Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vanessa Joy 2008 (talk | contribs) at 16:35, 1 May 2008 (→permissions? copyright?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:CQ
• WP:MCQ
• WP:IMAGEHELP
• WP:ICHD

Welcome to the Media Copyright Questions page, a place for help with image copyrights, tagging, non-free content, and related questions. For all other questions please see Misplaced Pages:Questions.

How to add a copyright tag to an existing image

1. On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page.
2. From the page Misplaced Pages:File copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag:
   • For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators".
   • For a work downloaded from the internet, please understand that the vast majority of images from the internet are not appropriate for use on Misplaced Pages. Exceptions include images from flickr that have an acceptable license, images that are in the public domain because of their age or because they were created by the United States federal government, or images used under a claim of fair use. If you do not know what you are doing, please post a link to the image here and ask BEFORE uploading it.
   • For an image created by someone else who has licensed their image under an acceptable Creative Commons or other free license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information.
3. Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{Cc-by-4.0}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page.
4. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}})
5. Hit Publish changes.
6. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below.

How to ask a question

1. To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below.
2. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end.
3. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page.
4. Don't include your email address, for your own privacy. We will respond here and cannot respond by email.

Note for those replying to posted questions

If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template {{mcq-wrong}} and, if possible, leave a note on the poster's talk page. For copyright issues relevant to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally, questions may be directed to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.

If you have a question about a specific image, please be sure to link to it like this: ]. (Please note the ":" just before the word File) Thanks!

Archives

Archive list Archive year 2006 Closed Archive year 2007 Closed Archive year 2008 Closed Archive year 2009 Closed Archive year 2010 Closed Archive year 2011 Closed Archive year 2012 Closed Archive year 2013 Closed Archive year 2014 Closed Archive year 2015 Closed Archive year 2016 Closed Archive year 2017 Closed Archive year 2018 Closed Archive year 2019 Closed Archive year 2020 Closed Archive year 2021 Closed Archive year 2022 Closed Archive year 2023 Closed Archive year 2024 Open Some pre-2009 archives from pages now merged here (note: more recent questions from these pages can be found at WP:MCQ or its archives above.) Requested copyright examinations archives Can I use... 2005-2006 archive Can I use... January-August 2007 archive Can I use... August-December 2007 archive Misplaced Pages:Image copyright help desk/Archive 1 Misplaced Pages:Image copyright help desk/Archive 2 This page serves as a portal for Yearly archives, inside the archives are in month format, please see the Archives in the sidebox. Thanks.

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Image:Donboscotech_logo.PNG has a fair use rationale. Is it okay for it to be used?

This talk page is automatically archived. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions/Archive. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Romainia Please help

I am doing a report a Romainia i was wondering if i should do it on like the culture Religon Eductaion. I have a Romainiain Fried that will help me but i need to pick something please he;p soon. i need to know now.thanks

You may get an answer if you ask the Reference desk

jhangir khan

<who mad the first documentry programme on jhangir khan who is a squash player of pakistan?>

Is the license genuine?

I believe this image's license is not genuine, the detail is very brief, there are no meta camera details accompanying the image, and the user is a fly-by uploader never to be seen again. How does one work out and judge if it is fake? Timeshift (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's very difficult to establish the genuineness of such single upload images. It's a little bit noisy and the angle would suggest that maybe it was taken from a public gallery however the security regulations suggest it's not allowed to take photos from there and this suggests that only accredited members of the press are allowed to take photographs during proceedings. It's possible that the photograph is genuine and released by the photographer, but again - it's hard to know 100%. Nominate for deletion on commons if you like (it's only a single button click). Megapixie (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

A small version of the same image () is on the front page of www.tonyburke.com.au. It might be worth asking them — it's always possible that the mysterious "KM" was someone on his staff with authorization to release the image. (There are also versions on other sites, e.g. , suggesting that the image may have been part of a press kit.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The rather narrow area in focus suggests zoom lense.Geni 14:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

See User_talk:Kenneth84. The person warring to keep it on the page seems to know its an AUSPIC photo. As much as i'd like them to be, AUSPIC photos arent allowed on wikipedia. Timeshift (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

delete wjmk logo

Can you please delete the wjmk logo I uploaded.

a picture with no copyrights

I have a picture of a illustration of hell according to Buddhism culture Image:Hell-5-Yan-Luo-King.jpg. It is posted everywhere including on Buddhism sites and forums etc. Some Buddhism sites that published these pictures says, "There is no copyright of these pictures. Please help to spread and republish it. It is a virtue to help to spread it." Then how should I address it in the copyright tag?

Riyue (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately for Buddhism, virtue does not trump copyright law! However, from its style it looks old enough to be in the public domain, but without knowing more about it it's hard to say for sure. Can you provide more info about the image, i.e. who painted it, and where and roughly when? -- Hux (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

According to the page talking about it, Picture References on Causality – Variety of Scenes in Hell it was created in 2003, so it's still copyrighted. Since there is an article discussing the painting itself, you could claim fair use. The tag would be {{Non-free 2D art}}. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess I could've just read the article before I posted, but that would've been too easy. ;) -- Hux (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use of copyrighted drawings of historical figures

Recently, a few of us have been involved in an add/revert cycle regarding historical samurai such as Oda Nobunaga#Oda Nobunaga in fiction and Tokugawa Ieyasu#In popular culture. Some feel that the inclusion of images from recent video games is a valid fair use of those copyright images. Others feel that the fair-use rationale is shaky; and, that the articles are fine without the added images.

My position is the latter, and, I will explain the main crux of my reasoning here. If a person is consistently portrayed in a certain manner, it is reasonable to have such a description. Criteria #1 of Misplaced Pages:FAIR#Policy 2 says that if a topic can be adequately expressed with text, then fair-use images should probably be left out. But, I have seen no attempt to describe the characteristics which are supposedly important enough to warrant the images in any of the articles where I've reverted the addition of images like this. If the intention is to show a person drawn in a modern style, then, it is also likely that a free version from one of Misplaced Pages's artists could be requested. In neither case do I think that a screen capture or package scan from a particular game has any impact other than aesthetic to the person's article.

I also feel that while the popular culture section is questionably significant, illustrations inside that section are against the spirit of #8 in the list; but, since #8 is controversial, there is no need to go into that here.

This debate has been carried forth through edit summaries, and recently User talk:Exiled Ambition#Dynasty Warriors images (and, a section at the end of the same user talk page).

I would like to solicit some outside opinions on this. Thanks. Neier (talk) 09:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I should add that if someone can point out the difference between a game's image of a person versus the example of Barry Bonds' baseball card (which is prohibited as a fair use image), I would like to hear it. Neier (talk) 09:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I know little about Oda, computer games, baseball, baseball cards or copyright law; but I'd have thought that baseball cards purported to provide faithful representations of people: even after airbrushing and other processes dictated by convention, we are looking (or we think we are looking) at photographs. For a Japanese game image of the pseudohistorical namesake of Oda semifictionalized into the game, convention would I think be paramount: while I don't know what either the historical Oda or his historical sword looked like, I do know that his sword wouldn't have been luminous, and the luminosity of the sword here is a giveaway that we are in fantasy-land. So, simply, this isn't an illustration of the person Oda; it's an illustration of the game character "Oda".

You say In neither case do I think that a screen capture or package scan from a particular game has any impact other than aesthetic to the person's article. The editors of en:Misplaced Pages, like US presidential/primary candidates, are frequently reminded not to be elitist. Perhaps illustration of Oda by the game contruct "Oda" (complete with luminous sword) helps reassure our sensitive readers that the article was created by jus' plain folks like themselves, less absorbed by boring books about boring old reality than they are by the excitement of Playstation and the rest. This is history we can all participate in. (Slash, slash, skewer: Game over.) -- Hoary (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Neier: Under the Non-Free Content Criteria (NFCC), a copyrighted image can't be used as mere decoration - for example, if the subject was "album covers of the 1960s" then we couldn't use a photo of the Beatles' Sergeant Pepper's cover as if to say, "Here's an example of a 60s album cover". However, we could use it in order to illustrate an article (or article section) that discusses that specific cover, since words alone aren't enough to convey the subject fully. These samurai examples are, imo, an example of the latter. In both cases, the articles note that they are represented in computer games and then a screenshot is provided to illustrate that. It would be impossible to fully represent that screenshot in words (however detailed the description, it can never be a complete substitute for the image itself) so as I understand the NFCC it's okay to use such images in such cases. For a precedent that illustrates this kind of use, see the Mario article: as you can see, aside from the first image, the purpose of the screenshots in that article is to illustrate specific things that the accompanying text discusses; they're not just there for decoration. -- Hux (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the reader's ability to understand that "he is often featured as a character in a video game" adversely impacted if there is no picture to back it up? Hoary's description of Oda's sword far surpasses any text on the pages where I've been reverting out the pictures, as far as trying to document what it is about the image that makes it so important. Currently, all that is being said is that so-and-so is in video games. And, that's all that probably CAN be said, since detail about particular game implementations of a character do not belong on the real-life person's article. Every sentence does not need illustrations; and, bending the NFCC rules to try to make an image fit seems like the backwards approach to me. Mario is a disingenuous example, since it is a fictional character to begin with, and revolves around the game. This is more akin to adding a frame-grab picture of the Cloverfield (creature) to New York City, as long as I say that "New York City is often used as a backdrop for post-9/11 thriller movies". Neier (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Barry Bonds question, I don't actually think that his baseball card has been "prohibited as a fair use image". Certain previous, individual uses of that image may have been deleted as inconsistent with the NFCC, but that's not the same thing. If there was something notable about Bonds' card (e.g. a feature of its design) then it would be fine to use an image of that card in order to illustrate that, just as it's fine to use screenshots from Mario games in manner previously described. -- Hux (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hoary: Whether or not the screenshot is an illustration of the person or an illustration of the game character is irrelevant from a copyright perspective. Likewise, elitism, sensitive readers, historiography, etc., are not factors that are important for the purposes of this page. They may be relevant for the talk page of the article about the person, but we don't need to dwell on them here. -- Hux (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

A further question: how closely does the illustration have to be related to the subject of the article in order for the use of a screenshot to qualify as fair use? The article on Oda Nobunaga is primarily about Oda Nobunaga. If a World War II-era painter portrayed Nobunaga in oils, could we show the painting? Can we include a still from the Kurosawa film Kagemusha, in which an actor portrays Kurosawa's vision of the historical Nobunaga? The article has a section, Oda Nobunaga#Oda Nobunaga in fiction, that is not about any one specific work of fiction; can we include a screenshot from a game such as Samurai Warriors 2? Or is the screenshot restricted to an article on the game, or an article that would have a title like Oda Nobunaga (Samurai Warriors 2) (if there were such an article)? Separately, are there any guidelines on how many stills we can take from a single game? Could we illustrate a dozen articles on historical figures with copyrighted images from one video game? Fg2 (talk) 11:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, the licensing information on Image:OdaNobunaga.jpg (which is presently in the article) permits use of the image "for identification and critical commentary on the computer or video game in question or the copyrighted character(s) or item(s) depicted on the screenshot in question." Is use of this image in the biographical article Oda Nobunaga permitted under this license? Fg2 (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And, that's kinda my point, too. There is no commentary about the game (and, since it would be commentary abou the game, and not the person, it would belong more on the game article anyway -- like Mario above). All that is said is "he is in video games." I don't think we need pictures to convey that. Do they make the article look better? Perhaps; but, we can't invoke Fair Use for aesthetic reasons alone. Neier (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I've answered my own question. The license stating that the image may be used "for identification and critical commentary on the computer or video game in question or the copyrighted character(s) or item(s) depicted on the screenshot in question" is prohibited in the article on Oda Nobunaga. There, it is not identifying a copyrighted character. Rather it is identifying a historical person. So I believe its use is prohibited in that article. If anyone has authoritative information that it's permitted, please tell us. Fg2 (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

