I use photographs of campaign buttons from a failed political campaign. My own photographs, that's not any part of the question, just are the slogans on the buttons copyrighted by the politician? Any fair use? Thanks. KP Botany 01:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that they would be legitimate to use to illustrate an article about the campaign or a section in the candidate's article about the campaign. They would NOT be appropriate to illustrate the candidate himself or herself because for that purpose, it's a replaceable image if the candidate is still alive. If you upload a button, {{Politicalposter}} is probably the correct tag to use. BigDT 01:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your second sentence. Do you mean if they have an image of the candidate on them, as they often do? No, they're just slogans, but they're pretty darn unique, and yes, candidate is still alive, and they would be used solely to illustrate the section of the article on the candidate that discusses the campaign. KP Botany 01:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was referring to ... buttons with an image of the candidate ... just covering all bases. ;) As long as you are using them to discuss the campaign itself, I would think that using campaign buttons would be appropriate. BigDT 02:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being thorough, I realized that. And quick. KP Botany 15:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

For the article "Nord Stream" and for some bio articles I would like to use some images from the Nord Stream AG image gallery. All this images are protected by following copyright notice: "The content and design of the Web site is subject to copyright. Pages and contents may only be duplicated with the prior agreement of Nord Stream AG, unless the duplication is of a nature which does not need consent, in accordance with legal stipulations." How to understand this part of "unless the duplication is of a nature which does not need consent, in accordance with legal stipulations"? Does that mean that for using in Wikipedia the prior agreement is needed or not? Thank you in advance. Beagel 18:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It means they acknowledge that their wishes about how you use the photos do not trump the law. Specifically, the law allows for fair use of material. Please see Wikipedia:Fair use. Every situation is different, but in general the use of the photo needs to be supported by a good reason why it is important to the particular article. For example, if they made a device that was of historical significance, a photo of that device would probably be usable to illustrate the device in question. One of the guidelines is to use as few images as are needed to illustrate the point. Although we don't want lots of indiscrimiate links in articles, it would also probably be acceptable to add in an external link at the bottom of the article to these photos, since they are directly related to the company. Johntex\^talk 20:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[4] hosts old Ordnance Survey maps published up to 1940. As per [5] these are now Public Domain. However the site uses both the Google Map API to display the images and also has the Creative Commons BY-NC-2.0 splashed all over it by the author. Since the maps themselves are PD, can I ignore the CC licence as it's a licence applied to freely available information and go screenshot happy ripping maps for upload? Foxhill 05:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Note. It is possible using the transparency option to remove the Google Map overlay from the site, and then with some clever editing to get rid of the rest of the blah it introduces e.g [6] Foxhill 05:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It's actually a bit of a poser Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. would suggest that if the material were in the US then it would be public domain (since the work done in scanning the maps is non-creative, and thus doesn't merit copyright) however although the Bridgeman case comments that the same should apply in the UK, nobody has tested it in a court of law. If it was me - I'd probably play safe and try and aquire original copies of the maps, scan and then tag them as UK-PD. Anyone else have any thoughts ? Megapixie 08:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I may have original copies. What areas are you looking for? The copyright is complicated because there are changes from the original in terms of croping to get the maps to fit together and fitting them to modern grid refernces or at least that is what old-maps.co.uk claimed when I contacted them.Geni 20:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

As the owner of the site mentioned in the first post, I feel I should attempt to defend myself a little bit. The scans have not (yet) been released into the PD because getting the collection to the current state has so far cost me more than twice the cost of my computer in money and much more in terms of time. Having got this far I object to the idea of others potentially making money just reselling free data to the gullible, hence the copyright, which as megapixie says has not yet been tested in the UK. I have considered a "free the maps" style ransom, but feel it would be more likely to work when the set is complete (probably mid 2007). If foxhill looks around the site a little bit more, they would come across an offer to negotiate supplying the original scans on the "about" page. Andrew Rowbottom 16:09, 31 December 2006 (GMT)

Once a painting is purchased, who owns the copyright? Is it the owner or the painter? I have a friend who owns a painting by Piran Bishop, and the owner is happy for it to be photographed and used non-commercially under a CC licence, but neither of us is sure whether she or the painter holds the copyright. Any thoughts? (Sorry - I'm sure this is a really basic question, but I'm stuck!) Squeezeweasel 17:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The artist retains copyright. Just think of the painting as a DVD of a movie - owning the DVD doesn't transfer copyright. The painting could potentially be used under a WP:Fair use claim however. Megapixie 22:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Back when I was just a wee lad, I put multiple book cover images on single articles. For example, the "Release details" section of the article for Blue Moon (novel) includes images of the UK edition and hardcover second edition of that novel, in addition to the first edition image in the infobox.

That seems to be within the scope contemplated by Template:Bookcover, which states only that a book cover be needed to "illustrate" a particular book, but I wanted to double-check. What do people think about whether we can use multiple book cover images in a single article? Thanks, TheronJ 21:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is border-line. The two covers illustrate different editions and you're sticking with just the cover , which is good. However, there is not much context in the article for what distinquishes the two editions. Think you could find some informaiton about whether anything else is different about the editions besides the cover? Any particular reason they changed the cover? Is there any other information to report about the two editions - for example sales figures? I'd feel better about the two images if there was more verbiage. Johntex\^talk 20:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have listed Image:PETA dumpster incident dead animal retrieval.jpg on IFD and would like for another pair or two of copyright-concerned eyes to take a look at it. The image is from an anti-PETA website that gives no indication of who the actual copyright holder is. It is speculated, though not known, that the source is likely a news media photo. I would appreciate it if some of the others who monitor this page would take a look at the IFD and help to build a consensus on whether this image is acceptable under our fair use policy. Thank you. BigDT 18:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say it does not comply. If we don't know the source, then we don't know if we are violating anyone's interest in showing it. For all we know, the image could have come from a competing encyclopedia. I think this one should be deleted unless (at a minimum) more information can be found about the source. Johntex\^talk 18:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe using this Time Life Cover on the article Bob Willoughby under fair use is acceptable because it is a magazine cover, replaceability isn't possible since a picture of the cover would show the identical information and copyright may still belong to Time Magazine, the article directly talks about this cover and is a critical component to this article, ie, This was the first time a motion picture studio hired a special or unit photographer to specifically take photographs for sale to magazines. whereas it is also Bob's big break (according to the article). The uploaded image should not appear on Judy Garland's article page. Any comments? --MECU≈talk 19:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your interpretation. There is a strong tie-in between the cover and Bob Willoughby's career. This is directly discussed in the Bob Willoughby article. Therefore, the cover can be included there alongside the text. On the other hand, no one has made a case that the cover was important to the life or career of Judy Garland, so it would not be usable there as fair-use at this time. Johntex\^talk 20:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Are mug shots by U.S. police and sheriff agencies considered public domain? They are created as a means of public identification of suspects and criminals, and are often widely released. For instance Image:PatrickTribett.jpg, which enjoys de facto public domain status on the Internet at large, was released to the public by the Belmont County (Ohio) Sheriff's Office.

I guess this is more a policy question to me than one regarding a specific usage. In what situations are mug shots (of living, and of no-longer-living individuals) permissable? In what situations (aside from explicit copyright) are they not? Does it depend on the copyright policy at the level of government that produced the image (are FBI mug shots permissible as a product of the U.S. Federal government? How about local governments that have released their intellectual property rights to their work"?) Or are mug shots to be assumed as public domain based on the explicit purpose of the "genre"? Thanks. Erielhonan 22:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

As a corollary question - please look at this issue viz fair use as well as public domain. In the example, the image is a widely distributed Internet meme. In an article on the meme itself or the websites at which the meme originated or took a strong hold, does fair use apply if public domain does not? Or could fair use be more widely considered, again based on the purpose of the "genre". Thanks again. Erielhonan 07:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• With mug shots, there have been a number of discussions of them. One is at Commons:Template talk:PD-US-mugshot and has largely been duplicated at Template talk:Mugshot. The bottom line is that unless it is a mugshot created by the FBI or another agent of the US government, it may be copyrighted and so we can't use it unless there is a fair use rationale. With internet memes, they are not public domain. There is no de facto public domain. Unlike trademarks, not enforcing your copyrights doesn't cause you to lose them. BigDT 17:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I know there's no 'de facto' public domain as a legal concept. But in usage on websites that aren't as vulnerable to copyright issues it does more or less exist as a practical concept (fair use doesn't apply, yet its rare that anyone would pursues action against goofball web site for using certain images). But with an Internet meme mugshot, wouldn't fair use apply to including an image along with a discussion of the meme (and its usage on certain websites).

As a practical matter - is there any reference source - or interest in creating one - for copyright policies on a government-by-government basis? So we editors can be more sensitive when choosing what to include, rather than relying solely on the concept that products of the Federal gov't are the only government-created work that's acceptable for inclusion?

Also, I am sure that many of the questions I will have in the future (on a variety of subjects) have been addressed in some form in wikipedia talk. Unfortunately I haven't found an easy way to locate them (short of reading very long lists, or idly surfing through potentially-related pages). Any suggestions on how to search the wikipedia talk "knowledge base" before posting questions that already have been discussed? Erielhonan 19:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

US federal goverment is about the only one that puts all its stuff into the public domain.Geni 20:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Nareklm is interested in using content from Armenica.org. Their about page explains that their license is generally free, except for one caveat:

Material taken from Armenica.org must not be altered or modified without permission from Armenica.org

This seems to be obviously incompatible with the GFDL.

