Wikipedia talk:File copyright tags/Archive 6

message: Can anyone copyright a smith chart or is it considered under the tag "PD-ineligible"? Example: :Image:Smith chart bmd.gif.
:Sorry, forgot to sign: Afonso Silva 23:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: \Gamma = \frac{z_L - z_O}{z_L + z_O}
Of course you can draw it in red, purple or orange, with different fonts for the numbers and text, or make it A0 size, allowing a bigger scale, therefore you would be able to plot huge VSWR's (of course you will need a huge pair of compasses), or you could make it very small. There are several computer programs that simulate the chart, so, I don't think it may be copyrighted, of course there are several modifications you can do, but you can also have a blue ruler with 50 cm or a pink one with only 10 cm. In my classes of electromagnetic waves we just pick a paper copy of that same design I uploaded (black magic, I don't know the origin of the name, but the first time I saw one I though it was some kind of astrology tool) and use it to plot the data.
This concern started when I found that a previous image I uploaded was deleted, even having the PD-inelegible tag. Thanks for the help. Afonso Silva 19:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If they're that standard, then you can sidestep the whole issue by making one of your own, and uploading under a  license. --Carnildo 22:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smith chart 

message: There should be a copyright tag for a presidential photo that is taken outside the USA. Because I have seen that a presidential photo uploaded by me was deleted due to no copyright tags. Take this to a consideration. Thank You.--Syed1994 07:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For presidents of the United States, we've got  if the images were taken by the US federal government, and generally no reason to use any less-free images. --Carnildo 08:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright Tag for Presidential Photos? 

message: What are the guidelines for declaring a work, previously under British Crown copyright, as public domain? I'm looking at a 1933 non-engraving, non-photograph work of art. I believe that it's now in the public domain, but there doesn't seem to be a good tag other than the generic , because  seems to refer to creations by the government. Do we still need to go by U.S. law here, or is there just no suitable tag as of yet? Thanks. — Rebelguys2 talk 20:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is  appropriate? - cohesiont 04:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PD Art 

message: I have come across a "copyleft" license in the ecoport website, and ecoport images are released under it. Are these usable on wikipedia, and if yes, what tags should accompany such an image?
Ecoport license
--ppm 04:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No -- it is not free enough for Wikipedia standards. It is only free without restrictions if it is "for personal and public educational use or to promote any cause that contributes to, or serves a public good," and otherwise "in commercial databases, websites, printed publications, products such as CD-ROMs or advertising of commercial services, then you must contact the original EcoPort contributor for (a) permission and (b) to negotiate terms of use and revenue-sharing." For all of the "new copyleft" hype they have given themselves it is a very restrictive license if you want to do anything except a very narrowly defined idea of public service. I think it's pretty poorly thought out, personally. --Fastfission 04:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ecoport 

message: See . Two problems: first, this tag indicates a "fair use" claim, despite being named like a PD tag, and second, what may constitute "fair use" for some TV station may not be "fair use" for us, depending on the nature of the use. Now, it seems this tag is used primarily for birth certificates and the like. It may well be that these fall under "public records" and as such be ineligible to copyright. Do we have a tag for those? On a side note, I wonder whether digging up birth certificates and old census reports to write articles that are strong on genealogy but poor on the person's accomplishments (if any!) isn't original research... Lupo 09:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't have anything specifically for public records.  There's  for police mug shots, and  for general stuff that can't be copyrighted. --Carnildo 17:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another U.S. state tag 

message: In case it's obvious a picture was created by a public-domain source, like US Federal Government, Navy employees or other, but it was found at a site which doesn't state sources and gives no permissions, which rules do apply?
Specifically I mean some photos of military submarines at sea, which obviously can only be taken by certain sources.
CP/M 04:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is generally a bad idea to make assumptions like that.  In the case of the example you give, how do you know the submarine photo didn't come from a lucky fishing trawler?  Or even was arranged for the benefit of a Hollywood film crew?  What's worse, when it comes to photos of generic military hardware, how do you know it was from the US military?  Most countries don't have a PD clause like we do, so military pics taken by foreign governments would not be usable.  A better idea is to write to the operators of the website in question and ask about the source of the images rather than making assumptions.  Dragons flight 05:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, asking would generally be better, but most of the pictures can be found on different sites, so it's hard to determine which site has published them first. CP/M 23:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevertheless, we still need a source. Sometimes it is impossible, but those are images we shouldn't include. - cohesiont 04:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If you have truly (as in extremely) compelling reasons to think they are works of the federal government, then you can explain them when uploading it and tagging it and it will probably be fine. What I do in such situations is to list an immediate source (the webpage I got the image file from), and then the ultimate source (which determines its copyright status). --Fastfission 12:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well... I've generally got the idea. So I'll avoid using imaged w/o explicit permission in Featured Articless, but will temporarily use them with appropriate notices in other articles. I hope the images from FAS will be clear to use. CP/M 03:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military-sourced images without explicit statement 