But I'm not sure it answers Neier's questions. Fg2 (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Like you said, fair use for a character image does not apply in the bio article. Another comment I saw at User_talk:Exiled_Ambition made me realize that these are either pictures about the characters, or original research regarding the appearance of a person. In articles about the game or characters in the game, such an image is not original research, and the fair use license would justly apply. But, we can't say that the image is of Oda Nobunaga, without some non-firsthand reliable sources to back it up. Thus in order to overcome WP:OR, we have to dictate that it is just a picture of the character, and not of Oda Nobunaga; and, the fair use on Oda Nobunaga's article is disallowed. There is no more reason to annotate Oda Nobunaga's article with lengthy descriptions of descendant fiction than there is to fill up President of the United States with images of every movie that Harrison Ford or James Cromwell pretended to be one. Neier (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Fg2, the image of Oda Nobunaga would act in accordance with Fair Use's expectations because it is identifying the copyrighted character meant to respectively represent the historical figure, and it therefore constitutes such a clause. As for your comment Neier, there is indeed no initial evidence to prove that the image representing Oda Nobunaga is meant to be him, but that case would be too ridiculous to apply any concreted justification such as a footnote, as why would the image be added in the article to begin with if it had not been formerly verified? Besides, another would have already proved otherwise with a substitute, and I certainly would not allow myself to be labeled a fool. As for your secondary comment, the same principles are applicable: I would have already verified that the image of Oda Nobunaga is something of trivia and not the historical figure himself, as everything concerning the image denotes it as easily as a black dot on white paper.

As like in my talk page, I also provide an additional statement that proves distributing these images is just: You have stated that the images constitute original research due to being a respective representation created by a company. That is of course accurate, but you need to understand that original research in application to information is something unfavorable, but in the case of an image, each viewer already understands that it is a part of trivia and shouldn't be considered a true representation of the person represented. This constitutes safe distribution of the trivial image, which is only passable in these circumstances. If you understand this, then you will understand that adding these images will ultimately not create any form of detriment to the subject article -- the prime clause enforced by Misplaced Pages's Fair Use. User:Exiled Ambition 27 April 2008 (EST)

Whether or not the images are detrimental to the biographical article is irrelevant. These character images have fair-use criteria that are justified on character or game pages; not the biographical pages. Neier (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Statements in past-tense will provide nothing to the present argument: I have already justified that even though these images are best fit within their video game pages--which is still something realistically impossible to initiate--they are able to exist within the articles of their historical figure in consequence to each clause being passed with reason. Where the image is best fit is one thing, but when no ultimate principle can be applied against my argument, then wouldn't the very same formalities follow for that image's inclusion into a biographical article? Truly, no clause set forth by Fair Use could speak otherwise, and its not anything difficult to see this. User:Exiled Ambition 27 April 2008 (EST)

Before I can help you guys and hopefully sort out this disagreement, a couple of things need to be clarified here:

• This page is only concerned with questions about copyright issues. Whether an image is a "best fit" for a particular article is a question of style so it isn't relevant to any discussion on this page. Questions of original research and about whether or not an image is a faithful representation of a real person are similarly not relevant here.
• Whether or not a particular use of an image "constitutes Fair Use" is, perhaps counter-intuitively, also not relevant. Since we're talking about copyrighted images, the only thing you need to worry about is Misplaced Pages's non-free content criteria (NFCC). Fair Use and the NFCC are not the same thing and in fact the latter is quite a bit more strict.
• The NFCC defines how non-free content may be used and the same rules apply whichever article we're talking about, i.e. the fact that an article is biographical in nature doesn't intrinsically allow a non-free image to be used there any more than in any other article. It entirely depends on the context in which the image is being used.

So, for these particular images of computer game representations of historical persons, the basic questions you need to ask are:

1. Is the image being used in order to illustrate discussion in the article about that specific image?
2. If yes, does that image add significantly to that discussion in a way that cannot adequately be described in words alone?

For example, this use of the Nobunaga image was not consistent with the NFCC because there was no mention of that specific game in the accompanying text and the editor that removed the image in a later edit was right to do so. In order for the NFCC to be satisfied, the text would have to both mention the game and describe the image in some way. The image could then be used to illustrate that description, since words alone do not sufficiently convey what it looks like to the reader.

Does that make things more clear? -- Hux (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, with what you have stated, Hux, the circumstances are as simple as they should be. For the majority of the historical figure articles that I have equipped these images to, I will admit that they do not fully illustrate a discussion that could only be described through such a representation, and I will therefore likewise ensure that NFCC's expectations are answered by making them a figure of controversy. User:Exiled Ambition 28 April 2008 (EST)

Query re copyright of images illustrating data/findings from published reports papers

Hi I have a query regarding the use of images that illustrate the findings of published research etc. It strikes me that this is not something that is the same as a drawing or other illustration that could be released for anyone to use how they see fit. I had previously considered that the Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvided tag provided a means of protecting the image as regards acknowledging the sources of the information and preventing the misrepresentation of that information by third parties. However, others have taken the position that the conditions attached to the tag cannot be used to prohibit derivatives. This defeats the purpose in my view and would seem to create an obstacle to the reporting of published research via wikipedia --Sf (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not accept any license which excludes derivative works. Images with such restrictions may be used only under the highly restrictive non-free content criteria. Among the restrictions, the image may not be replaceable with a free image, and it must contribute substantially to the understandability of the article. Such non-free images require a non-free tag such as {{non-free fair use in}} and a non-free use rationale for each use. {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvided}} is free use tag not a non-free tag; so it cannot be used for a non-free image. —teb728 t c 02:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that however a statement of policy re non-free images does not necessarily answer the question. Are you saying so that all images portraying information content (such as census stats, research findings etc) rather than illustrations should be non-free? Also the non-free category states that the image must be published elsewhere not that the information portrayed must have been published. This would seem to preclude wikipedia contributors from developing visual illustrations of some aspect of the article they are working on. This to my mind defeats the purpose of having an encyclopedia. --Sf (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite the contrary: I’m saying that all images should be free except in special cases. Users are encouraged to create their own images, but they must license them as free content. (Misplaced Pages, however, does not publish WP:original research; I hope you not suggesting that.) —teb728 t c 22:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If I'm reading the above correctly, I think you may be talking past each other. As far as I can tell, when Sf says that the images he's talking about "should be non-free", he's referring to the categorization of those images on Misplaced Pages, i.e. whether they should be indicated as free or non-free, given their content. However, when teb728 says that "all images should be free except in special cases", I believe he's saying that all images that are uploaded to Misplaced Pages should be freely usable (except in special cases) in order to comply with Wiki policy. Do I have that right? (Note: if one or both of you are "she" and not "he", then I apologize!) -- Hux (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That is what I am saying. Let me try replying to Sf’s last post again in the light of your comment: All images on Misplaced Pages portraying information content (as opposed to illustrations) should be licensed such that they can be used in derivative works. Unlike illustrations there are probably no fair-use exceptions for such images, for they are inherently replaceable by a derivable image portraying the same information. This does not preclude Misplaced Pages contributors from developing visual illustrations of some aspect of the article they are working on, but it requires that they license those images under a license that permits derivative works. I have a concern, however, that he is thinking of images that would constitute WP:OR. —teb728 t c 02:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It would seem the issue is the definition of "derivative" this implies that the licence allows someone to amend the image such that the information it portrays is other then that indicated by the published source i.e. that someone may misrepresent the information. If the stipulation is that someone must be permitted to use the unamended and properly cited image in a derivative work then that is clearly a completely separate matter. If the latter is the case then that should be clearly stated in the copyright policy. Re the original research query, and at the risk of sounding tetchy, what part of the words findings of published research were unclear? --Sf (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A license to make a derivative work is not a license to commit fraud. Say the original image is a graph: A legitimate derivative might for example add (clearly indicated) data points, which for example point out a discrepency between theoretical predictions and actual measurments. Or the derivative might point out an error in the calculations or methodology of the published research. —teb728 t c 21:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is my view that the use of language like "Misplaced Pages does not accept any license which excludes derivative works" would seem to be an open invitation if not a "licence" to commit fraud. If the use of the term "derivative" is in fact qualified under Misplaced Pages policy then the nature of such qualifications should be clearly stated and the implications set out. --Sf (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

PS I accept that it might be perfectly legitimate to amend a, properly acknowledged, image for the purposes you set out. But that would be the case in any scientific or academic discussion outside of wikipedia. That is not what is driving the question. What is driving the question is "is wikipedia seeking to place the use of such images outside any bounds?". If wikipedia refuses to be bound by such conventions of academic discourse then this would seem to introduce obstacles to the development of articles --Sf (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages policy requires that, with some very specific exceptions, everything on Misplaced Pages should be free content. However, it is worth noting that the freedom in question mainly refers to freedom from copyright restrictions. There are many other laws and conventions that limits what one may or should do with material published on Misplaced Pages, but, as a rule, we are not concerned with such limitations since they do not generally interfere with our mission to create a collaborative, freely available and extensible encyclopedia.

For example, our article on Google includes numerous phrases and logos that are trademarks of Google Inc.; these are not considered problematic in any way, since the restrictions put on their use by trademark law would only come into play if one were to commercially use them in a manner that competed with Google or sought to misrepresent oneself as being affiliated with them. Similarly, the fact that Misplaced Pages consists of free content means that I am free to print it out, give the printed out copy to my friends or even to sell it for profit — but if I took the printed out copy of Misplaced Pages and hit someone with it, I'd still be charged with assault. The freedom to create derivative works, which Misplaced Pages's license grants me, allows me to take Misplaced Pages's article on George W. Bush, edit it to express my own views on his policies and publish the edited version on my own website without having to worry about being sued for copyright infingement by Misplaced Pages or the article's other authors (provided that I comply with the attribution and other requirements of the license) — yet, if my edited version of the article were to claim that he rapes kittens, I'd still be liable to get sued for libel.

The issue with academic misconduct is similar. Misplaced Pages's policy of accepting only freely license content implies that, if you upload a figure showing your research results to Misplaced Pages, I can take that figure and publish it in any medium (on my website, on Misplaced Pages itself, in an academic article or on the back of a T-shirt) with any modifications I might choose to make to it (including but not limited to adding data points, cutting it in half, scribbling on it with a crayon or using it as part of an art collage), and, provided that I comply with the specific license you've chosen (which will typically at least require that I attribute you as the author of the original work, and possibly more), you won't be able to sue me for infringing your copyright on the figure. Even so, if I were to use the figure in a fraudulent manner, such as by claiming it as my own research (even if the license didn't explicitly require me to attribute it to you) or by trying to pass off a version with fake data as accurately representing your original results, I'd still be facing academic sanctions. Moreover, that would be just as true even if I were to do the same with a figure I'd drawn completely from scratch myself, without using your work in any way.