All its images have a watermark in the corner, and I wondered if the no-modify clause was only meant to protect that. Nareklm emailed the website to clarify whether their no-modify clause was meant only to ensure attribution. They replied:

Key words: Feel free to use any map (image) as long as Armenica.org is mentioned in the text. This is what we already do with images, and what the GFDL requires. So is this sufficient to begin using Armenica.org content on Wikipedia? --Interiot 08:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No the second email doesn't really answer the question.Geni 09:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I am aware that US postage stamp designs prior to the 1970s have been explicitly released to the public domain, besides being (usually) the work of the US government and, in the case of 19th century material, old enough to have expired copyrights in any case. However, does the same apply to images of postal history? Specifically, can columbian-245-piece.jpg (Figure 2) from this page be used for the article on the Columbian Issue? The Philatelic Foundation certainly holds copyright to the text of the article, but is there copyright in force on that image? The package was mailed Feb 19, 1897; copyrights (if any apply at all to the exterior of an envelope or package sent via public mail) should have expired, unless the derivative electronic image is covered separately. An opinion better versed in this aspect of copyright law would help a great deal. Thanks! Serpent's Choice 12:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The scan would likely fall under the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. ruleing. Assumeing the mail was sent within the US I think the image is likely ok.Geni 13:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Mailed from the US (Bangor, ME), but I believe the destination was in Germany. The piece has been back in the US for some time, however (and that scan is almost certainly of American origin). Any complications? Serpent's Choice 13:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

maybe it depends how different US law is from UK law. It really rather depends on weather posting it counts as publishing in the US or germany. I would argue that it counts as publishing in the US and therefor the item is public domain.Geni 13:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the only possibly copyright in a scanned cover would be in the stamps or a cachet. However, I also see many philatelic publications assert copyright on this kind of material, so we should proceed gently in dissuading them of this misperception. Stan 15:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Would I be correct in understanding that, in general, a pre-1978 political poster that carries no copyright notice would be in the public domain?

If someone can answer that, I'd appreciate if you ping my user talk page, since this page can be a bit hard to keep track of. - Jmabel | Talk 00:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

In the U.S., yes (until 1989), unless it's a derivative work of something copyrighted. --NE2 19:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. So what tag would one use (and could someone ping me again if/when this gets answered)? - Jmabel | Talk 05:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking through Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Public domain I'd say go with {{PD-because}}. —Angr 06:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I can certainly use that, but it's probably a common enough case that we should create a specific template. - Jmabel | Talk 17:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a photo that I took myself of a logo that I want to add to the article for the Penn State Blue Band - I'm unsure on the policy in this regard: since I took it myself and will be licensing it under GFDL/CC, the photo itself is okay to use, but if the photo is basically entirely comprised of an organization's logo, will it still need fair use rationale? -- PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 21:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You can use it as a fair use image, but only the original author can create a derivative work of their product. As the entire photo is this copyrighted image, a fair use tag and rationale should be written. BigDT 22:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I've uploaded the image at Image:PSUMBB_logo.png - if you can just give it a once-over to make sure that it would satisfy fair use requirements, I'd appreciate it! -- PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 22:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to improve the quality of the maps available for New Zealand, but all I really need is accurate coastal outlines of various areas. If I find a detailed map online, what is the situation if I take a screen grab, then blank all the actual information on the map just leaving the coastline as the basis for my new map. Does this count as a derived work ? Malathos 18:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Still a derived work. Checkout some of the NASA satellite photography - visible earth etc. You might be able to find some decent satellite photos of the areas you are looking for. Megapixie 01:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure whether I can use this linguistic map of the Caucasus.

The article on the languages of the Caucasus currently uses this map as an illustration. While it gives an overview of the linguistic situation in the region, it is far from accurate and leaves out a lot of the details, only showing 28 of the more than 51 languages spoken there. The map that I linked to in the first line, from HUNMAGYAR.ORG, would be a wonderful improvement, were it not that it sais here that their ethnographic maps come from National Geographic, which is not part of the American government and generally prohibits redistribution of its work (here). However, some of HUNMAGYAR.ORG's other ethnolinguistic maps, such as this one are also featured on Wikipedia (here), where they are attributed to the U.S. government, which makes them free to use. So, somewhere along the line, something does not add up. Can I reuse the map? Or alternatively, can I use it claiming fair use (like HUNMAGYAR.ORG itself does) as it is such a vital illustration for an article on the languages of the Caucasus? Sephia karta 23:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a picture I would like to use from Flickr [7] but I'm unsure of what copyright status it has. I don't use Flickr so I don't know where to look. Would this image be under an appropriate licence for Wikipedia? There is another picture also [8] would this be more appropriate? James086^{Talk | Contribs} 11:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The first appears to be under no lisence at all thus can't be used. The second is under a non comcercial use only lisence and thus is not considered free enough for wikipedia.Geni 00:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Curses, I will have to ask permission again. Thanks anyway. James086Talk 02:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

There's an image on page 7 of this PDF that I'd like to use at police box. The information given in the article is that it's from an 1894 advertisement for the National Telephone Company, which ceased to exist in 1911. Is the image in public domain? And (although I realize that this isn't quite in the purview of this help section), assuming that it can be used here, how exactly do I go about removing the image from the PDF? (I'm on a Mac.) Thanks! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is, as it is an anonymous work that was published over 100 years ago. Put {{PD-old}} on it. As for getting the image out of the PDF, try making a screen shot. —Angr 09:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! (And I figured out that Preview can clip the image out of the PDF.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Lahiru k and I have been talking about a bunch of photographs they've uploaded from 50 YEARS ON – 1949-1999, a book published by the army of Sri Lanka (e.g. 1, 2). Apparently the book has no individual photo credits, and only the statement "The Content of this book is sole property of Sri Lanka Army and any duplication is liable for prosecution. Reproduction of the content is possible provided its source is given its recognition." Incidentally, this is nearly identical to the statement on the army's front web page (though many subpages simply say "all rights reserved"). I'm concerned about using these photos under {{Attribution}} because of uncertainly of the individual photos' ownership, and because of that casual and somewhat contradictory copyright statement. Any thoughts? ×Meegs 21:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You wouldn't want to use the attribution template because the author does not release them for commercial reuse. You'll want to use the fairuse templates, i.e. {{Non-free fair use in}} and be sure you use it in accordance with WP:FU guidelines; they're very stringent.--Jeff 11:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I got a 1964 book from the library about the Long Island Rail Road, and it has some photos from as early as 1865 that would be nice additions to the article. The majority are credited "collection of someone" rather than to the actual copyright holder. A few are credited to libraries. How old would a photo in the book have to be to be assured of being public domain? Would the ones credited to libraries be acceptable as fair use (assuming they are irreplaceable, with a rationale, etc.) despite not having a copyright holder listed? Thank you for any answers. --NE2 19:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Pre-1923 photos taken and published in the US are public domain. Images held by libraries, etc are still public domain (see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.). In general where the author of the original photograph died more than 70 years ago the photograph is public domain. Checkout {{PD-US}}. Megapixie 03:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem - didn't the photo have to be published before 1923? All I know about these photos is that they were published in a 1965 book. --NE2 18:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there any credit, acknowledgment or appendix in the book that might allow you to perform more research? You need to know more about the images in order to clarify their copyright status. There are unanswered questions that are needed to answer the question regarding the copyright status of your photographs. Namely, author, author's date of death, date of original publishing. This page on cornell.edu can be a handy reference for answering your question once you know more about the images.--Jeff 11:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I know nothing else about them; the author of the book didn't care to give that information. --NE2 10:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You might want to check with the librarian. He or She might have resources or knowledge that could aid you in answering the question.--Jeff 15:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If I was in the NYC area that might be possible. Anyway, I don't think lack of images of the older days will affect it at FAC, so I give up on this. --NE2 16:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. I REALLY tried to figure this out myself, but reading all the definitions and following the links left me a little dizzy! So, can i use this image on my user page, where I'm just indicating I am a Narnia fan and wish I could actually travel there? Thanks!--Anietor 19:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No sorry, you can't. It's a fair use image and you can't use those on your userpage. Garion96 (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello! I'm new to Wikipedia, and want to make sure I'm doing this right. I am currently working on adding the history of our company and have three images I'd like to use. One shows two men in front of a [9] blacksmithing shop (they are deceased); one shows our company [10] president with the unit he invented and the third shows our [11] company logo. All images are owned by our company. Can someone please take a look and let me know what I need to do to be able to use them? Thank you so much!Ajcross2455 15:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, does your company releases those photos under a free content license? Like the GFDL or Creative Commons? See here for the different licenses. If not, the pictures would have to be used under Fair use and might get deleted since they might fail our fair use criteria. Garion96 (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I use pictures from The Virtual Fossil Museum with credit? Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

By the terms of that license, no. It appears they are open to receiving inquiries though. You might want to email them and ask them to release photos under a license that's more Wiki friendly, like CC-BY-SA 2.5.--Jeff 04:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

May well do so, after collating what'd be most useful. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a track layout map for a station that I would quite like to use on Wikipedia. Assuming that the map is still protected by copyright, I obviously would not be able to upload it to Wikipedia or Commons. But, could I create my own version of it, using the original for reference and upload that without breaching copyright? It wouldn't be a direct reproduction of course, but I would essentially be conveying the information taken from the original in my own way. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 03:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That would be allowed, since information cannot be copyrighted. --NE2 03:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent news, and thanks for the speedy reply! →Ollie (talk • contribs) 03:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Is the license on this image "free enough" for use on Wikipedia user and talk pages? I'd like to get the copyrights sorted out before I propsoe it as a possible WikiProject award. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the status of the TARDIS image. It's probably copyrighted, meaning this barnstar isn't free enough; but maybe you could make a barnstar using Commons:Image:Earls Court Police Box.jpg instead. —Angr 22:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Geni's already made one here, which is OK if a bit rough-and-ready. This was another proposal that was supposed to be more aesthetically pleasing. Apparently the creator of the police box image used in Image:DoctorWho-Barnstar2.png has said that he "allows use of his images for free as long as his name and a link to his website is stated as credit". (See here.) I'm not sure what license that would fall under, really. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I would like to clarify this situation a little. Rob Semenoff, the creator of the image we wish to use, states on his FAQ page that use of his images is allowed, as long as 'you provide my name and a link to my homepage'. I have provided both on the image pages themselves, so from this I assume we are allowed to use this image where we like. Am I correct with my understand on this? Smomo 13:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

porblem is that that is website only permission and doesn't cover derivatives.Geni 15:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Does that matter for a barnstar? Surely barnstars aren't going to be used by downstream users, particularly downstream users in other media. Or is it a blanket rule that images used in barnstars must be GFDL or equivalently free? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a blanket rule that unfree (so-called "fair use") images may be used only in article space (though they often appear on the front page in violation of this rule). —Angr 15:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

But this isn't fair use — it's use with permission. Now, I know that Wikipedia-only permission isn't good enough, but as stated on the creator's page it's permission to use anywhere, with name and link. That's not the same as fair use, in which the copyright holder's statements are irrelevant or ignored. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

'Use with permission' is deprecated. Since May 19, 2005 new images uploaded with restricted use licenses will be quickly deleted, and images uploaded before then can be deleted. I think using such images anywhere but in article space is against the spirit, if not the letter, of Wikipedia rules. -- Donald Albury 13:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It's OK — the creator has released the image under CC 2.5. (See here.) So I think we're cool. Thanks for your patience, everyone. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, he chose the 'non-commercial' version of the license, which is still not acceptable on Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury 21:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeesh! I didn't notice that. Well, apparently the creator has now emailed Smomo (talk · contribs) with the following:[12]

“

I, Rob Semenoff, have irrevocably released all rights to this image, allowing it to be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited in any way by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, with or without attribution to myself, as if in the public domain. However, as a courtesy, a link back to my site and my name would be appreciated.

”

I hope that is free enough for our purposes. If the image's tag is incorrect, would someone please change it to the appropriate one? Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Is the US form 7233-4 that is available from here and can be seen here covered under Work of the United States Government? The form is the US version of the ICAO flight plan. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I am not very clear on the status of Chinese copyright law. Is a translation of a Chinese document likely to be a copyright violation? Does it matter if it is a temporary, computurised translation (e.g. Altavista), or a handdone translation published on a website? Thanks for the help, Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 14:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

A translation is a derivative work, so in addition to being subject to the copyright restrictions of the original, the translation has a copyright of its own. (This is why Bible translations are copyrighted even the the original text of the Bible isn't.) I don't know what the copyright status of machine translations is, though. —Angr 14:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

So, according to US copyright law, a translation or other derivative work made without the permission of the author would be a copyvio. But wouldn't Chinese copyright laws apply in this case? Is there a good way of determining whether something is covered by Chinese or US copyright law, or is it safe to assume it is Chinese copyright law if it is from a Chinese news source? And what is the Chinese stance on "derivative works"? — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 14:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This is copy-and-pasted from WT:USRD:

I'll probably start putting up maps of Interstates shortly according to the standards, but I wondered if my technique is a copyright violation.

I would zoom in to the scale I want on Google Maps and take a screen copy. Then I would trace the roads on a separate layer above the Google Maps screenshot.

Is this derivative work a copyvio?

Thanks in advance! —Rob (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes - that's a derivative work. If you traced a photograph it would be a derivative work. If you rotoscoped starwars it would be a derivative work. Megapixie 00:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that there is no creativity in displaying exactly where roads are located, as a precise map like Google Maps does. (On a hand-drawn map, the roads might be fudged to fit certain things in better, but that's not the case for Google Maps.) As per Feist v. Rural, any copying of the uncopyrightable elements is itself uncopyrightable. Essentially, any map made using the same projection and accurate data would turn out identical. --NE2 00:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Maps are protected by copyright - and have been since 1790 in the US [13]. Show me a case precident involving maps (not telephone books) and that might have some bearing. Tracings would be derivative works in the same way if you traced a photograph (and recognized in the same terms by US copyright law). Megapixie 00:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Additionally see [14] Megapixie 00:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

What's protected by copyright about the locations of roads on the earth? --NE2 02:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing. And if you ride down these roads with a GPS unit attached to a laptop - the resulting data is entirely yours. However we cannot allow people to upload derivative works traced from copyright maps. If you read the links above, it's actually pretty hot, and we should err on the side of caution. Megapixie 05:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The only thing transferred from the map to the tracing is the locations of the roads. There's nothing copyrighted about that. None of the arguments I see on that link, such as "each mapmaker's selection of sources, interpretation of those sources, discretion in reconciling inconsistencies ... and skill and judgment in depicting the information", apply here, since only a chosen set of roads - Interstates - are being traced, and at a very granular level, such that slight differences in placement would make no difference in the final product. As far as I know, what Lpangelrob proposes is to take a map of this scale or smaller and trace the Interstates. The scale is such that the error introduced by the process of tracing is much larger than any errors in the map data. --NE2 06:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, this may all be moot, since these maps are public domain and large enough scale, though there may be some minor issues with patching together states. --NE2 06:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Person A writes a business letter to person B. Person B dies and person C buys a bunch of documents from his estate that includes the letter. I purchase the letter from person C. Can I publish the letter? Do I now own the copyrights to it? Can I take a photo of it and release it under GFDL? SteveBaker 23:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If I were you, I would consult a lawyer who specializes in copyright, and not rely on any advise you get here. -- Donald Albury 23:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