So, to recap, freely licensing your work implies that you retain only a limited amount of copyright protection on it. It doesn't, and indeed cannot, mean that you somehow authorize anyone else to do anything otherwise illegal or formally sanctioned with (or without) it, if only because such permission is not usually yours to give. And, even where it technically could, a normal free content license will not in any way limit your right to sue people reusing your work for defamation, privacy violation, trademark infringement, fraud or any other non-copyright-related offense, nor to raise charges of academic misconduct against them, should you believe them to have committed such. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that we finally seem to be getting somewhere. I apologise in advance if this information is already available but is there anywhere on wikipedia outside of talk pages where the explanation you have just offered regarding fraudulent use is stated? I have been going around in circles trying to find an applicable copyright license. Also the issue is wider than me taking court action against others for percieved infringements. If I purport via wikipedia to have re-published someone else's work without 'apparently' doing anything to protect that work from misuse am I not also potentially open to sanction myself? Essentially I am seeking a formula/wording for the copyright license that will encapsulate what you have just stated.--Sf (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This is just my viewpoint and may not address all your concerns. First of all, facts cannot be copyrighted, only how they are expressed. Secondly, some free licenses, while they don't prohibit using the work in ways that you may consider misuse, prohibit claiming that the derivative work is endorsed by the original author. For instance, the Creative Commons Attribution license, popular with scientific work, states "You may not implicitly or explicitly assert or imply any connection with, sponsorship or endorsement by the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties, as appropriate, of You or Your use of the Work, without the separate, express prior written permission of the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties." Third, it's not that most Misplaced Pages editors want to misrepresent this work, it's just that by using it on a wiki, it may be used in ways that the original author never thought of; for instance, it may be compared side by side with a competing theory, possibly unfavorably. Would the original author consider that misleading? Wiki editors don't know. Since the data or idea can't be copyrighted, only the expression, it's an easy choice for wiki editor to not take the chance and use the data or idea, but not the expression of it. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No. We now seem to be raising points that are not at issue eg facts not being copyright, the motives of wikipedia contributors, the use of published and properly attributed data in comparisons, none of these are at issue. Published scientific data is not copyright but the work of those who obtained the data must be properly acknowledged and attributed and the original researchers have a right to expect that the facts that they have published will not be altered or amended in a manner that misrepresents those facts, and by implication their published work, as representing something else. In my view at the moment the manner and language in which the Misplaced Pages "may not prevent derivatives" policy is asserted represents an invitiation to fraud. In my view this is not acceptable. --Sf (talk) 09:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Your illustration of the Creative Commons licence may be starting to get us somewhere but you yourself had to go outside Misplaced Pages to illustrate the relevant points - this is unacceptable - the relevant guidance should exist here on wikipedia. --Sf (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The GFDL license which the text, and many of the images, of Misplaced Pages is licensed under also has similar wording: "The author(s) and publisher(s) of the Document do not by this License give permission to use their names for publicity for or to assert or imply endorsement of any Modified Version." --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 10:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Again with respect, we seem to be getting partial answers. OK the GFDL explanation that you linked does appear to contain a type of protection that relates to the issues being raised here. However, it does not immediately leap out as also being applicable to images. More importantly, the protection appears to relate to the author of the released document. If I am re-publishing someone elses work from the Scientific Literature then is it likely that they originally released their work under the GFDL? If not then where is the protection for them in this? The essence of the situation is this. If I, as someone who wishes to preserve my good reputation, wish to publish the work of other researchers via Misplaced Pages then in my view I have a duty to ensure that the reasonable interests of those whose work I cite are upheld, otherwise I risk my own reputation. (To eliminate this in advance, the obvious tactic of "protecting" myself by using a pseudonym is in my view unacceptable.) --Sf (talk) 11:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean that you would be drawing a diagram or illustration based on data collected or theories formulated by someone else? In that case, the answer is simple: they have never given permission for their name to be used to endorse any modified version, so no such permission exists by default. The non-endorsement clause in the GFDL (and other similar licenses), as quoted by Rat at WikiFur above, is merely there to reaffirm that the license does not constitute such a permission, implicit or explicit, even on your part. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

With regard to your first question and again as already stated what part of the words findings of published research were unclear? With respect your assertion that no permissions exist by default, again that is not good enough or this thread would not have been started in the first place. Is there some way to escalate this issue to some higher authority? --Sf (talk) 12:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason I asked is that there is a difference here between a figure drawn by someone else based on their research and one drawn by yourself based on someone else's research. I assume, from what you've written so far, that your questions specifically concern the latter, but I wished to clarify that nonetheless since, if this was not the case after all, I might otherwise end up giving you misleading and incorrect advice. As for your counterquestion, what's unclear is how you think those words are relevant to the matter at hand (that being licensing of free content images). As far as image licensing is concerned, it makes no difference if the data portrayed in the image is published, unpublished, made up, found in a dumpster or divinely inspired — the data itself, whatever its source, is not subject to copyright, and the sole purpose of a free content license is to disclaim certain parts of copyright which are considered unnecessary and counterproductive to the free sharing and collaborative development of creative works. Everything else is just legal mumbo-jumbo to achieve that end.

As for the fact that one has no permission to use a third party's name to endorse a work without their agreement, I'm not sure what more you might want. Certainly no license can explicitly list every conceivable thing that one is not allowed to do with the work in question. You do not, by law, have the authority to permit the use of a third party's name to endorse a work — only the person in question can do that. Certainly you could include in your license an explicit clause stating that one is not allowed to use Person X's name to endorse any derivative works, but such a clause would be completely unnecessary (and, should Person X disagree and in fact wish to permit such use, probably void). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The question is not about endorsing anybody's work this was a distraction that I did not introduce. Your assertion regarding no licence explicitly listing every concievable thing that one is not allowed to do with a work is also a distraction. I have a strong sense that my time is being wasted and I formally repeat my request regarding escalating this matter to some higher authority. --Sf (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Anyway, I'd like to take a moment to respond to some specific questions and remarks that have caught my eye among your comments:

1. "If I purport … to have re-published someone else's work without 'apparently' doing anything to protect that work from misuse am I not also potentially open to sanction myself?"
   • Probably not. You are not required to protect other people's work from misuse; the law already does that. If the law forbids doing something to Person X's published work without their permission, and Person Y goes and does it, that's a matter between Persons X and Y regardless of how Y got their hands on the work. The only way in which you, as a re-publisher of the work, might be liable is if you outright lied to Person Y, saying that the work wasn't Person X's to begin with or that they'd granted permission when they hadn't.
2. "Published scientific data is not copyright but …"
   • While scientific data indeed is not subject to copyright, any expression of that data, e.g. as an article or as a picture, is. If you tried to republish an article from a commercial scientific journal, there's a good chance you'd be sued. Indeed, that might happen even if you were the original author of the article, if you'd previously signed your copyright away to the journal. This is the crux of the matter, and probably the main reason why we keep talking past each other. Here at Misplaced Pages, we want our content to be free from such odious copyright restrictions, such that anyone may freely republish it, in whole or in part, and use it to create improved versions or even whole new works incorporating parts of the original. We do accept, and even encourage, some copyright restrictions as long as they do not interfere with legitimate reuse. Similarly, we do not generally have anything against restrictions outside copyright, since few of those (with the possible exception of some of the more questionable interpretations of patent law) affect the free use and distribution of creative works. Thus, issues such as misrepresenting academic research simply do not come up except in the most tangential manner. None of the commonly used free content licenses say anything to either forbid or permit such behavior — it is simply outside their scope.
3. "Your illustration of the Creative Commons licence may be starting to get us somewhere but … the relevant guidance should exist here on wikipedia."
   • The Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, which Rat at Wikifur linked to above, is one of the licenses explicitly permitted for images uploaded to Misplaced Pages or the Wikimedia Commons. I'd strongly recommend you take a closer look at it — the CC licenses include quite detailed and explicit terms to ensure that they cannot be interpreted as permitting misattribution or other violations of the moral rights or integrity of the author. Furthermore, as CC Attribution 3.0 license is explicitly considered acceptable for images on Misplaced Pages, you may rest assured that any other license incorporating similar restrictions should also be acceptable, provided it does not include any restrictions that step over the bounds.
4. "Essentially I am seeking a formula/wording for the copyright license that will encapsulate what you have just stated."
   • Do please take a look at the Creative Commons Attribution License, and its more restrictive ShareAlike variant, and see if those aren't acceptable to your needs. Note that, being well known licenses, there exists also a large body of explanatory material clarifying the intent of the CC licenses and explaining their use, including their application specifically to academic works as well as the various legal aspects underlying the way they are worded. If not, consider basing your own license terms (to be used e.g. in conjunction with {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}}) on the restrictions included in these licenses; this will make it more likely that such terms will indeed match the definition of a free license.
5. "Is there some way to escalate this issue to some higher authority?"
   • If you would like to see Misplaced Pages loosen the restrictions on what license terms are considered acceptable, you should propose this to the Wikimedia Foundation, which is ultimately responsible for setting the licensing policy for all Wikimedia projects. If you're more concerned with discussing where the line mandated by the Foundation policy should be drawn with regard to specific license terms, it may be more appropriate to discuss the matter here or on Wikimedia Commons, though of course the Foundation remains the final authority on the subject.

—Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I am out of time on this issue for the next few days. I will respond to your points in due course. Your user page states that you are an undergraduate student. I would suggest that you approach your Professor and ask them how he/she would like to have someone re-publishing their work on the apparent basis that anyone else could use it for any purpose they wished including derivatives. (And in a publishing environment where the issue of fraudulent misrepresentiation was only apparently addressed or even acknowledged on obscure and archived talk pages) Ask them how he/she would feel if a colleague did that - regardless of the fact that no formal legal sanctions were available against that colleague. --Sf (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Do feel free to resume the discussion whenever it is more convenient for you. In the mean time, I'd like to note that, these days, several academic journals do license their content under terms that are compatible with Misplaced Pages's licensing policy. For example, the PLoS journals are all licensed under the very same Creative Commons Attribution license as discussed above. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding CC-BY, there's a new Creative Commons blog entry relevant to CC-BY in educational institutions --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This has kind of gone away from the original issue. To answer that, the conditions attached to an image must not prohibit commercial use or the making of derivative works. I would suggest Sf and Ilmari Karonen take up the matter on their talk pages once Sf is back. I would note that the "speak to your professor" line has got a number of users banned for off-wiki activities so please be extremely cautious in that line of discussion. Stifle (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's assume good faith here, please. I am aware that many Misplaced Pages users would prefer to maintain a separation between their job or studies and their participation on Misplaced Pages during their free time, and might understandably view the idea of someone on Misplaced Pages contacting their superiors at school or work as potential harassment. However, I sincerely do not believe Sf meant anything like that by his suggestion. As it happens, I also know that my professor is quite aware of my participation on Misplaced Pages. As I edit under my real name, that much is also rather evident to anyone who might, say, Google for it.