uhhhh. One could make the arguement that the act of writing a letter TO someone is effectively giving the letter (and its' copyright) to the receiver. That's the crux of the whole scenario; Is the act of sending a letter effectively transferring the copyright as well? I would say yes, and therefore having acquired the letter from the estate would mean the current holder should be entitled to its' copyright. But yeah.. only a real lawyer could answer such a complex situation with any confidence.--Jeff 00:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No, legally the heirs of Person A own the copyright. If there still is copyright of course, that depends on how long ago person A died. Garion96 (talk) 00:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Person A is not dead. So, sending someone a letter is not conveyance of ownership (and of the copyright?) If I wrote someone a letter, I don't own it anymore; I gave it away, right?--Jeff 00:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that's what you get from reading too fast. But no, you don't give your copyright away with the sending of a letter. See for example [15] as an example. The "Restrictions on Use" section. Garion96 (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The current copyright status of the letters would very much depend on where (what country) the letters were written/sent from, and when. Short of certification from a competent legal authority that the copyright has expired or that the item was never under copyright, we have to fall back on the broadest interpretation of copyright coverage, i.e., in the U.S., the author died at least 70 years ago, etc. Ownership of the letters themselves is like ownership of a book. You buy a book that is still under copyright, it's yours, you can do whatever you want with it, except distribute copies of it. -- Donald Albury 11:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That's what I feared. I have no idea whether person A is alive or not - but it was a business letter - so the copyright would presumably belong to the guy's employer anyway. The company has been chopped up and bits have been sold off, other parts have collapsed and vanished so if the company retain the copyright after they send the letter then there is little chance of getting permission to use it. The letter is dated 1960 - so we're a long way from the 70 year rule. The letter was written in England. Oh well - I guess it's going into a picture frame on my wall, maybe my son will one day submit it to Wikipedia! This IP stuff is *such* a pain...argh! Thanks guys. SteveBaker 16:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that a user named BoaTeeth has repeatedly had trouble uploading images to contribute to the Bruce Hornsby article over the past weeks. Many of the images that user attempted to use were not properly tagged, etc, but the ongoing discussion on the various image pages, various user talk pages, etc, indicates, in my opinion, that good faith has been assumed by all parties...both the user trying to upload images to improve the article and by the questions regarding copyright. BoaTeeth makes a good point somewhere in the discussion about the vast number of musician pages, particularly branching off of the jam band Wikipedia Category, that are attempting to make use of Creative Commons licensing for images (usually taken from Flickr). Given that this problem has been ongoing, and that the Bruce Hornsby talk page features a request that images be added, I took it upon myself to contact the owner and operator of www.Bruuuce.com, a fan website for Bruce Hornsby which features a number of images of the musician (some of which are copyrighted on the images by the original photographer, the balance of which are copyrighted by owner and operator of the website due to the copyright notice on the webpage itself). The owner and operator of the website has granted me permission to use any of the images for which he is the copyright holder (his exact words were "any of the images not copyrighted to other photographers") on the Bruce Hornsby Wikipedia article. Surely the inclusion of such images in the article, which has undergone a substantial amount of very admirable revision recently, would serve to improve the quality of the article by illustrating some of the various time periods/performance circumstances discussed. I am writing now, before attempting to upload any images, to clarify exactly how these images should be sourced/tagged. I realize that these images would be in jeopardy of not qualifying for fair use; however, there seem to be no images of Bruce Hornsby available for fair use or for use under Creative Commons licensing. I've noticed that such pages as Billy Joel have resorted to really poor quality Dept. of Education images, Elton John to a highly questionable self-uploaded poster, and Jon Fishman and Trey Anastasio of the band Phish have both had images be the subject of much scrutiny and questioning. Surely it is best for Wikipedia to have encyclopedia-esque chroniclings of these public figures, images and all, especially when high-quality images are being offered for free use. Could these images from www.Bruuuce.com be uploaded and credited to that website owner, giving future Wikipedia readers/users the opportunity to contact the source to verify the permissions? It seems a real shame to have so many articles with such a paucity of images. I'm awaiting further advice (either here or on my talk page, or both) before I proceed, but I'm eager to try to add these images, for which permission has been given, to what has become a very exciting and vibrant article. Thanks for your help. Snidleysnide 18:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up (sorry): If these images are deemed usable on Wikipedia, then would the sourcing/tagging for them be done similarly to Image:SCI2005.jpg, found in the article jam band? Snidleysnide 20:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission? I ask because it sounds like the website owner gave Wikipedia permission to use the image, which isn't free enough for us. We want the image to be free for everyone to use for any purpose, including commercial use. If the website owner writes you an email stating they are willing to license their images available on their site under a suitable CC license or the GFDL, then you can follow the directions on that page and upload away. I'd like to point out at this time the advantage of uploading an image to commons, especially ones from flickr: Commons is setup to automatically review flickr uploaded images (if you select the correct license option in the dropdown box) and verify the license. This is important because flickr licenses can change, but if it was licensed CC-BY-SA-2.0, as it's verified, we can keep it forever. We're not setup for that here at Wikipedia. --MECU≈talk 22:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I received an award about a year ago from Dr. Alma Adams (American Legacy building in Washington DC), and have picture with her in them. I noticed that there isn't one of her. I can crop her out, but I'm not familiar with what, if any, copyright/licensing terms apply to this image. I do not know any of the photographers, but believe they were taking the pictures for media coverage of me (so I was told). I saw something about pictures of legislators being uncopyrightable, but am not sure if that applies in this case, since it was taken in a private building and the original image included other people. Any ideas? Should I post it, or is uploading it something illegal that I'd get blocked for? Smokeresearcher 04:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that Alma Adams is a member of the North Carolina legislature. The bit about pictures of legislators not being copyrightable is wrong. That appears to be a garbled version of the rule that the work of employees of the United States government carried out as part of their official duties cannot be copyrighted. That means that the official photographs of members of the the United States Congress, taken by employees of Congress, are not copyrighted. That rule does not extend to photographs taken by persons who are not employees of the U.S. government. Works of employees of state and local governments in the U.S. are copyrighted. -- Donald Albury 11:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I won't put it there then... Smokeresearcher 22:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Does the image qualify as fair use? If nobody can tell who the photographer was, when does the 70-year copyright expiration period start: is it when the subject died or when the photo was taken? --Cameltrader 21:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The question of whether it qualifies as fair use is separate from whether it is in the public domain. I'll tackle whether this image is in the public domain. The date of death of the subject of the photo is irrelevant. To determine the copyright status we'd like to know three things: when the photo was created, when the photograph was first published, and when the photographer died. Can you track down any of this information? If the photograph was published (i.e. public distribution of copies occured) before 1923, then it is in the public domain in the US. If the photographer is truly anonymous (and not simply that you don't know the identify of the photographer) and the photo was created before 1887, then it is also public domain in the US. —RP88 12:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been generally accepted by highway editors that U.S. highway markers used by states to mark their roads are not copyrighted. For instance, the Interstate Highway shield is trademarked but not copyrighted, and thus there are no problems with using it in an encyclopedia: [16] It's also been generally accepted that toll road markers are copyrighted. However, a search through [17] for the names of several toll authorities, such as New York State Thruway Authority and New Jersey Highway Authority, turns up a few results but none for the marker. (Any marker created before 1989 would have had to be registered, since there is never a copyright notice on the actual sign.) Can someone give advice, either here or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York State routes#A letter from Public Affairs, NYS Thruway Authority, on whether this database is complete, etc.? Thank you. --NE2 19:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yuen Ren Chao was one of the 20th century's great linguists & the inventor of an important Chinese romanization system known as Gwoyeu Romatzyh. I would very much like to include a photo of Chao as a young man in both articles. This was probably taken about 1914-16, when Chao was a student.

I've asked the webmaster at pinyin.info about this image, & he tells me the picture was scanned from Autobiography of a Chinese Woman (John Day Company, New York, 1947), written by Chao's wife, Buwei Yang. He copied Chao's signature and superimposed it on the photo. Can I just go ahead & use it? Is John Day Co. still in business? I don't want to waste time using an image that's going to be deleted! Or am I just being over-conscientious?

Ideally this photo or a another one of Chao should be in the Commons. So if anyone can suggest another, free-use one, that would be fine. -- NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, as the original is out of copyright, and it's a two-dimensional work of art being slavishly copied, we can count its copyright status as the same as the original, e.g. before 1923, except you may need to get explicit permission from the webmaster to use the signature photoshop, but it sounds like you're on good terms with him, so that shouldn't be a problem. If I'm wrong on this, a fair usage criteria will probably do, as it's not like many photographs are likely to exist. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks indeed for the encouraging reply! I've now uploaded the image to WP as Image:Yr-chao.jpg, citing {{PD-China}}: is that the correct procedure? -- NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone know if I can upload and use this image here [18] of Wingerworth Hall taken in 1920 Giano 16:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Since it was published in 1921, you can use {{PD-US}}. Be sure to give that page as a source. --MECU≈talk 17:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that - now uploaded. Giano 13:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

{{PD-US}} applies if "it was first published in the United States prior to 1 January 1923". Country Life (magazine) is British, and there's no indication if or when the photo might have been published in the US, so I don't see a reason to assume PD-US. --Davepape 15:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I like finding and uploading to Wikipedia pictures from postcards that were printed before 1923 and are therefore copyright free. eBay has a lot of good pictures of them. Occasionally there's some kind of "border" (some colored background that the postcard was up against when it was photographed) and eBay has a little cartoonish image of a camera on the lower right hand corner of its pictures. I see no value to eBay or eBay sellers and certainly none to us at Wikipedia or to anyone else in having these, and I'm reluctant to use them, although when I find a particularly useful image, I upload it anyway. Is there any legal problem with this at all? I assume if there were some added value that the eBay camera image gave to the picture, or the "border" then we couldn't use it because, for one thing, it would be post-1923. And if I knew how to crop the picture to avoid anything not in the postcard, I would. Since I don't want to go through this kind of work and see my images deleted, someone please tell me if I'm doing anything wrong here. Thanks! Noroton 02:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This site has many low res scans of PRC propaganda posters and the author seems pretty cool about allowing them to be used subject to the conditions listed. Are they acceptable here and what kind of entry needs to be made when uploading the image? thnx --killing sparrows 07:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Would a scan of a "gold" CD for a piece of software (ie, the gold disc, not the retail disc) be accepted as fair use if put in the article Software release life cycle which discusses the subject matter of gold discs, but not the software on the gold disc specifically? SchmuckyTheCat 04:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like it might be acceptable. Be sure to include a fair use rationale when you upload the scan, and it should be under fair use. MECU≈talk 18:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I asked for permission to use an image, and got the following response:

We would be very pleased if you use our "Dandelion and Rose" poster without alteration.

I own the copyright to the image mentioned in your email letter and found at http://www.omsoul.com/catalog/images/product_images/ZROPl.gif

I grant permission to copy, distribute but not modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, no Back-Cover Texts, and subject to disclaimers found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GFDL

Is that a no-go for Wikipedia use, then, with the "no modification" clause? Or is there some way to make that work? Lyrl ^Talk _C 00:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can make a fair use claim, nope, you can't use it. GFDL includes modification, so images can't be licensed under it without allowing modification. -Amarkov moo! 22:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I ran into the article Bulgarian Eastern Orthodox Diocese of the USA, Canada and Australia speedy tagged as a copyright violation. I went and looked at the source and found it to be a GFDL-licensed Wiki. I've added text to Talk:Bulgarian Eastern Orthodox Diocese of the USA, Canada and Australia that I think satisfies the GFDL-attribution guideline - but I'm verrrry new at copyright-related matters, so I put my neck on the block here and ask you to chop or not ... can OrthodoxWiki content be used on Wikipedia and is the attribution I've provided satisfactory. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The specific text can be used. Per OrthodoxWiki:Copyrights, all edits made to the OrthodoxWiki on or after November 22, 2005 are dual-licensed under the GFDL and Cc-by-2.5; those edits made to the OrthodoxWiki before November 22, 2005 are only licensed as such if the editor transcludes Template:Acceptrevised] to his or her user page. --Iamunknown 01:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there,

I posted this question above and got no response nor did I get a response on the Media copyright questions page so I'll try here again. I am trying to determine the copyright status of political propaganda posters created in the People's Republic of China during the 1950's. This collection of posters and the site's copyright information and attribution policy seem to say that they would fall under GFDL and that {{Attribution}} would apply, but images from the same site, which are currently being used in Criticize Lin, Criticize Confucius, Propaganda in the People's Republic of China and other Wikipedia articles are used under {{politicalposter}} as fair use. Any ideas on the actual status of these images? Thanks!--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 03:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

They are copyrighted and fall under fair use. They do not exercise copyright does not mean we can use it. SYSS Mouse 01:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Am I allowed to use the profile pictures used on uefa.com such as this one [19] of Rafael Marquez?
If not, then why are profile pictures from the same site allowed used on this page for Cyril Théréau or Nicolae Dică?
Blackjanedavey 16:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No. This fails the first fair use criteria of replaceable. I have marked the other two images appropriately. MECU≈talk 18:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I asked about it here once before, and was told that since banknotes are two-dimensional, the only copyright holder is whoever produced the banknote, and the person who scanned it has no rights (but coins are different, since they're 3-D). Please correct me if I'm mistaken about this. If I'm right, would someone please check {{PD-banknote}} and let me know if it's an appropriate/useful tag? Many websites with banknotes on them claim some type of copyright, and I think it would be helpful to have a tag that explains the situation. If there's a better way to go about it, please let me know. Thanks, Ingrid 22:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I have "co-pilot" license that the monorail pilots hand out at Walt Disney World. The car has the ©Disney on the front. Which Licensing do I need to select? HeadMouse 19:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

ANYONE?? HeadMouse 03:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

some kind of fair use tag if you think you can make a fair use case.Geni 03:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a question about old Soviet propaganda films (which I have moved myself to this page). WP:C says that:

“

According to the Russian copyright law of 1993 (Федеральный закон от 9.07.1993 № 5351-1), the following items are not subject to copyrights: Official documents (laws, court decisions, other texts of legislative, administrative or judicial character); State symbols and tokens (flags, coats of arms, orders, banknotes and other state symbols and tokens)...

”

Goskino appears to have been the "publisher" of movies created by certain Soviet filmmakers before 1953. Does that make these movies, and especially propaganda films undertaken at the behest of Stalin, either "official documents" or "state symbols and tokens"? I'm asking because I'd like to add a still of actor Mikheil Gelovani (who has been dead for over 50 years) to his article. The image is from the 1950 movie "Fall of Berlin, Part II". But I obviously don't want to add this if there would be a copyright problem. --Charlene 20:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This whole situation is clear as mud. There is no definitive piece of case law (in the US) that shows them to be either in or out of the public domain. See [20] and [21]. They would seem to suggest that it's either life+70 or 1946. Either way it's unlikely the images are public domain outside Russia. A film (even a propoganda one) is unlikely to fall into the "official state symbols bin". Megapixie 22:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Can I use any of these photos for my article on Joe Baksi?

• This image [22] which someone uploaded to boxrec.com. It appears to be a publicity shot, circa 40's, unknown origin.
• This image [23] of a postcard (actually an image card), taken from this website[24]. It was originally made by "The Image Supply Company", probably defunct. I don't mind buying the card if that gives me the right to post the image. Circa 50's.
• This advertisement [25]. I would crop the photo, make a head and shoulder shot just of the Baksi as a boxer.

I can reduce rez if I have to.

If not, can I use a lower res or a crop?--Work permit 03:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You could use the last image (approximate date required) - if you are sure there is no copyright notice on the work - you can tag it {{PD-because|Widely published before 1978 without a copyright notice.}} Although I would crop it down to just the boxer - see for example Charade#Copyright_status. Megapixie 23:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I uploaded this image from spacetelescope.org which is freely licensed under certain conditions. Namely:

• ESA is credited as the source of the material (images/videos etc.). Please add other additional credit information that is posted together with the material.
• The images may not be used to state or imply the endorsement by ESA or any ESA employee of a commercial product, process or service, or used in any other manner that might mislead.
• If an image includes an identifiable person, using that image for commercial purposes may infringe that person's right of privacy, and separate permission should be obtained from the individual.
• We encourage a copy of the product to be sent to us to be included in our archive.

Points three and four don't affect anything (since there's nobody in the image. Point one is easily covered with an {{attribution}} license tag - but I'm slightly troubled about point two. It seems to me that this is probably fine, but I'm not positive, and wanted a second/third/forth set of eyes to check it out. WilyD 14:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that #2 is probably okay. It's a restriction that limits the use commercially, but no more than other free images. You couldn't use a free image of Mr. T to support your commercial product anyways, and neither would therefore using a free image by the ESA to say they support you too. MECU≈talk 16:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There's very few images of Old 666 left, but I found a page with a few artistic interpretations of the famous B-17. I have no idea who did the painting in particular I'd like to tag on the 666 Article, but it can be found on this website. [26] Specific Image: [27]

I only request it because there are so few images of Old 666. Rett Mikhal 01:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

In short no. Unless you can come up with a more specific background to the painting (the image you link isn't actually a B-17 btw). We would have to assume life+70 for the painting, which makes it extremely unlikely to be public domain. Megapixie 22:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible that I can use this image?: [28]

I was wondering if it's possible that images made for profiles can be used on Wikipedia.

BTW, I'm using it for my User-page.

SaintFireMole 04:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the site claims copyright on the map. Why not make your own from: Image:Mollweide-projection.jpg or one of the other free maps at [29] ?. Megapixie 22:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a different kind of map. It's actually supposed to be that when you (the viewer) click on it, it records your exact location on the map. Anyone can get these kinds of maps here. Map examples can be found here.

SaintFireMole 23:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Would this image of Blair Hornstine from this website be acceptable in the article about her under Wikipedia's fair use policy? It is apparently a photo from Hornstine's high school years. Hornstine's whereabouts (namely, the college she is attending) are generally unknown, and I was unable to find a free alternative. --Ali 06:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there some special reason we need an image of her during her high school years? That is, why do we need this specific image? Because we can't get another one? Is it unlikely that we'll ever be able to get a free one of her? Have you written to the owners of this website asking for permission for a free license of this image? Fair use should be a last resort. MECU≈talk 16:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking her high school photo would be best because she gained notoriety during her senior year - she sued her school so she wouldn't have to share valedictorian status with another student. It is extremely unlikely that we'll be able to get a free image or photograph of her, as the college she is now attending remains secret and undisclosed. If necessary, I will write to the owners of the website - but the image is available on several websites, and the original copyright owner is unclear. --Ali 03:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Would the image here be ok to upload? The subject died in 1880, so I assume the picture is out of copyright? If it is ok to use, what do I list as the copyright holder/author and the source in the description? Thanks --McKDandy 22:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably. It'd would be nicer to get a clearer source - i.e. who took the photo, when and where. You could always ask the source for the background of the image ( [30] ). According to the university of Tasmania works of authors who died before 1955 are PD. Given life expentancy in the 1880s, it seems unlikely that the author would have lived another 75 years. If you can determine first publication dates inside or outside the US, then this chart [31] would apply. Seek clarification from the source. If none if forthcoming I would probably tag as {{PD-old-70}} giving as much source information as possible and the reasoning. Megapixie 23:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I recommend, however, consulting Hirtle's chart regarding the public domain. The United States does not recognize the rule of the shorter term, so though a work may be out of copyright in one country, it may still be copyrighted in the United States (see Wikipedia:Public domain for more details). --Iamunknown 23:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have an image of Mick Fleetwood that was created recently - however, the image includes the cover of Fleetwood Mac's Rumours within it. Could this be be released under a free license? --Brandt Luke Zorn 22:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

(IANAL) Assuming that you took the photograph - the question is - how much of the image does the album cover occupy ?. If it's a full length photo with him holding the CD, it could be regarded as De minimis i.e. it just happens to be in the image - and it is incidental - like perhaps the Nike swoosh on an athlete's sneakers. Any larger, and I would be tempted to either crop the image, or blur out/fade the cover to black. I'd be happy to take a look, you can always tag it db-author if we conclude that it's not free enough. Megapixie 23:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's him holding a copy of the vinyl version of the album, which is (obviously) considerably larger than a CD, and the entire cover is showing in the photograph. Here's the full image, with the date and everything, for you to judge. --Brandt Luke Zorn 06:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've photoshopped a crop of the image at Image:Mick Fleetwood crop.png (from commons) - which I believe side steps the issue - and gives us a more encyclopedic image. Feel free to change the image description to reflect you as creator, etc. Megapixie 12:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys, I took a few pics of my nephews first holy communion at the weekend. I have a couple of photos taken from behind the kids so that it is hard to identify them but you can clearly see the communion dresses. I was hoping to add an image to First Communion on the Traditions section to help explain the clothing used. Is it okay to use an image of a person without their knowledge if you cannot clearly make that person out? I hope my question makes sense! Thanks. Red minx 15:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Better to request permission of the children's parents first. If they are hard to identify then they are unlikely to have any issue with the images being used. If they don't like the idea, then it's better that they say no now, rather than find out later. Megapixie 01:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Labour Party (UK) deputy leadership election, 2007 currently has free use pics of 2 of the 6 candidates. To avoid bias I think there should be pics of all 6 of the cadidates (collectivly in one pic or indidudualy). The other 4 cadidates don't currently have free use images on wikipedia. I think I could get a good image of them all in a screengrab from the debate they had on newsnight: http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6700000/newsid_6703000/6703037.stm?bw=bb&mp=rm Would such an image be appopriate to use in the article under fair use rationale? Tomgreeny 01:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

They are all living people, thus we can't use non-free images of them per our non-free content policy. Megapixie 01:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything about living people on that policy page...

Also wouldn't such a criterion if it did exist ban virtually all movie posters etc. ?Tomgreeny 01:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the great non-free content debate. Criteria 1 states "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". We can (within reason) take pictures of living people that would replace either publicity photos or stills from TV interviews. This is very widely debated, but is the result of a foundation policy statement here - see item 3. Megapixie 02:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah OK, I think I see your reasoning: you can't take (usable) pictures of dead people, but you can of people still alive. Tomgreeny 02:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we have guidelines or official policies that indicate whether or not Wikipedia can use photos that depict acts that are illegal within the jurisdiction in which they were taken? (Example: if wearing orange socks is illegal in Nova Scotia, can Wikipedia's article on socks include a photo of a person wearing orange socks while in Nova Scotia?) Perhaps I am being obtuse, but after reviewing the image help files, I do not see anything on the legality of jurisdictional subject matter. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing illegal about Wikipedia's hosting pictures of illegal activity. If the person committing the illegal activity has his/her privacy rights violated in the picture's being published, then we can't have it here. ShadowHalo 14:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

With this image as a precedent, I'd like to upload a photo I have taken myself of the beer bottle from another brand. My question is that although the photo is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, the depicted design is under copyright by the company. Is it still ok to use such photos? —AldeBaer 11:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found Wikipedia:Requested copyright examinations and filed a request there. —AldeBaer 12:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Can I upload a self-made Microsoft Excel graph (not a screenshot, but merely what one would print), and if so, under which license? Belection06 12:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. That would be effectivly the same as a picture you took, so {{GFDL-self}} unless you prefer one of the other free tags such as cc-by-sa. You hold the copyrights on any graph or chart you create, no matter what tools you used. DES ^(talk) 23:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to use the image of a historical ambulance on this web site: (http://www.steamtraction.com/archive/5090/) to illustrate part of the Ambulance article. Is this permitted, as the publication of the original drawings is from a 1955 magazine, if so under what license?