As for the rest, I agree. Let's take it to our talk pages, or, if you'd prefer a wider audience, to one of the Wikimedia mailing lists. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I would also advise Stifle to be cautious, advice to seek input from a readily available academic advisor on a matter relating the publication of academic data is in my view entirely reasonable, attempts by third parties to construe other meanings might backfire very quickly. I have looked at the creative commons licence and sections 4.b and 4.c do appear to offer the kind of protection required for the creator of the image. The question which arises again in this instance is does this protection apply to the publishers of the data on which the image is based? If not then should this be explicitly stated in the copyright conditions and how should it be stated? This is a distinction between the primary authors releasing work under the creative commons and the makers of derivatives releasing work under the creative commons. --Sf (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

To pre-empt this, the reply that the primary authors already have the protection of the law is not good enough. It is already established that the Misplaced Pages licence conditions are an invitation to fraud. A typical example is Stifle's comment that "the conditions attached to an image must not prohibit commercial use or the making of derivative works". If in fact what is meant by this is "lawful derivatives" then why not say so? Why keep it a secret? The conclusion is invited that the reader should infer that any derivatives are permitted --Sf (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Re the legal issue you raise in point 1 above. In my view you need to take a broader view, if Misplaced Pages is to be taken seriously as an encyclopaedia then at the very least academic researchers should be entitled to expect that Misplaced Pages should show good manners in its treatment of their work. This goes beyond satisfying the letter of the law. --Sf (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Further to this I do genuinely think that you should approach your academic superviser and inquire how they would feel about having their work distributed under the terms specified by Stifle above. If your university has an internal staff e mail list I think it would be useful to broaden the discussion to that forum and seek the gut reactions of other researchers to the proposal.--Sf (talk) 09:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My question above re creative commons and primary authors is badly worded. What I meant was what other statements must be put into the copyright licence to ensure that the interests of the original authors are seen to be covered?--Sf (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, but, at least for the specific case of the Creative Commons Attribution license, something like the following ought to do it:

"Diagram drawn by based on research published by . Licensed by under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. For the purposes of section 4 of the license, shall be identified as one of the Original Authors of this work. This diagram has not been endorsed in any way by ."

(Delete or modify the last sentence as appropriate if the work has in fact been endorsed by the original researcher.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes an elegant solution - this seems to be one way around the issue. However there remains the issue that there are individuals proclaiming the Misplaced Pages licence conditions in a manner that in my view offers a clear invitation to fraud. Likewise I think that the issue of only lawful derivatives of images being permitted needs to be stated explicitly on one of the guidlines pages. So how are we to resolve this? Is it time to file an RfA? --Sf (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It might be simpler to just take up the issue with the specific people and on the talk pages of the specific guidelines that you feel are giving incomplete or misleading advice. Also in case of guidelines or policies, if you can think of a good wording that make the guideline clearer you could just edit it and see if anyone disagrees. (Oh, and you probably mean something other than RfA.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Photo libraries and old pictures

Trying to find a picture for William Henry Perkin, Jr., see here and here. See also here. Can anyone advise on the status of pictures like this? Carcharoth (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Since he's deceased, {{Non-free historic image}} (with an appropriate rationale) would be an appropriate tag. The images may also be PD due to age, but I am unable to open that website so can't check for myself. Stifle (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the pictures are being sold, I wouldn't claim fair-use unless the picture itself was iconic (and that is not the case here), or the article was about the picture (again, not the case here). Are other people having problems opening that link? What the three pictures say is "...probably taken the then new Dyson Perrin Laboratory at Oxford around the time it was opened in 1916." In other words, they are uncertain about the date and don't know much for certain (including not knowing who took the photo). That might make it public domain, but the uncertainty near the 1923 date, the picture being in the UK, and the sales company being in the UK, all complicate matters. Having said that, I've found 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 images on Commons with the source/credit being "Science and Society Picture Library". Does that help, or should those images be reviewed as well? Carcharoth (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand, it's certainly not unheard of for companies to claim copyright over something that's in the public domain. But on the other hand, UK copyright law is life of the author plus 70 years, which means a photo taken in 1916 could very easily still be under copyright. Given that, and the high profile of this company's clients (the Science Museum is the premier museum of its type in the UK, for example), I'd bank on their copyright claim being genuine, which means the Perkin images could only be used on Misplaced Pages in accordance with the non-free content criteria. In addition, the "Science and Society Picture Library" images you found on the Commons should be deleted. -- Hux (talk) 03:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I pretty much agree, except for the bit about life of author plus 70. I happen to think that when someone claims copyright, they should be able to say when it expires (otherwise you hit a grey area when no-one is quite sure when it expires, and the photo is left in a kind of limbo). For example, if they don't know when it expires, how can they renew copyright? In this case, I suspect they don't actually know the name of the author or the copyright history. If they admitted that (and there are probably good reasons why they don't) then it would default to some other figure for works where the copyright holder is not known (that is usually worked out from date of publication, and failing that, from date of creation). If you don't know any of that for sure, then actually claiming copyright, let alone proving the picture is of who you say it is, is very difficult. In reality, there will be records somewhere of where they got the pcture from. They just don't display that on their website. Carcharoth (talk) 07:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

2008 Grammy Awards Show Video Content

On February 10th, 2008 was the 50th Grammy Awards ceremony held in LA and part of the event is the Grammy Awards show, which featured this year Cirque du Soleil's tribute to The Beatles "A Day In The Life" and Carol Wood and Timmy Mitchum (from "Across the Universe") performance of the Beatles song "Let It Be". The show was aired live on ABC Television. Does it constitute "fair use", if only parts of the show (video recording of the ABC broadcast) are published on a video sharing site, such as YouTube (= no commercial use)? The video (which was also edited by me, prior me uploading it to YouTube) was rejected by YouTube's Content Identification program on behalf of "Grammys", claiming that the "some or all of the visual content" infringes their copyright. I would have been less surprised, if Paul McCartney, ABC Television or Cirque du Soleil would have made a claim (although the Cirque has seen a bunch of my videos, some of which are much more likely to be infringing than this one and actually likes the free promotion of their shows etc.). I assume that this claim and the resulting rejection of the video was done automatically and I would like to know, if it is worthwhile to "dispute the claim" or not. I know a bit about copyright laws, but this case is not 100% clear to me. Does somebody has some comments or any tips for this particular case? --roy<sac> .oOo. 18:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to extend my question. The video uploaded to YouTube serves also the purpose to be embedded into a blog post, website or Misplaced Pages article for that matter. The same question I asked specifically for the Grammy's awards show can be applied to a number of similar cases that are relevant for Misplaced Pages. Video is not added too much to articles yet, but I hope that this will change, considering the broad adaption of online video by the average user. --roy<sac> .oOo. 19:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use has nothing to with whether Cirque du Soleil objects or not; it is a matter of free speech. But more than a very brief excerpt for the purpose of critical commentary would not be fair use. I suspect that YouTube was right. As for Misplaced Pages, Misplaced Pages’s policy on non-free content is much more restrictive than fair use; see WP:NFCC. In particular by WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8, a video could not be used unless its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic over a single-frame screen shot. —teb728 t c 23:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

roy: Following on from what teb728 said, and without going into too much detail, any reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, or a derivative version of it, is by default infringing however much of it is used, unless the use conforms with certain specific exceptions, or you get sued, make a Fair Use claim, and the court agrees. Fair Use is not an affirmative right, it's a defense against a charge of infringement, and what is or is not Fair Use is decided on a case-by-case basis. This results in a lot of educated guesswork: individuals and organizations (like YouTube and Misplaced Pages) make decisions on what kind of uses would likely be deemed fair if they ever found themselves on the wrong side of a lawsuit, and then construct their usage policies accordingly. Why your video got rejected by YouTube when thousands of other videos that are blatantly infringing get uploaded every day I couldn't say. But since your description of the video suggests that it's a clear infringement I don't imagine you'll have any luck if you challenge the rejection. Regarding adding video to Misplaced Pages, as teb said, for non-free videos Misplaced Pages's rules are very strict. For example, if an excerpt from a movie was added to an article about the movie and served no purpose other than to decorate the page then that would not be allowed. However, if the video was illustrating a specific thing that was being discussed in the article and if its inclusion added a significant amount to it that words alone could not convey, then that might be okay. Either way, I agree that getting more video onto Misplaced Pages in general is a good thing from the reader's perspective. It just needs to be done in a way that minimizes the chances of Misplaced Pages getting sued out of existence by an aggrieved copyright holder. -- Hux (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I also learned that CBS and Grammys are very draconian and cause numerous content to be pulled from video sharing sites and others. It seems that this is done pretty much automated. Just using the phrase "Grammy Awards" on a sharing site as title for your image, video or other content could be enough for getting your content pulled. This is bad behavior, because they even risk to claim that content they do not even own is infringing their copyright. I saw that kind of behaviour before. FRANCIS DREYFUS MUSIC did the same with content that included the word "Oxygene" (Jean Michel Jarre music). A video of mine was pulled where I happen to know exactly who the creators where (every byte of it, literally). I also know that their content was released with the intention to copy and spread it, because that is the whole idea behind creating that specific content to begin with. I sent a nasty email to YouTube when the video was pulled and demanded that they put it back up, especially after I provided them with the proof that DREYFUS MUSIC's claim was bs. They never put it back up, so I uploaded it again and left a nasty comment in the description of the video addressing DREYFUS MUSIC directly. This triggered some comments from people who had similar experiences. The current copyright laws don't make sense and have to be changed. They simply don't work in the modern day and age anymore. I translated a few month ago an Article from a German computer magazine from 2005 about the attempt of one of the writers to get a Music CD compilation done with his and his wife's favorite music for all of his guests to his round birthday (40th) that is legally perfectly okay (10-15 copies of a song is not personal use anymore). It was impossible to do. He was forced as consumer to either not do what he wanted to do or to break the law. Nobody would sue him for breaking the law, but that is making the point only more clear that the law does not work anymore. What is ironic in this whole mess is the fact that most of today's "infringements" are people who are fans and promote the companies products or services who's copyright they infringe. That means that they not only lose the opportunity for broad and very targeted advertising without having to pay a cent, but they also pis*ed of their once loyal and evangelist customers. p.s. I deleted the video from YouTube and tried something else (not so nice for Grammy's, but hey, they asked for it). Sorry for my rant, but I get more and more mad these days, since these kind of cases increase in frequency and stupidity lately. --roy<sac> .oOo. 03:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Another question. What is the best way to find out who the copyright owner is of something, what the copyright situation of a publication is (song, video, movie, picture) e.g. if it is fully copyrighted, creative commons or public domain, and how to contact the copyright owner if it seems to be copyright protected? I released stuff into public domain and plastered it all over my site where the content is published, but that does not always seem be to enough and people get problems with using my stuff elsewhere, even though they are technically allowed to do so. I would not even have guessed that CBS and The Grammys own the copyright to the video in question and that nobody else has re-publishing rights for it, not even the copyright owners of the content that is part of the content in the video (Beatles songs, Cirque performances from their show "Love" etc.). Are there any databases that are freely accessible for consumers where companies expressed their willingness to enforce their copyright on their specified content or a database where people can state publicly in a central place that their stuff is public domain or released under creative commons? --roy<sac> .oOo. 03:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Except from the Misplaced Pages Commons of course where it is hard to get your own stuff in there that you even released into public domain. Stuff that I provided two years ago is still not in there. Some of it made it though. There gotta be a better way. --roy<sac> .oOo. 03:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The best way is to assume everything is copyrighted in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

If you want to point out that content on your website is released into the public domain or under some sort of free license, you're welcome to do so. http://www.creativecommons.org has some suggestions on how to accomplish that.