Owain.davies 17:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I want to upload an image of an image from this website page: http://www.bumperactive.com/do/catalog/Search?likeText=rosita

There are two images on that page and the one I want to upload is the second one - #3156 Si, Se Puede [Rosita the Riveter]

Directly underneath the image, the site clearly states that this image is in the public domain. My first problem is that when I use the Wikipedia upload form to uploade an image from a website at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&uselang=en-internet

and I get to the licensing box I do not know which item from the drop down list to choose

My second problem is that I am unsure what the Source Filename should be. Is it the web address where the image is located? - this one: http://www.bumperactive.com/do/catalog/Search?likeText=rosita

My third problem is that I do not know what an appropriate file name for the Destination Filename would be. Is "Rosita the Riveter" OK to use?

My fourth problem, and this probably should have been my first question to you, is that the image contains a website address on it: bumperactive.com Is this a problem? Would it be considered an advertisement or solicitation and if so, would it be an appropriate image to upload? Also, because it is in the public domain would I be allowed, legally, to crop out the website address? If so, I'll have to do that with editing software and save it to my own computer. If I do this would this change the Source Filename and then what would the Source Filename be?

Thanks for your help. I've never done this before. Chicaneo 07:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I know not all images on US government webistes are PD, so I wanted to ask: if a photo on a page in a US gov website doesn't have a copyright notice, but it does have a photo credit, is it PD or not? The image I'm interested in is the first one at this page. It's credited to PISCO, which I assume is the Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans, not a government organization, found at this website. I was going to tag it with {{PD-USGov-DOC-NOAA}}, but now I'm not sure. Thanks. --Joelmills 23:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The real underlying question is, did employees of the US federal government create it as part of their employment? If so, the work (photo, etc.) is PD. If not, it doesn't matter where it's displayed; it remains copyrighted.

As an aside, one of the tricky areas is works created by government contractors as works for hire; by law, the works are copyrighted, and the copyright is owned by the U.S. government, which does not make the work PD.

Personally, I try to find a credit indicating that it's a government employee's work. If there's no credit, I look at the circumstances and try to be careful. The congressional biography photos are clearly PD, but other photos on a congressman's .gov website could easily be coming from someone hosting an event, for example.

In this particular case, the credit makes it clear that it's not PD. Studerby 04:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your opinion. --Joelmills 16:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Can I use this image? I found it on multiple websites:
http://www.philmontm1.com/waite_phillips.htm - which is copyrighted
and
http://www.cob.montevallo.edu/JanneyRT/history.htm
http://www.troop433.pair.com/id78.htm
These sites do not appear to be copyrighted.
I have no clue when the photo was taken, only the information given on the sites.
Thanks,
Pnswmr 00:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No. You may not use those photos. In the United States, things are (now, since 1978) copyrighted upon creation and do not need to have a copyright notice attached to be copyrighted; they just automatically are. There are a lot of complicated laws for things created before 1978, and for things published before 1978. In general, without legal research, you can only be sure that something is copyright free if either:

• The author has been dead for over 100 years
• It was published before 1923.

I emphasize "published" since the question concerns a photograph; to be "published" for copyright purposes means that it needs to be available to the public. A few prints available to family and friends don't count. For Wikipedia purposes, this usually means publication within a book or magazine that is dateable. Whether or not the subject of a photo is alive is irrelevant to copyright status. Studerby 04:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. It looks like Wikipedia might actually allow the use of copyrighted photos of dead people under very very restricted circumstances that they consider "fair use", that these photos might meet. I'm a little bit surprised, although it's a plausible argument. This is an area of Wikipedia policy I don't yet understand, so someone's else advice is needed. Studerby 04:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a good chance the image is copyrighted, so you should not use it unless you know more about it. Since the person is deceased, it may perhaps be possible to use a non-free image of him under the non-free content guideline. However, you will have to be sure that there are no available photos of the man that have passed into the public domain.(See [32] for when that happens) My feeling is that there are such photos, since the man was born in 1883. nadav (talk) 07:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I have an image of a Pakistan Air Force Hawker Fury aircraft, and I'm not sure if I'm allowed to upload it. This image was distributed for free to families of airforce officers as posters. Does that mean it's free content? If I upload it, what license will it go under?

here is the image: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v517/merlinstar87/Miscellaneous/Furry.jpg

Would appreciate any help! Zaindy87 08:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That the image was given freely does not mean that it is free content. Free content is content which has no significant restrictions on commercial reuse and derivative works. Depending upon the copyright status of the image, however, you may be able to use it. To figure that out, you would need to know more information regarding the image. Who was the photographer? --Iamunknown 01:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have realized that under Pakistani law, an image enters the public domain 50 years after it was taken. Since this picture was taken in 1948, I can use it on Wikipedia. Zaindy87 00:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused...when is it okay for a mirror or fork to remove links to the original article. I mean if you have instances in which content has changed so dramatically that it's no longer representative of the original article, say 90 or so percent, shouldn't a simple link to the history of the page and the GFDL suffice? I just don't understand because some people want to use the info to get a healthy base of users but then it doesn't seem fair that the article should still remain linked to an author whose information is no longer contained within it. --Itripblindkids 01:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You might be better asking at the talk page of Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content. Megapixie 01:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wikipedia's mention of the reusers' rights and obligations are not legally binding; the text of the GNU Free Documentation License is legally binding. If you are creating derivative works of GFDL-licensed content, I would recommend complying with the requirements of the GFDL license. That said, there is arguably a point at which a derivative work is either no longer a derivative or is fair use or is an original work. If you wish to draw clear the threshold between those three types of works, however, I recommend that you consult with legal counsel. Any recommendation would be giving legal advice where I am not qualified to nor permitted by law to give. Cheers, Iamunknown 01:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Below is a discussion I've been having with Nick. Basically, the entry for External Credit Assessment Institution (ECAI) uses language from the Basel 2 framework where the term is defined. The copyright for the Basel 2 framework permits copying, provided reference is made: Epstein's Mother 14:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"I noticed that you deleted the entry on External Credit Assessment Institutions because "the bulk of it" was lifted verbatim from the Basel Committee's capital framework. As you will notice from the Basel Committee's copyright notice, exerpts of the report may be republished, provided a reference is made. The Basel Committee is a multi-government organization, and its framework is used, verbatim, in many countries' national banking regulation. Therefore it is appropriate, when defining what ECAIs are, to cite, verbatim, the language that the Basel Committee uses in defining this term. Accordingly, could you please return the deleted entry? Please let me know if you have any questions about what the Basel Committee framework is and how its applicable copyright might function in this case. Thanks. Epstein's Mother 20:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

We can't accept contributions where the contributor is not in a position to licence their contribution under the GFDL licence. It seems from what you've told me that the Bazel Committee would be receptive to a request to licence their work under the GFDL licence. If you could contact them and if permission is forthcoming, forward it onto Wikipedia using the Contact us link to the left, this would facilitate the restoration of the deleted entry. Nick 23:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Even that is not necessary. If you notice the copyright on the BIS document, it states: "Bank for International Settlements 2005. All rights reserved. Brief excerpts may be reproduced or translated provided the source is stated." Given that the Basel 2 Framework is 300 pages, the ECAI definition I used is brief, and the ECAI description is cited verbatim in numerous other government documents (for example, by the Committee of European Bank Supervisors (http://www.c-ebs.org/pdfs/GL07.pdf), and the State Bank of Pakistan (http://www.sbp.org.pk/press/2005/Criteria_of_ECAIs.pdf), the language included in the article most certainly fits the definition of fair use. Keep in mind that the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision is a group of governments, not a private entity. The "report" you note is not a private document such as an article, but rather a set of regulatory principles that member governments have agreed to incorporate into their own laws and regulations. "External Credit Assessment Institution" is, therefore, a defined term. In fact, it is term defined by the very language to which you object. No entry on ECAIs could accurately define what it is without citing this language. It would be a bit like defining what a security is under the US Securities Act of 1933 without actually being able to quote the Act itself. An interesting exercise, but fundamentally flawed and legally unnecessary. Epstein's Mother 06:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You would be best to take your request to Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use... where someone will double check the licence and restrictions under which the BIS document can be reproduced, and if it's found to be suitable for incorporation, it would be included. I understand your point about the US Securities Act, but as a work of the US Federal Government, it is released into the public domain and thus ineligible for copyright protection. The Bazel Committee could, in future, change or restrict the terms of use for their work and we could unwittingly have a further copyright violation, which is why we need content to be released under the GFDL licence as it protects us from any impact of future licence changes. I've got quite a hefty work schedule over this weekend, so I can't promise I'll be able to assist further, though I will try and help if I have time. Nick 10:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)"

Given this discussion and the type of copyright notice on the Basel Framework, can a brief excerpt from the Framework which states what an ECAI is and the criteria used to determine which entities qualify be used? Epstein's Mother 17:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I posted this over at the help desk at commons, but since there is a lot of potential material to be mined from this source, I want to be doubly sure. The United States Geological Survey operates the National Wildlife Health Center, which publishes several fact sheets and pamphlets, and also the Field Manual of Wildlife Disease — General Field Procedures and Diseases of Birds, which is a wealth of photos of diseases in birds. There is usually a photo credit, but it is to the same two or three people consistently, and from doing a google search I know for absolute certain that at least one of them is an employee of the USGS. I am nearly 100 percent certain the images are in the public domain since it is a publication by a federal organization, but I am likely to use a lot of these photos, and I want to be sure. Thanks. --Joelmills 00:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to post an image to the Ford Econoline article that needs a 2nd generation picture for reference. As a courtesy to the owner, I requested via email use of the image and I received a immediate failure of Delivery as the address is no longer functioning. I took it a step farther and joined a message board that was linked from the web site and tried contacting the administrator though that with the same error in emailing and I was not able to PM him as this function was disabled by the Admin.