The rest of your questions aren't really a matter for this noticeboard. Stifle (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

1921 Irish Newspaper photo image

I Have a photograph of a person who died in 1921. It appeared in an Irish newspaper in April 1921. Am I permitted to include it in a page i am working on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RashersTierney (talk • contribs) 18:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Failing that, would a pencil sketch based on the photograph avoid copyright issues?RashersTierney (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Non-free historic image seems most appropriate unless I am otherwise informed. RashersTierney (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Since it was published before 1921, it would be considered pubic domain in the United States, where the Wikimedia Foundation is located. I'm not sure what the copyright status in Ireland would be. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like expiry in Ireland is 70 years after the author's death. Is the an image credit for the photo? --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea how the paper acquired the original image, it may have been supplied by the Government from his service record, or by his family. So far, I have been unable to locate any living relatives. I still think that the Template:Non-free historic image is most appropriate. 83.71.38.170 (talk) 02:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

{{PD-US}} would probably do it as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned, but we can't say whether you'd be in compliance with Irish copyright law. I'd point you at chapter 6 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Tunnels uncovered in Rafah.jpg

Image:Tunnels uncovered in Rafah.jpg was recently deleted from wiki and best of my knowledge, it is a fair use non replaceable image of the Tunnels uncovered in the Rafah operation.

I wish/propose to have/readmit the image on the article due to it's clear encyclopedic value.
Cheers, Jaakobou 11:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the image is replaceable by a free image which could be created and therefore this one appears to fail WP:NFCC #1. Stifle (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

But as the listing here results from a disagreement between myself and Jaakobou, further opinions are welcome. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If we are talking about Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. This is an image that is iconic in an of itself. Then the use of the image in an article talking about it is fair use. Likewise one or two still images from a movie in an article talking about the visual style of the movie are probably fair use. I have no idea what the image contained, but if it was a map - it could be re-drawn. If it was a photograph, then it was probably the work of a photographer who expected to be paid for his work, then it would fair the fair use test of "economic competition". Megapixie (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

is the source of the image, which is a map with text and lines drawn on it. Stifle (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If you mean this one then, as Megapixie said, we can't use it because a free version could be created using the same data (assuming that the underlying map is available somewhere for free). -- Hux (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the information is obviously encyclopedic and valuable. I'm not sure that copying its information suddenly makes for a "free" copyright, as the initial copyright was "fair use" and not "feel free to copy and then manipulate however you see fit". But, if there is a consensus on this, I have absolutely no personal objection to someone making a copy and posting it in replacement of the original. Still, until that person conjures himself to do the deed, I think the image should be "fair use" by Misplaced Pages (or other), as was intended by the IDF spokesperson. Jaakobou 14:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Images taken from an NHS website

I could use some clarification here please. Promotional images on this website http://www.imperial.nhs.uk/mediacentre/imagelibrary/index.htm, have a disclaimer stating:

"Visitors to the www.imperial.nhs.uk website have permission to access this copyright material, which may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context." (http://www.imperial.nhs.uk/aboutus/disclaimer/index.htm)

Does this count as being uploadable? Matt641 (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to think that this falls short of permitting derivative use and as such would not be permissible. Stifle (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Da That is crown copyright terms which we know are not compatible with GFDL.Geni 02:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Help

Hi, i really have problems doing pages on here, but i've recently done a page on a British Wrestler called The Juggernaught, his page is titled the same as his name. Anyway, i uploaded a pic on it and it says about the copyright, i own no copyright on it, but Juggernaught himself said i could use it but i have no idea how to do it and it's frustrating trying to figure it out.

Would one of you guys help me and add the copyright on there for me?, he gives permission for anybody to use his pics, aslong as it's for use such as this and not for beneficial uses.

If you could, i'd really appreciate it.

Kev

87.102.76.131 (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Once you put in the "as long as it's ... not for benefical uses", the image (Juggernaught.jpg) becomes unusable at Misplaced Pages. See Misplaced Pages:Image use policy. It's been deleted. Stifle (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:PAVCS_Logo1.jpg

I recently uploaded Image:PAVCS_Logo1.jpg as a replacement of Image:PAVCS_Logo1.gif, however it has been marked in violation of the non-free image policy. May I ask why it is in violation and the other image was not? -] 17:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Request withdrawn. -] 18:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

user:jamiecg74

I have just added a tag on the picture, can you advise me if this is the correct image? 82.19.60.209 (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't know what image you're referring to. Please specify the exact image name beginning with the prefix Image:. Thanks. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Image uploading

How do I upoload an image to wikipedia? There is an image on the infobox of the Indian Cricket League page which is unsourced, but it is likely that the picture came directly from the official site. I also needed a couple of logos for the pages for each different tournament and was wondering a. how to upload them to wikipedia, and b. if they are licensed?

these logos are listed here: http://www.indiancricketleague.in/fixtures/icl-tournaments.html

Thanks

Lihaas (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Google Books

Is a photograph or scan of a page from a book taken from Google Books acceptable, given that the book is past copyright? (It was published in England 1849) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dozenthey (talk • contribs) 23:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's public domain, scanning it in doesn't renew the copyright; the scan is also public domain, according to Bridgeman v Corel. Of course, it's proper to credit the source of the scan. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bridge CS3.png

Is this an appropriate edit? I'm not sure where the boundary between simple text being PD and if gradients or drop shadows start to push it away. -- atropos235 ✄ (blah blah, my past) 04:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Obtaining pictures for Perna viridis

Can I rip off obtain pictures from this United States Geological Survey document as Public Domain? If so, then what tag should I use? I'll use it to improve the article Perna viridis--Lenticel 05:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, since works of the US federal government are public domain. It's possible that sometimes they use an image from an outside source but there's no credit to indicate this is the case here. The tag is {{PD-USGov-Interior-USGS}}. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 08:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll use this later.--Lenticel 08:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

IMAGES copyright

What EXACTLY is the syntax to the line I have to add to the ALBUM Cover images etc on my WIKI site to ensure they are ok with copyright (As I am layman and just want to copy this and put the correct NAME in the appropriate place) Most of these ALBUM covers were created by me (or by an artist I commissioned who I can name) Thanks Guy Manning —Preceding unsigned comment added by GuyManning (talk • contribs) 07:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you asking a question about Misplaced Pages, or about some other website? Misplaced Pages is not your WIKI site. Stifle (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:2007 Way to Happiness unauthorized SF city logo.jpg

I uploaded this image and I want to doublecheck its use in the article "The Way to Happiness", and the fair use rationale used on the image page.

Here is a brief description of the background of the image:

• Vega, Cecilia M. (2007-10-13). "Group censured for using Newsom's image in pro-Scientology booklet". San Francisco Chronicle. Hearst Communications Inc. Retrieved 2008-04-25.

Now it's true that "The Way to Happiness Foundation International" did arrange the images on the cover of this pamphlet, and their logo is on there as well - but the pamphlet cover also contains a blatantly unauthorized use of both the logo of the City of San Francisco, and wording from the Mayor of San Francisco (written in first person), which he never said nor authorized. (The image is being used in the article to illustrate exactly that.)

Clarification/feedback would be appreciated. -- Cirt (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that image itself should indeed be able to pass our non-free content criteria, but the rationale you've provided frankly reads like word salad. I'll see if I can turn it into something a bit more coherent. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've fixed it. The real problem seems to have been the {{logo fur}} template, which is meant for pictures of individual logos and isn't really very well suited for images like this one. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ilmari Karonen, much better! Cirt (talk) 08:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

still photo from a movie that I produced and own the copyright to.

Hi I just posted a photo from a movie that I produced called "Never Say Macbeth". I own the movie, and I own the copyright to the movie. Technically, I did not take the photo because my cinematographer was holding the camera. Can I choose the option "I am the copyright owner" even though I did not technically take the photo? I have uploaded the photo onto the article for Scott Cunningham, and now it has been tagged for possible removal.

Joegold (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Usually, copyright is not transferred unless specifically stated, except in the case of a work for hire. If you do indeed own the copyright, then yes you can use "I am the copyright owner". Make sure you explain on the image description page how you came to be the copyright holder. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If you indeed own the copyright to the movie, and if the picture is a frame from the movie, then you evidently hold the copyright to the picture and may license it any way you like. Even if the picture was taken separately during the filming, it may still, depending on the circumstances, count as a work for hire. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the work for hire side of the law, but as I understand it, in the movie industry cinematographers, camera operators, etc., are typically not considered employees of the production company (they're contract workers, basically). If I'm correct then in order for the film to be considered a work for hire, there needs to be a specific, written agreement between them and the production company stating that. Absent that agreement, the copyright is not owned by the production company, but by whoever created the footage. -- Hux (talk) 04:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright status...

Hello there. I've stumbled across this map which I'd like to use in articles but I'm suspicious about the copyrights status. How do we know if the uploader is in a position to release it as public domain? Does it need deletion? Otherwise, I hope it is useable. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hard to say. On the one hand, this PDF contains an almost identical map, credited to "Indonesian Government" (though the paper is written by "Ö. Aydan"), but on the other hand a little Googling suggests that Herman Darman is published geologist, so for all we know he created the original map and the Indonesian Government claim is false. On balance, given the nature of his other contributions, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. -- Hux (talk) 05:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your prompt and thoroughly considered response. Your efforts are very much appreciated. regards --Merbabu (talk) 03:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Add comic strip panel from 1913-1925?

I want to add an image to Cyrus Cotton "Cy" Hungerford http://en.wikipedia.org/Cyrus_Cotton_%22Cy%22_Hungerford

The image would be an example of Hungerford's work, a daily panel from his newspaper strip "Snoodles". The image is at http://bp3.blogger.com/_SvmlM7-oNw0/SBIYw5a0y1I/AAAAAAAAFtc/mtBXi7jm8xo/s1600-h/may71926.JPG It is from this page: http://john-adcock.blogspot.com/2008/04/snoodles-iii.html

John Adcock at the blog "Yesterday's Papers" has scanned a number of strips from a Canadian newspaper that carried the strip 1924-1927, but the strip was first published 1913-1925.

He gives permission for his scans to be used, but would this constitute fair use of Hungerford's work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyn50 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you happen to know exactly when that particular strip was first published? If it was before January 1, 1923, you could tag it as {{PD-US}}. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Question from adoptee

Hey! I'm currently in adopter program, and my adoptee asked me "I have a question about uploading pictures; from what I've read, it seems okay to scan the cover of an album and upload it, providing that I put copyright information on it (even though album covers don't usually specify copyright info)." I have no idea what copyrights album covers have, so anyone here who could provide some info? Ilyushka88 (talk) 10:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure: album covers can be used in the infobox of the article about the album. They can also be used elsewhere, provided that their use is to illustrate discussion of the design of the cover (or perhaps its newsworthiness) and adds significantly to that discussion in ways that words alone cannot. In all cases, the template {{non-free album cover}} should be used, along with a separate Fair Use rationale for each article in which the cover appears. Your adoptee can use this template for that. -- Hux (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

image copyright

I have permission from the author of this image to include it on the entry about him. How do I specify that when I upload the image? This is the image:Steve Pyke Self-Portrait.jpg I guess it was already deleted before I posted this, but please let me know how I can upload it with the correct copyright information next time. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoyobee (talk • contribs) 12:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:COPYREQ for what kind of permission is required and how to request it. —teb728 t c 01:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Two images from free PC videogames flagged for deletion

I'm very new at adding images, but did for 2 video games the other day, and today I learned that both are going to be deleted. I think I tagged the images incorrectly but am unsure as to what I need to do to them to get them "unflagged" for deletion.