The image in Question: http://home.earthlink.net/~econoline74/MVC-004F.JPG

The last time the page was updated was 1999 and the page master even stated on the site that he is only keeping the page up for pictures and information and the is not much updating anymore.

Can this Image be used under Fair use Policy ?? Yours 04:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It probably doesn't fall under fair use. Would searching Flickr for CreativeCommons find you a usable image: http://flickr.com/search/?q=ford+econoline&l=commderiv&ct=0 --Vabek 01:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much I never even thought of checking that. The 1st image in the search results should work great Yours 16:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking for a photo I could use for the article on David Falk. I've had my eye on one, but don't know if it's acceptable to use or not. I would appreciate it if someone could 1) tell me if the image I give below is acceptable (in which case upload and post it in the article, or inform me and I can do it), and 2) if this image is not acceptable to use, it would be great if someone could find an acceptable photo.

I found the pic in an article entitled "Falk meets with Sport Management and Law Students," posted on 10/10/2006. The article can be found at this address: <http://hshp.syr.edu/news.asp?id=329&type=archive>

The direct link to the image is: <http://hshp.syr.edu/images/Falk(1).jpg>

I'm wondering if it could fall into fair use since I can only find one other photo (via ESPN). I've tried using a number of free photo searches, including Flickr search, yotophoto.com, and fotosearch.com.

Thanks! Joseph Petek 17:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Probably not, unless you can get the site to release the rights to it. You can try a fairuse rationale that no other picture is available, but I dont think that pleases too many people here Corpx 07:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This image is spread around the net, but I'm not positive who took the photo. I do know the name of the artist who carved the relief, and I do know he carved it for the US government, in a way that probably makes him a US government employee (he was hired/commissioned to do the work, rather than having it purchased after creation). Now, it seems to me it's very possible this would qualify as a "Slavish reproduction" of the work and be in the public domain - with this kind of carving, you just point and shoot, maybe checking lighting - you don't even really choose an angle to photograph from or anything. I want some second opinions, though. Cheers, WilyD 14:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There are no "slavish reproductions" of 3D works, if I remember correctly. ShadowHalo 16:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I presume this is because you have a lot of "options" on how to photograph it - you choose angles and the like. This is a bas-relief, so it's certainly at least "arguably" 2-D. WilyD 16:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, 2-D means flat. Coins(!) are considered 3-d works for this purpose, so any bas-relief surely couts as 3-D. In general a person hired by the govt for a specific purpose is not considered to be a "government employee" for copyright purpsoes -- contractors generally aren't so considered. Govt employee pretty much means saleried full-time or regualr continuing part-time employees, not peopel hired for a single job. I'm not sure about art created by temprary govct employees in CCC projects back in the 1930s, but most of that is PD now anyway, as no one would have ever renewed the copyrights. DES ^(talk) 23:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it okay to use images from http://daviswiki.org/Campus ? it has creative commons attribution sharealike 3.0, which doesn't appear in the upload dropdown menu Nguyenmdk 09:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC) Nevermind. I found the answer Nguyenmdk 09:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I want advice from someone regarding a pigeon image found in [33]. I want to use that image because I created an article called William of Orange (Pigeon) and I found this image that illustrates the exact pigeon that the article talks about. I know that I need to include {{Crowncopyright}} along with a fair use rationale. What other licensing should I use? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

How old is the image? over 50 years and it would be Public domain.Geni 01:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Can I copy an entry from a copyrighted dictionary to a talk page? Specifically, I am in the process of collaborating with other editors about the meaning of a specific word, and I am reading the rather large etymology of that word found in the Oxford English Dictionary, 2,700 words long. I am reading this etymology from a subscription limited access paid website. The other editors in the collaboration do not have access to this subscription website, or convenient access to the printed version of the dictionary in a library close to their home. Can I copy and paste the 2,700 word entry from the subscription site and reprint it to the talk page so these other editors can read it? SaltyBoatr 15:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think 2700 words out of the very large OED is brief enough for fair use to apply. DES ^(talk) 23:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Can I use this image from Comedy Central's Store? I want to put it in the Stephen Colbert article to demonstrate his interest in science fiction, and it could be used for The Colbert Report article, as well. If not, is there some way I can use something similar, like a caption from the show? - Boss1000 21:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, it won't be used for now. - Boss1000 03:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I obtained permission from AVN Media Network to use an image of Brooke Ashley on her Wikipedia article. I will quote the request here:

I would like to request permission to use the image http://www.avn.com:8080/imagearchive/23/63/49/236349BrookeAshley_lg.jpg from the article http://www.avn.com/articles/236349.html on Ms. Ballowe’s (Brooke Ashley’s) Wikipedia page located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooke_Ashley.

I will quote the grant of permission here:

Permission granted if you include “Used with permission of AVN Media Network”.

This seems to fit closely with the Creative Commons license Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs. However, this was not explicitly stated. Before I upload and use the image, should I attempt to obtain permission under a free license such as the GFDL, or get an explicit statement of agreement to the Creative Commons license I previously mentioned? --Godfoster 21:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That does not fit any of the Creative Commons licenses; it gives permission for Wikipedia and Wikipedia only. Since we only accept images of living people under a free license, you'll need to get them to explicitly release it under a free license and forward the permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. ShadowHalo 21:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I am aware that it does not fit any Creative Commons license exactly; I only said that it most closely resembles the license by-nc-nd. You say that I would require them to release the image under a "free license". Does this then exclude the Creative Commons licenses since they provide the option to specify non-commercial? Is there a specific free license that would best fit the needs for this image that you could suggest to me? Sorry for asking so many questions, but I just want to keep things as smooth as possible with the copyright holder. --Godfoster 23:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike licenses (up through 2.5) are acceptable licenses. When mailing someone, I generally ask about the Attribution 2.5, simply because it's the easiest one for a person to understand. ShadowHalo 23:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

So any Creative Commons license that uses NonCommercial would be unacceptable according to Wikipedia requirements because it violates #3 on Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for images (and NoDerivs would similarly violate #1)? What about Attribution version 3.0 as outlined at the Creative Commons Licenses page? --Godfoster 00:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC) edited: --Godfoster 21:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It has been quite some time since I got an answer here, so I am requesting help. I would like to get this permissions issue resolved as soon as possible. --Godfoster 19:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to use this this photo on the Anti-Armenianism page to demonstrate growing anti-Armenian sentiment in the Republic of Azerbaijan. Does this fall under fair use for critical commentary? The Myotis 20:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to use this image of a dekatron counter tube on the Dekatron page; please advise; thank you!

The image involved here is a reproduction of a full-page New York Times ad, "Heed Their Rising Voices...", originally published on 29 March 1960. The ad was the subject matter of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan a very important case in US Constitutional law, and so an image of the actual ad might well be considered "iconic" and "historically significant" It is surely not replaceable by anything else. Lewis, the author of Make no Law, the classic book-length study of the case, used the reproduction as the frontispiece for that book. Surely this is a transformative use, and equally surely there is no current commercial market for an image of a newspaper ad from 1960. Furthermore, since the ad was published in the US before 1964, and all of its authors were US nationals, it is now in the Public Domain in the US unless copyright on the ad (which would have belonged to the fund-raising committee that wrote the ad, not to the Times) was renewed. The committee was surely disbanded long before the renewal period in 1988-89, so the copyright is unlikly to have been renewed, and a search of the on line renewal records at the Library of congress reveals no such renewal -- but for such short works the records are not always complete, or may be filed under a misleading heading. Still perhaps this constitutes sufficient due diligence? DES ^(talk) 23:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Can I use this image (found here) for use on the above article's page? I was wondering if it could be promotional use? Cheers -- Halo2020 ^Talk 00:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Better to use screen captures from the TV show with detailed fair use rationales. Promotional use is currently pretty hard to claim (i.e. it'll probably get deleted). Megapixie 09:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for your help! -- Halo2020 ^Talk 10:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I have access to a family photograph of Jakob Ehrlich that, by guessing his age, appears to have been taken about 1915. It has the appearance of being taken by a professional photographer although there is nothing on the photo to indicate who took it. The photo itself belongs to a descendant of the subject. Erhlich resided in Vienna Austria and died in 1938. I am trying to get more information about the origins of the photograph, but I am not sure what I need to know to determine whether it can be used. --KenWalker | Talk 15:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This isnt really pre-inclusion, but is the review on Man!_I_Feel_like_a_Woman! from billboard a copyvio? Corpx 07:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that quote is probably too long to be classified as fair use. I fixed it for you. User:Thankyoubaby was incorrect to have reverted the prior user's removal of the quote. Calliopejen1 07:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello! Can I use this picture [34] I got it here. So I can post it on the Daryl Palumbo article which is lacking a picture. And well it's just not complete. The picture is a promo for his band Head Automatica. Thanks in advance. Xcat777x

In short, no. The picture is copyrighted. Wikipedia's current non-free content policies do not allow us to use other people's photos of living individuals without the owner's permission. I checked on flickr to see if there were any free photos show him, and here are a few possibilities: [35] (definitely him, hard to see), [36] (probably him, i'm not sure), [37] (i think this is their head automatica's guitarist and not him), [38] (i have no idea if this is glassjaw performing, but it is tagged with glassjaw, so maybe). You can post one of these photos, because they are all available under free licenses.

If these are not to your liking, you also can try asking for a free image from one of his bands - see WP:COPYREQ. (You can't ask the webmaster of the photo you suggested, because they're just a music blog and don't actually own the photo.) Suggestions for how to ask are sending a myspace message at http://www.myspace.com/houseofblow or http://www.myspace.com/glassjaw, and the "write ha" link at the top of http://www.headautomatica.com/. Good luck! Calliopejen1 04:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!! Xcat777x

Could this image be used under fair use? http://www.petsmart.com/media/ps/images/guides/aspca/Cat/york_chocolate_4e77.jpg York Chocolate Cat needs an image of the cat and that is the only image of one that I can find on the Internet. It (or versions of it) is featured on quite a few websites:

http://www.petsmart.com/media/ps/images/guides/aspca/Cat/york_chocolate_4e77.jpg http://www.oocities.com/pndtpa/breeds/yorkchocolate.jpg http://www.assetsoflife.com/The-Cat-Place/Cat%20Images/York-Chocolate_Cat.1.JPG http://www.assetsoflife.com/The-Cat-Place/Cat%20Images/York-Chocolate_Cat.1_small.JPG http://www.pet.gen.tr/2002/cats_pics/cats_68.jpg http://www.clubmascotas.cl/db_images/razas/york_chocolate.jpg http://thumbs.ebaystatic.com/pict/2001052825318080_2.jpg

Thank you! Please respond on my talk page if it is convenient.

--Theunicyclegirl ^talk 18:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page. Calliopejen1 02:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Are these pictures fair use for the guns article? [39] Reply in my talk page if that's convenient. I've been able to find quite a few different pictures of it online, but these are the best ones. Does the credit back to the barrett rifles website constitute some sort of copyright? Thanks. Clegs 03:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied via the users talk page. Megapixie 04:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Me too. Calliopejen1 04:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

In the past, Legoland Windsor has performed shows in a number of it's own venues within the park - these are no longer performed. I have a leaflet with promotional shots of the shows. As a) the shows are no longer performed, so no other pictures can be taken, and b) it's promotional work, would it be covered under fair use? Can I legally upload it? If so, which license? Please respond on my talk page, if possible. Thanks! _TheIslander 19:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
Thanks, — Bob • (talk) • 21:30, July 24, 2007 (UTC)

Yep, tag it with {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} when you upload it. Calliopejen1 01:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know if this logo would be appropriate to upload and use on the Kinnick Stadium article. Being the official logo of Kinnick Stadium, I think it would contribute to the article. Thanks. DanThaMan17 21:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I propose merging this to WP:MCQ because it seems like the questions that are asked are mostly the same, except many more editors monitor WP:MCQ. Here, questions just tend to sit around unanswered. Alternately we could make clear that this page is for non-image questions and the other page is for image questions. Calliopejen1 03:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

In the article Thiruvalluvar Statue (older version), the "Construction notes" section has been sourced from this webpage. While the copyright notice at the bottom of that specific page says

Copyright © 1979-2007 Himalayan Academy. All rights reserved.,

when I click on the notice it takes me to this more explicit copyright notice. There, it says

Such image or text may be released for use on Wikipedia under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and when thus posted on Wikipedia follows the terms of the GFDL.

Is the original page acceptable to use as a source ? Lotlil 03:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know if images from any Mexican government page are valid to use, for example in that page like the seal and/or the pictures of the city. Images in this page. And also if it is valid what is the proper copyright to use. Thanks Alixb 18:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, unless you follow our non-free content policy. Mexican government images appear to be under copyright, although texts are public domain. One exception may be the coats of arms of municipalities, states, etc. although the wording of the law (art. 14) is a bit ambiguous. Physchim62 (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The first photo on [40] is almost certainly the one mentioned by Douglas C. Sackman, "Pacific World Passages: The Traffic in Trees and the Transformation of Space in Puget Sound, 1850-1900", (Draft available online).

Sackman writes of "Asahel Curtis’s 1904 photograph of Hee… seated at his roll-top desk intently reading a paper, with shelves above neatly stacked with various and sundry items, parcels just received or ready to be sent stacked against the wall where a telephone hangs, a safe in the office’s corner—very much conveys the image of a man of business with far flung interests and connections."

Curtis was a professional photographer, so he most likely published this, but I don't have any proof of that. If he didn't, he died in 1941, so the 70 years since his death won't be up for 4 more years. And, I suppose, there is the possiblity that he published it, but not until after 1923, which (if the copyright was renewed) would keep it out of the public domain even longer.

Any suggestions on whether this should be "safe" to claim as public domain? Any suggestions on tracking down earliest publication date? (& could someone please "ping" my user talk page if you place a substantive answer here?) - Jmabel | Talk 17:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be better if you could produce a pre-1923 source - but I can't see any problems with your reasoning. If you tag it as {{PD-US}} with the above reasoning I can't see anyone having any problem with it. Make sure you note the data when it becomes PD-70 so that it can be uploaded to commons then. Megapixie 03:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm positive this has been discussed sometime, somewhere, before, but I have looked thru as many copyright-related pages as I could think of and it's not clear. Today, on Premier League 2007-08, someone added football fixtures, which were then reverted by another user as a possible copyright violation. We discussed it for a little while on Talk:Premier League 2007-08#Fixture lists, but were hampered by the fact that I know very little about what I'm talking about.

So, after reading that talk page thread, could someone who knows more than me answer these questions:

1. Is the FootballDataCo's claim to "own" the fixture lists correct in the UK/EU? (from Jddphd's comments, I'm sure the answer is yes, but I include this for completeness sake)
2. Is their claim correct under US copyright law?
3. Can we, indeed, include simple lists of football fixtures in a Wikipedia article?
4. If we can, do we want to? (I'm very frustrated because I've see a comment by Jimbo Wales on something like this very recently, in the last half hour, but now can't find it again. The gist of it was, I think, that we should respect the copyright laws of other countries, but the wording was ambiguous and I really wanted to look at it again to see what it specifically said.)

Thanks in advance. --barneca (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Would seem to be a list of facts, which in the U.S. at least isn't eligable for copyright see the very long summary of FEIST PUBLICATIONS, INC. v. RURAL TELEPHONE SERVICE CO or Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service. Getting the ball rolling. Megapixie 05:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Does the Supreme Court case you cited deal with material that is legally copyrighted in the United Kingdom, or for that matter in any foreign country? I can't spot it if it does. I don't see how this is relevant precedent. Jddphd 10:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Trying to push this along, as I go on vacation in a few days and am very curious to see how it pans out. I think, reading Jddphd's links from the talk page, that the answer to #1 is pretty clearly, YES, at least at the moment. I think, reading the summary of the decision Megapixie provided, that the answer to #2 would be NO; i.e. FootballDataCo would not be able to get a US copyright if they tried to pull that in the US.

So, we're left with my revised (for better wording and clarity of thought) questions #3 and #4,

3. In the US, is there a legal obligation to honor a UK copyright if that copyright would not have been granted in the US?

4. If the answer to #3 is no, then on Wikipedia, do we have a policy (or should we have a policy) about honoring other countries' copyright laws, even if there is no legal obligation to do so?

Thanks, Megapixie for your "get the ball rolling" info, and I hope that someone else has more information, or a better venue to ask this. --barneca (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I really don't know the precidents/caselaw for UK copyright law that well. If the claim for copyright under UK law is valid, and the information hasn't been published in the US, then I believe we should respect it (I think that's Jimbo's position). I can't believe someone is trying to make money from "May 23 Puddlypool United versus Drexham Wanderers" - it's not even 'sweat of brow' copyright. Megapixie 02:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I finally found the quote by Jimbo Wales I was looking for: [41]. As I read it again, I think I now agree with Megapixie, who agrees with Jddphd; I suspect (but still don't know) that the answer to #3 is NO, there is no legal obligation; but I now agree that's a moot point. Based on this:

The situation with respect to treaties or non-treaties with the US seems

to me to have very little impact on this. As always, we have to balance various factors in thoughtful ways. Simply saying "Well, this is legal under US law, so let's do it" is not a very compelling argument. [42]

I think it doesn't matter whether #3 is YES or NO; we have no compelling need to disregard UK copyright law. I'm amazed too that this is copyrightable in the UK, and wish whoever it is that is fighting it in UK/EU courts well, but I think until it's legal there, we shouldn't do it here. Otherwise it won't be free to reuse in the UK, which would kind of defeat the point of free content. Thanks again to both of you for bearing with me as I learn something new. --barneca (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to use this image of the band And One for their article. DbishopNWF 18:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be a under a free licsense and it is unlikely to pass our fair use criteria.Geni 19:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like it's credited to a photographer that isn't associated with the band on their site. Just thought I'd check. Thanks.DbishopNWF 20:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)