Both images gave credit to the creator of the game, and lists the source and URLs. I used the tag for video game screenshots but obviously that's wrong because it's coming back as non-free images (??). Both of these screenshots, Hasslevania.png and NPMTCE.png are from free games, so how should I edit them accordingly?

EDIT: Those are the correct names of both files yet they come up as dead links. You can see the images at their Wiki pages here at Hasslevania and Neil Peart- Mission: The Camera Eye. I don't know why these come up as red links when they exist?

TheHenge (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The images are Image:Hasslevania.png and Image:NPMTCE.png. You needed :Image: in the links. —teb728 t c 00:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You need a non-free use rationale for each use. You can use {{game screenshot rationale}} to provide one. —teb728 t c 00:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification on how cultural property published before 1923, but still in use as a trademark, affects public domain both in "fact" and on WP:Public domain

In relation to these two images: Image:Uc seal black.png and Image:Notre dame coat of arms.png. Some discussion on this is occuring here, but I'd like more input. Amerique 18:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The images appear to be correctly tagged: {{PD-US}} and {{Trademarked}}. They are no longer protected by copyright law, but they are still protected by trademark law, which is quite a different thing. See Misplaced Pages:Logos#U.S. trademark law for a discussion of how trademark law protects certain use of logos. Inasmuch as the images are not under copyright, their use is not restricted by WP:NFCC. —teb728 t c 00:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages generaly ignores things like trademark issues.Geni 00:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's where the question gets difficult: NFCC explicitly defines "non-free content" as "all copyrighted images and other media files that lack a free content license." From my quick reading of the relevant policy pages, Misplaced Pages's articles on intellectual property laws, and some outside sources linked from those articles, my impression is that trademarked intellectual property and the public domain are separate and mutually-exclusive domains. The fact that these images' copyrights have expired does not necessarily put them into the public domain; trademarks are a special case. Indeed, if something is just going to fall into the public domain anyway, there is very little point in getting it trademarked. Trademarks are inherently non-free -- they just happen to be "free'er" than copyrighted items. As a thought experiment, would you upload a trademark to Commons? --Dynaflow babble 01:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

trademarked images exist on commons.Geni 01:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

For example Commons:Image:Microsoft wordmark.svg. —teb728 t c 01:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Trademarks are restricted, but they are “free” within the meaning of NFCC. —teb728 t c 01:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"Public domain" just means that the work is no longer protected by copyright law. Trademark law is a separate issue, one that the NFCC doesn't concern itself with. It's really not that complicated. -- Hux (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you know when and how it was decided that trademarks were free-enough content to use in Commons, template-space, etc.? I'm curious to know the logic that was followed, because it seems to directly contradict NFCC's paramount purpose, which is "to support Misplaced Pages's mission to produce perpetually free content for unlimited distribution, modification and application by all users in all media ." Even though the trademarks under discussion are no longer copyrighted, until they genericize or lapse through disuse, they are not in the de jure public domain. We stand more chance in our lifetimes of being trampled and maimed by herds of twelve-headed unicorns than we do of, say, seeing the UC Regents put a Creative Commons or GFDL license on their official seal, or even allowing anyone to print it on t-shirts or coffee mugs without requiring a prior petition for approval (which they could refuse at their discretion). It's not in the actual public domain, in the sense that it could be used in an entirely unrestricted manner, and it doesn't have a free license, yet it's still, somehow, free content.

I apologize if I'm coming across as a hard-ass, but I'm just very surprised, after watching a year's worth of strife over images being deleted for not having separate fair-use rationales for each and every article in which they appear, after seeing images brought over from Flickr with CC Noncommercial licences being refused the status of free content because their license allows for everything except for commercial use, etc., that trademarks would essentially be treated with a shrug. I thought I had a decent handle on policy, but now I've been thrown for a loop. I'm just trying to understand. --Dynaflow babble 02:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Broadly speaking because if you start considering stuff other than copyright pretty much anything can be argued to be non free.Geni 08:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Though there is the point that we should be looking more closely at images marked {{trademarked}}, and making sure people aren't misusing those images. There is no real reason for using them in templates or in userspace or anything like that. Carcharoth (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, all, for responding. I must admit I am as surprised at this as Dynaflow, but it makes sense from a purely legal perspective, that no category is all inclusive or exclusive either in itself or in relation to other categories, as these are respectively defined under different laws that cannot supersede or contradict “other property rights.” Still, not speaking of the public domain in "real life," I also would think WP's prohibitions against CC images tagged "non-commercial" would also naturally implicate the "free use" of trademarks. Regarding the use of these marks in their respective university templates, an argument against this, other than the apparent violation of WP:NFCC, (which, apparently, is only "apparent") would be that this could "confuse" or "mislead" the public that the trademark owners have produced or sponsored the articles the marks appear in, as per WP:LOGO? I would argue against this, as other identifying marks appear more prominently in the infobox templates, and no one, I think, believes that their display implies sponsorship or even sanction on the part of their owners. Their use in this context would seem to protected as "unauthorized use of a trademark in a noncommercial setting such as an editorial or artistic context," however this all hinges on how WP functions as a noncommercial space, which I admit I don't completely understand. I assume it's status as a non-profit has bearing on this? Amerique 17:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Specifically, see here for transclusions of images marked with the "trademarked" template. Far less than I thought. Either lots of trademarked stuff is untagged, or there is more on Commons than I thought. Or most of the trademarks are non-free. Carcharoth (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

On a lark, I just went through the motions of uploading an organizational logo at Misplaced Pages:Upload, and I've discovered why that template is so under-used. When uploading a logo, the user finds him or herself confronted with only two choices in the licensing drop-down box: {{Non-free logo}} and, "I don't know." The obvious choice for those interested in not having their images summarily deleted will be {{logo}}, even if it doesn't quite seem right. That's the furthest most normal uploaders will get, because it would take a much higher-than-average level of intimacy with Misplaced Pages's back alleys to get a hunch that there might be a better-worded template somewhere and then head over to WP:MT in search of it. I'd bet that {{Non-free logo}} currently appears on a lot of image pages where {{Trademark}} should be used instead, for the simple reason that the system essentially forced uploaders who didn't know any better to choose the less incorrect of two imperfect options. --Dynaflow babble 19:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

<hand meets forehead> Doh! Thanks for spotting this. Anyone have any ideas who to shout at politely ask to fix this? Carcharoth (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The {{logo}} template starts out with "and/or" phrasing, as in "protected by copyright and/or trademark," but then encourages treating the item as if copyrighted, which it might not be, as opposed to trademarked (which it still might not be)... Personally, I can see how treating both ownership categories the same would be simpler at the level of uploading an image, as leaving users only "one choice," as opposed to several choices, would seem to reduce the potential for mass confusion at that point. Of course, the problem of how to treat trademarked but not copyrighted images becomes more confused afterwards, for the reasons mentioned above. Amerique 00:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Donboscotech_logo.png

I just wanted to know if the Image:Donboscotech_logo.png is okay to be used since there is a fair use rationale —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarchingBandFan (talk • contribs) 23:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It can be used in the article for which its fair-use rationale has been written (the rationale needs a little clean-up; I'll take care of it). In fact, the image now has to be used, else it faces deletion as an orphaned image. Go ahead and put it in if you think it will improve the article. --Dynaflow babble 00:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• FYI - Image:Donboscotech_logo.PNG was just tagged as {

Exhibitionism

Can someone please release this image Image:Jello biafra mooning.jpg to be used here, Exhibitionism#Types_of_exposure? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.224.121 (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Done, even though this isn't really the right place to ask for this. (Next time, try either WP:AN or MediaWiki talk:Bad image list.) I'd like to note, however, that the relevance of some of the images already on that page, as well as the appropriateness of their associated captions, seems questionable at best. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Myspace image

I uploaded this image a few days ago. It is the image for the Myspace profile of a band. I wasn't exactly sure if that meant it was okay to use the image (I figured there was probably some rule against it). Could someone tell me if it is okay to use this image or not, and why? I would greatly appreciate it- Kanogul 12:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, like most photos on the internet, without overt evidence to the contrary we have to assume that this is a copyrighted image and that the copyright is held by the photographer, so as far as Misplaced Pages's non-free content criteria are concerned, we can only use it if the copyright holder releases it under a free license. If you're interested in pursuing this see WP:COPYREQ, otherwise I'm afraid it'll have to be deleted. -- Hux (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Three old biographical pictures

Could people here advise on the copyright status of the following pics? Arthur William Rucker picture, William Carmichael McIntosh picture and Harold Baily Dixon picture.

• (1) Are the images public domain or not?
• (2) If they are still in copyright, when will they become public domain?
• (3) Is it possible to say something is copyrighted even if you don't know when it will become public domain?

Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

1) Based on the information we have here, it's impossible to know for sure. It's possible that all of them are, but it might also be that none of them are. Given the ages of their subjects, the lengthy copyright terms in the US and UK, and the sites on which they are hosted, we have to assume they're still under copyright. 2) Unfortunately, it's not possible to know that for sure without more information about when the photos were taken and whether or not their photographers are still alive. 3) Yes, very much so. Since copyright is typically based on the life of the author plus a certain number of years, unless you know when a photo was taken and/or when the copyright holder died, you can't know for sure when it will revert to the public domain, so in order to be safe you have to assume that copyright still applies. -- Hux (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

So I am correct in assuming that those with copyright in a picture have a vested interest in "losing" (or not publicising) the information about when a picture was taken and by whom, and when it was published and where? I think other aspects of the copyright law kick in at this point, but I will repeat here my assertion that it was surely never the intent of copyright that people would be allowed to say, "we don't know when this photo was taken or by whom, and so we can claim copyright for a long time because we think the author might have lived a long time." This is the whole reason that "pseudonymous author" (ie. author known but because they are pseudonymous, not their date of death) or "anonymous author" or "unknown author" clauses exist in copyright law. The "life of author" bit only applies if you know the author. If the entity claiming copyright cannot demonstrate or prove the identity of the author, then the 'life of the author' stuff does not apply. Carcharoth (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

How to make copyrighted images?

Can anybody say how my own image can be uploaded in the wikipedia such that, it will not ask for copyright information? The pictures are actually diagrams of graphs, and entirely(No plagiarism ) drawn by me in my computer.

Eagerly waiting for reply.:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bipulkumarbal (talk • contribs) 16:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Any image is copyrighted as soon as it is created, so even images created by yourself need to have copyright information. If you want to relinquish any copyright owned by you, the tag is {{PD-self}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Or, for things like simple graphs, possibly even {{PD-self-ineligible}}. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

like to let images go

hello

thanks for getting in touch with me about the images DSN1487,88, 95 and 98 plus 1507,17 and 19

i no longer require their use (as i ended up creating them, whilst trying to upload images for the first time). i would like to let the images go and would like to see them deleted. Kilnburn (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use of copyrighted drawings of historical figures: second request

The section Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions#Fair use of copyrighted drawings of historical figures (higher up in this project page) has become a discussion between users who have opinions about fair use but are not specifically informed about the subject. We invite users who have a broader knowledge of fair use to help us clarify this issue. Fg2 (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I replied above. Hopefully I addressed everyone's concerns sufficiently. -- Hux (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Hux. It helps us focus on the issues and points us in the right direction for solving them. Fg2 (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

uploading an image

what is a copyright tag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmillermac (talk • contribs) 20:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

See Help:Image page --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Road Signs

I want to make pages for the Nassau County Route system. Im getting my images from nycroads.com there is no copyright information. Also, Im not sure if it's copyrighted at all being that it's a route sheild. If so, where can I get pictures of the NC Route Sheilds. Wiki only has a few...not all.

For the route shields, whether or not the design is copyrighted would depend on the type of shield and the state. I believe I'm right in saying that interstate route shields are the domain of the federal government, in which case they would likely be in the public domain by default. New York state and Nassau County route shields may also be in the public domain, but that would depend on the laws of the state and county respectively (in some localities, government-created works are public domain, but in others they're copyrighted just like any other creative work). So basically there's no easy answer to this; you'd have to get in touch with the relevant authorities to be certain. Of course, having said all this, if a partycular image of a route shield were copyrighted and your article were discussing the design of that shield then it would probably be okay to use a photo of it under the non-free content criteria. -- Hux (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Old paintings

I have read the various copyright, public domain, image use policies and so forth, and must confess I am still uncertain of the regulations regarding old paintings. As I understand it, even if the painting is in the public domain, the image might not be (say a scan or photo of the original). If, for example, the British Library holds an image, can they assert copyright on their reproductions? Specifically, I am working on James Graham (soldier) (1791-1845), the "bravest man at Waterloo", and would like to illustrate it. Can anyone advise me on the likely copyright status of the following images:

1. A watercolour portrait exists at the National Gallery of Ireland and is reproduced here.
2. Robert Gibb painted the scene at Hougoumont in 1903. This is held by the National Museums of Scotland but can be seen reproduced in forums, art sites, history sites and so forth. Various examples:
3. 1915 Cigarette cards here

Many thanks for your help. Gwinva (talk) 00:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This has been the topic of a lot of debate. See Template_talk:PD-art if you haven't done so already. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Advice needed

I have a wedding picture that was taken in 1947 by a professional photographer for Stone Photography Incorporated and I'm trying to figure out whether I can upload this into wikicommons. Can someone out there help? Mmyotis 01:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Only in the unlikely case of the photographer licensing it under a free license. If you seriously think that is possible, see WP:COPYREQ. —teb728 t c 05:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's your own wedding picture, you could just try asking the photo company to sign the rights over to you; they might well be willing to do that. Then you could license the image any way you wanted. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If the copyright wasn't renewed, it may be public domain. The template is {{PD-Pre1964}} if so. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 03:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

David H. Petraeus 2008.jpg

Hi - I received this photo from a US Army Soldier who took it during her official capacity. I just tried to correctly edit the description that accompanied the photo - can you let me know if I did it correctly? This is my first time uploading an image. Thanks so much! YoungLion24 —Preceding unsigned comment added by YoungLion24 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that license is fine...not really any doubt that's an official portrait. I removed the deletion tag. Kelly 04:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

WMF Logos

Images like Image:Wikimedia.png are non-free copyrighted images owned by the WMF that should only be used per FUR guidelines. I think we should comment their use out of all userpages that have them as fairuse overuse. Any objections. MBisanz 06:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The WMF logos are a special case. I don't tend to agree with this because of the extent of the use and the fact that we are definitely not violating any copyrights by using the images here. I would further recommend transferring this discussion to WP:AN for visibility. Stifle (talk) 11:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Crossposted. MBisanz 21:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone from the Foundation voiced an opinion on the matter? Treating the WMF logos as traditional FU imagery strikes me as very bureaucratic in nature. For starters, why are they on Commons if they aren't to be freely used? We have special licenses in such cases, and I see no exception here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The WMF position from the last time I raised this question (~6 months ago, if I recall correctly), is that they have no official position. Or to put it more plainly they have not granted any license or permission for any generic third party of their copyrights and trademarks within or outside of Misplaced Pages. At the same time, they are aware of these uses and have not taken any explicit action to generically restrict or remove the unathorized use of their copyrights and trademarks within Misplaced Pages. (Though it is worth noting that they have removed a few specific examples of infringing uses in the past.) So you can read into that whatever you want. MBisanz is basically correct that in the absense of an authorizing license, all of these uses created by Wikipedians represent acts of copyright/trademark infringment both within Misplaced Pages and for reusers. However, the WMF is obviously in a position to snuff this out even without legal action, should they choose to do so. I've been advocating for an official WMF Logo use policy for nigh on 2 years now, but it seems little progress has been made. Personally, my feeling is that under the current situation they are plainly unfree and purely decorative uses of WMF logos should be restricted. Dragons flight (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion centralized to Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#WMF_Logos. MBisanz 21:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mileva Maric (nee Einstein).jpg

See Talk:Mileva Marić#Image:Mileva Maric (nee Einstein).jpg. I saw that the image was tagged for speedy delete and recognised it as a 1896 photograph from Roger Highfield's book, so I added a partly completed Information template. I then removed both the di-no source and the PD-old tags because (1) there is some source now, and (2) I am unsure whether PD-old applies due to both the photographer and first date of publication being unknown. Could someone check whether it might at least fall into the US public domain? More details are in the image talk. -84.222.0.142 (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I tagged it for now with {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. It may also be in the public domain in its country of origin but that needs some research (I'm short on time at the moment). I'm not sure if the Austro-Hungarian Empire was party to international copyright agreements (some entities weren't - see {{PD-RusEmpire}} - or how it applies in former provinces that are now independent nations. I hesitate to say that European Union rules of {{PD-old-70}} apply because Switzerland is not a member, and also Switzerland often does not consider straightforward portrait photos to be copyrightable. (Is Serbia an EU member? I don't think so but can't remember.) Kelly 15:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this. I just noticed the Mileva's Serbian article uses this larger resolution image from Commons, tagged PD-old but also with no author information. The Bern museum site claims reproduction rights, for what it's worth. I will add a note on the Talk there. Anyway having reread Mileva's biography, she was most likely in Zurich at the end of 1896 (when she turned 21) as she had switched to the polytechnic in October. In fact she'd been in Zurich since 1894. (Serbia is not in the EU yet.) -84.222.0.142 (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I am completely confused!!

I just uploaded 4 official images of the girl group Girlicious, off of the CW network ehre the show was aired, and I am not sure how to properly tag them. Help!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by I teh yuh (talk • contribs) 00:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I checked the copyright statement on the site you sourced the image to, and it wouldn't allow use on Misplaced Pages. You could try asking according to WP:COPYREQ. I don't think it would fall under fair use because they are still alive so it would be possible to obtain a freely-licensed image. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 02:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Two Images

Does anyone know if the following images qualify for use in the article Harold Dodds?

Specifically, the second image (the one with Truman). Is this public domain because it's in the National Archives?

How about this? Same guy as the first image. This is most likely copywritten, but can we use it through fair use? He's dead, so it would be hard to get a free image. Also, it's not of the best quality.

Thanks in advance for the help. Paragon12321 (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The national archives aren't guaranteed to be public domain, but it's possible. If the copyright wasn't renewed, then the tag would be {{PD-Pre1978}} or {{PD-Pre1964}}. Check to see if either of those match your situation. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright

I am trying to add a copyright tag to my image Image:Brandon at night2.JPG. I have tried adding {{PD-self}} by editing the page, but I still get the message that there is no copyright tag on the image. I also appear to be making a mess and now have 3 versions of the image. If somebody could tell me how to add the copyright tag correctly or how to clean up the mess I have made, I would be very grateful. Seftonm (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Once you've corrected the problem, and it looks like you have, you just need to remove the tag that the bot added. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright of a scanned image

What is the copyright status of an image which is uploaded after being scanned from a booklet. And the booklet holds no where any claim of copyright. I have added these images with a {{PD-self}} tag. Can anyone please guide me? --SMS 03:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Simply scanning something in does not create a new copyright; the copyright, if there is any, is still fully held by the original author. Just because there is no copyright notice doesn't mean it's public domain; copyright is automatic and doesn't require a notice. Could you tag the images with their original creation date and original source? --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

How can I know who the author is or who holds it's copyright. Let me give some details, I am talking of these images: Image:Piffer Center.JPG and Image:Piffers War Memorial.JPG, which I took from an official booklet of Frontier Force Regiment. So can you please guide me what to tag to these images. Thanks! --SMS 16:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Was there an image credit, copyright notice, or publication date on the booklet? --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

How to nominate an image for deletion

I have come across this image: Image:Blawal.jpg. I believe it is copyrighted as I can see several watermarks for World Picture Network througout the image. I would like to know how I can request a deletion. Thank you. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 04:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree images which probably is the best place to bring it up. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 04:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 04:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Old television logos

We've got a bit of confusion over whether old television station logoes are pre-'78 no-copyright-notice public domain. I'm suspecting they're still copyrighted, but there's a lot of opposition (much of it buried in "Stay the course, defend our articles from deletionism!" rhetoric, sadly). Input would be appreciated here.

Images are already being retagged, so some early intervention would be appreciated, so we don't have to dig through a bunch of PD-tagged images to find out that, no, they're not PD. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sheet music cover?

What license should I use for the cover of sheet music for a song published in 1925 in the United States? Thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 05:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If copyright not renewed, {{PD-Pre1964}}. If published without a copyright notice prior to 1978, {{PD-Pre1978}}. Otherwise, may be under fair use only. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 05:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

HOW TO POST A PICTURE IN GALLARY —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mudassar gohar (talk • contribs) 06:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright compliance

Per request I am posting a notification of a bot request Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/MBisanzBot 2 that will remove non-compliant copyrighted logos owned by the WMF from userpages per our non-free content policy. Please add comments or questions to the Request page. MBisanz 10:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Replicating a copyrighted image with text

There was a comment on the talk page of {{Desperate Housewives}} that a copyrighted image cannot be used on the template. However, it wasn't an image being used, but rather formatted text to look like the Desperate Housewives logo. Anyone know the policy on this? --CapitalR (talk) 10:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

A short name in basic typography can't be copyrighted. However it may be trademarked. See Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style_(trademarks) --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Flickr licensing

I'd really like to include this image in an article but firstly, I don't know if the t-shirt image would count as derivative work (the image is a copyrighted piece of artwork by Trevor Brown) and secondly I don't know how to contact the user to change the licensing if the image is usable. Any help or direction to where I should ask this question will be greatly appreciated :) Seraphim♥ 11:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The T-shirt is one of the main focuses of the image, so the photo is a derivative work. Unless it somehow constitutes fair use, you would need to get a release from both the photographer and the copyright holder of the t-shirt. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help :). Seraphim♥ 17:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I use this image? Help

Image:GeothermalMap-Big.jpg.

What is the tag that I should use when editing a wikipedia page and can I use this without it getting deleted in a week? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanharb (talk • contribs) 12:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

First question is, where did you get it from? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Nix that last picture. A more appropriate picture for the page I am editing is from the following website: http://www.geo4va.vt.edu/A1/A1.htm

Virginia Tech - State energy program. U.S. Dept. of Energy is what a banner says.

File:US-geothermal.gif

Where do I go from here? Thank you in advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanharb (talk • contribs) 14:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If this specific image is indeed from the Department of Enegry(you may have to ask; it wasn't clear to me), you would tag it {{PD-USGov-DOE}} --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

User: Political Dweeb's explanation

User: Political Dweeb here was told about copyright problems by User:STBotl of an image called Image:PUP Logo.gif. The question Political Dweeb wants to ask here is how do I add a copyright tag to this image's description page and which copyright tag is the one I need to use for this image?.Political Dweeb (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.224.122 (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I improved the image description page; it should be ok now. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Old Stone House (Washington, D.C.)

I found a better quality picture to replace the circa 1890 picture. The page says all rights reserved, but the picture was taken before 1923. Is it ok to use this picture without his permisson? APK 23:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure of the date? The page said the uploader took the picture March 14, 2008. It's possible that its a scan or a picture of a picture. If he did anything to improve the picture (color, scratches, other fixes), it may be enough originality to justify new copyright. Without definitive answer to that question, since the uploader is claiming copyright, you probably need to assume the picture is copyrighted.Dcmacnut (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

After looking at it again I think he may have used the photo that I used, but cleaned it up. It's from the National Park Service website. It's definitely an old picture because the buidling to the left was torn down a long time ago and the sign is for a house painting business. That operated in the late 19th century/early 20th century. APK 01:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Image sources

Yes.. I posted a photo of an old Cream of Wheat box in the Cream of Wheat section, and i tried my best to give the sources, but all i really have to offer is the link to the picture on the website i found it on. I want to keep the image up, so i'm wondering who i need to contact from the site to find out who holds the copyright status and sources. Thank you, Terminator14 (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a possibility: If it was published before 1964 and the copyright was not renewed, then it's public domain now. The tag if that is the case, is {{PD-Pre1964}}. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 04:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What do i do in that case? Terminator14 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Search the copyright office records. If it hasn't been renewed, it is public domain and you can give that as the reason. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I just got back and didn't really find anything, it seems it wasn't renewed. Now what do i do? Terminator14 (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I added the tags for you. It was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, and Commons has different names for the copyright tags. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Artist Jeff Koons on Google.com home page, use of his banner ad

The artist Jeff Koons did a drawing that appeared as the Google Banner Ad or Google Home Page image on 2008-04-30. How do I properly mark the image so that it does not get deleted? Please let me know or feel free to mark it up if that would be easier for you. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkromedic (talk • contribs) 08:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the copyright owner is unlikely to release it under a free license, you would have to upload it as a fair use image. See Misplaced Pages:Non-free content --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Also note that our usual boilerplate fair use rationale templates for logos (such as {{logo fur}}) aren't likely to work very well here, since they're mostly geared towards uses of logos in articles about the company or organization owning the logo. What you'd need to do in this case is come up with a convincing justification for using that logo image in an article about its author. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point. The tag {{Non-free 2D art}} would probably be the closest to what you need in that case. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Logo of Aramco in Aramco article is wrong

Logo of Aramco in "Aramco" article is wrong and I want to replace it with the correct one. I have it as an SVG file.

Please help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huwaidi (talk • contribs) 09:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Uploading_images --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use of images with unknown copyright status

Apparently it is possible, under certain circumstances, to claim fair use for images that are subject to copyright, but for which no free alternative exists. Question: what about images for which no free alternative exists, but for which the copyright status cannot be ascertained? The tag placed on Image:Aziz nesin.jpg appears to indicate that in such cases an appeal to fair use is of no avail, but isn't that a bit paradoxical?  --Lambiam 10:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Images of unknown copyright status can be used under fair use. Images of people to show what they look like usually can't be used under WP:NFCC, which is stricter than fair use, because a freely licensed picture can usually be taken. However, since he's no longer living, obtaining a freely-licensed picture may not be possible, so claiming fair use may be the only option. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sar-el logo

I got this message and I'm not sure what to write in order to correct it. I added this: "Summary: Sar-El logo found here." Is this correct? Please help!

Fair use rationale for Image:Sarel logo.gif Thanks for uploading Image:Sarel logo.gif. You've indicated that the image meets Misplaced Pages's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. Telstar2 (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I added a fair use rationale. It should be okay now. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Telstar2 (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Statistics

I wanted to know how many images/graphics/illustrations does wikipedia currently index in its millions of articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.165.194 (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:AncientPhonecian.jpg

I found this posted pic Image:AncientPhonecian.jpg which is taken from a book cover entitled "Phoenicians , Lebanon's epic heritage", you can actually see how it was cropped from this page , the user who uploaded it has released it into public domain without a proper permission, is it actually acceptable to do so???

As long as it's a 2-dimensional art, with no added creative input, it's okay, according to Bridgeman v Corel --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Figuring out if these are copyrighted

I visited the M.D. Anderson Library, which is the University of Houston's main library recently. I went to the library's Special collection, and found some great images from the university archives that are a really great way to illustrate parts of the university's history. I told the library that I'd like to use these images on a Wikimedia project (namely Misplaced Pages), and asked if they were under public domain. The special collection librarian in charge of copyright assured me these images are free because they are owned by the University of Houston, a public, Texas institution. I also had to sign a form stating the intent of use for the images, and I stated that they would be used for Misplaced Pages. This is on file at the library.

I've been trying to find anything about this elsewhere, but I can't. The library has digitized the two images I'd like to use for me. One is from 1938, a preliminary drawing by the architect of the first building at the university. The second is from 1945, a view of the school's original library. Neither of the images have copyright notices attached to them, and I wasn't given any sort of copyright notice by the library when they were electronically delivered to me.

Here is the word for word statement that was in the e-mail (email addresses removed to combat spam):

From:

Justin Hughes Digitization Technician Special Collections 114 University Libraries University of Houston Houston, TX 77204-2000

April 30, 2008

Dear Mr. Reading,

Please find attached the third and final batch of requested images from Special Collections, University of Houston.

When publishing these images in print, electronically, or on a website, please use the following citation:

Drawing of Roy G. Cullen Memorial Building, 1938, UH Photographs Collection. Courtesy of Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries.

Library, Roy G. Cullen Memorial Building, 1945, UH Photographs Collection. Courtesy of Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries.

Thank you for your patronage!

-J. Hughes

If there are any further questions, please contact:

Julie Grob Digital Projects and Instruction Librarian Special Collections 114 University Libraries University of Houston Houston, TX 77204-2000 (713) 743-9744

Are these images in public domain? There are a few main issues I'd point at here. The images don't have a copyright notice on them, and were published prior to 1989. The library knew the purpose, and released them to me. They claimed they were free images. I just don't want to be posting things up that will be taken down.

-Brianreading (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If the copyright wasn't renewed, {{PD-Pre1964}} may apply as well. For not publishing with a copyright notice, {{PD-Pre1978}} may apply. There are multiple possible Public Domain rationales, so my opinion is that it isn't a problem. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Brianreading (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Scanned banknote

I understand that the copyright for banknotes will generally lie with the issuing bank/country. In some cases, scans of banknotes are on websites. These websites may or may not have copyright information for their scan. Is there copyright in the actual scan, or is the currency fair-use rationale sufficient justification to take scans of currency off other sites? E.g., this site http://www.banknote.ws/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumbuddi (talk • contribs) 22:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

A faithful scan of a banknote does not create a new copyright(a digitization of a coin might, however). The copyright status of the note itself varies from country to country; see Category:Currency copyright tags or Commons:Currency for more details. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

copyright image

I posted an image that my advisor and professor gave me. It is an image that he created in a PowerPoint presentation. He has given me written (via email) and verbal permission to use it and also provided me with the following: ©2002 Michael Young

and the following quote from him "This image has been released for use in the Sit Cog definition on Misplaced Pages."

What am I supposed to do so that the image I placed on the page, Situated Cognition, will not be removed??? I don't know what tag I am supposed to use, nor do I quite know how to add that to my image.

Vanessa Joy 2008 (talk) 03:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Vanessa Joy 2008

Misplaced Pages does not accept images which are released for Misplaced Pages only. They have to allow anyone to use them. To get the correct permissions, see WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 05:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

THE UNIVERSITY OF SPRINGFIED ACCREDITATION /ACCEPTABILITY STATUS

Dear Sir/ Madam,

Please, help verify the acceptability and accreditation of the university information provided below.

The University of Springfied, Hampton MA 01107, USA has announced the international scholarship programs for all students applying to study a degree program - Bachelor, Master or Postgraduate, Doctorate Degree Program. The scholarship covers full tuition and are available to on-campus and distance learning/online students. No application fee on enrollment. Contact: Sarah Robert, Admission Assistant, Admission Office, The University of Springfied, Pack Campus, Hampton MA 01107, USA. Telephone: +1-413-215-4033 Email: admissions@springfied-edu.com Website: www.springfied-edu.com

This was responses from the university representative to me.

Thank you very much for your mail.

The University of Springfied is a household name of the Springfield College. The University provides equal educational opportunity to all candidates without regard to color, race, sex, national origin, or qualified disability.

Springfield is a registered educational institution in the United States, recognized and listed in the directory of Post Secondary Institutions by the U.S. Department of Education, National Centre for Education Statistics, Washington DC (1998 Edition Page 291). The Institution is legally empowered to award degrees to all students who meet graduation requirements as set forth in its Article of Incorporation.

Graduates are allowed to do Masters in any of their favourite schools. All students both on campus full time and distance learning online receive the same award certificate according to the University’s Article of Incorporation.

For further information please write to admissions@springfied-edu.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solomon Akenyin (talk • contribs) 10:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Movie posters

A while back I uploaded a movie poster of the film Jetsam to the article page about the film (Jetsam (film)). Eventually it got hit with a "Fair Use Rationale" complaint, despite the fact that practically every other movie article on wiki uses the film poster in the article itself. So I went and copied the same "Fair Use Rationale" explanation as was given for the inclusion of the poster in the article Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope and used it for the Jetsam movie poster. But that wasn't enough for someone and the Jetsam movie poster got deleted anyway. So I have to ask why? I've yet to get a response on the talk page of Jetsam so I am asking here. If the Fair Use Rationale explanation I used wasn't enough for Jetsam then can someone please go and delete the movie poster from Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (and, I suspect, most of the movie articles on wikipedia). If not, why pick on Jetsam? --Stenun (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

permissions? copyright?

I asked the following question.... However, if this image was also used in an article that he published, do I still need the same type of permissions?

I posted an image that my advisor and professor gave me. It is an image that he created in a PowerPoint presentation. He has given me written (via email) and verbal permission to use it and also provided me with the following: ©2002 Michael Young and the following quote from him "This image has been released for use in the Sit Cog definition on Misplaced Pages." What am I supposed to do so that the image I placed on the page, Situated Cognition, will not be removed??? I don't know what tag I am supposed to use, nor do I quite know how to add that to my image. Vanessa Joy 2008 (talk) 03:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Vanessa Joy 2008 Misplaced Pages does not accept images which are released for Misplaced Pages only. They have to allow anyone to use them. To get the correct permissions, see WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 05:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Vanessa Joy 2008 (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages copyright
• Misplaced Pages help forums