message: I've noticed a couple of  tags where the conditions include "no derivative works without permission". Is it correct to assume these are un-free for our purposes? Shimgray | talk | 11:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct.  A "provided that" must permit commercial use, non-educational use, use outside of Wikipedia, and derivative works.  I'd be suspicious of any "provided that" that requires anything other than attribution. --Carnildo 18:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's some wonderful provided-that clauses floating around... where should I list these? Shimgray | talk | 19:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The licenses?  Any particularly hilarious ones could go at BJAODN.  The images?  If the restrictions include "no commercial use" or "by permission", they can be tagged for speedy deletion.  Otherwise, list at IFD and hope nobody gets the bright idea of re-tagging as "fair use". --Carnildo 22:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would even be in favor of removing these tags completely, I think even people that want "provided that:attribution" would be better off with  than some weird nonstandard tag. - cohesiont 04:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's a simple "provided that attribution is given", then it should be replaced with a  tag.  There are also some "attribution" provided-thats that require a specific form of attribution, such as a link to a specific website. --Carnildo 08:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: We can encourage people to use CC-BY, but we have absolutely no basis to relicense their images for them even if CC-BY is functionally identical. Shimgray | talk | 13:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I didn't mean to imply I was in favor of relicensing, just encouraging people to use the cc license over nonstandard ones. - cohesiont 19:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FreeUseProvidedThat 

message: I would really like to know which tag is the best for images that are copyrighted but are being used under 'fair use' for for educational purposes. As well, what is the best copyright tag for images that are copyrighted only in Russia? Mrlopez2681 06:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It really depends on what the image is. Every image we claim fair use on is being used for educational purposes, as Wikipedia is "educational". Just pick the one that best describes the image and the context in which it will be used. The only tage I can find that are Russia specific are Template:PD-USSR and Template:PD-RU-exempt. —User:ACupOfCoffee@ 07:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Best Tag for copyrighted images being used under 'fair use' for educational purposes 

message: I sincerely thank users ~MDD4696 and Fastfission for their very helpful answers. My complaint above was deliberately written in an aggressive fashion, in order to provoke a reaction, and I am truly pleased at having gotten intelligent responses, at last!!  I apologize if I irritated anyone, but now I have enough study materials to learn, to enable me to correct my mistakes and join this beautiful & gigantic effort with more steady steps. Now I've got a lot of homework to do, after taking due note of your suggestions. Thank you, again!
AVM 22:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My sincere gratitude (Is Wikipedia wasting a wealth of materials?, etc.) 

message: Sorry if this's been covered elsewhere, but what's the status of pix created by the East German State (Which now no longer exists)? Is there a blanket category, or not? 68.39.174.238 01:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume those works are now owned by the Federal Republic of Germany and protected by copyright. The discussion at Template talk:PD-Germany may be of interest. Perhaps you can ask at Wikipedia talk:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. Thuresson 03:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  East Germany? 

message: I was wondering about the "promotional" status of pictures from certain sites. eg, http://www.eurovision.tv - a lot of images have been downloadedand uploaded by others, but there is nothing to indicate whether the material is copyright or not. It would seem that the website is trying to generate publicity for the Eurovision Song Contest 2006, but does this mean that pictures on the site are automatically "promotional"? Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 04:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotional images at http://www.eurovision.tv

message: The free use template for corporate, team, and organization logos (for my question, particularlly radio stations) use the language "low resolution."  What qualifies as low resolution?  The specific image I'm interested in is here: http://wrek.org/images/wreklogo.gif Pokerriot 20:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since that image is so simple, I'd say low resolution would be at most like 200x200. The point of "low resolution" is so that you can still tell what an image is, but that you lose some detail. ~MDD4696 20:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Low resolution" for organization logos 

message: I've not been able to find any information about what licenses cover Italian images from World War II (such as this one). Most governments seem to have some form of PD license for their images, and as this one is from 1934... what would apply? ericg ✈ 02:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, never mind - just found commons:template:PD-Italy! ericg ✈ 03:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Duplicated here as . ericg ✈ 20:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italian photographs 

message: Hi all. I came across a bunch of images uploaded from the Boris Feldblyum Collection and I'm hoping someone can help tag them properly.
Boris Feldblyum has a notice on a number of pages on his site stating:
This image can be copied and used freely by individuals and SIGs (Special Interest Groups) on the condition that a) it shall not be altered and b) Courtesy Boris Feldblyum Collection credit line, including a hyperlink to this site for web users, shall be added in each location where the image appears.
All of the articles that include the images here contain a link as required, but not all of the linked pages have this above usage notice or actually contain the image (The images here were uploaded last year, so things probably changed). Can anyone help tag these images? I'm not sure how to handle the stipulations. Thanks! ~MDD4696 19:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and many of the images may be public domain, but I'm not sure how we'd ascertain that... ~MDD4696 19:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The images can't be used on Wikipedia.  The license does not permit modification or free use, so is not a free license.  Anything from there that isn't public domain should be tagged as .  --Carnildo 23:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with Boris Feldblyum Collection images 

message: Why is  considered "free", but  considered non-free? I understand the point about allowing modification, but I don't see anywhere where the EU copyright specifically forbids it, or the Sejm copyright specifically allows it. What's the difference?
-- AnonEMouse 14:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is none.  I've corrected . —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government copyrights: Sejm vs EU imae differences? 

message: I got curious and browsed through :Category:Conditional use images, and noticed that a lot of the images would be better served under another tag like  or something else.  Should we switch those images? I'm willing to take this on as a solo project, if need be.  the iBook of the Revolution 04:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go right ahead. You might want to check out WP:AWB to get through it quicker. howcheng  {chat} 06:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat vs. Attribution 

message: I'm considering adding a few photos from morgueFile to Wikipedia, and I've created  for this purpose. Is it okay? Melchoir 10:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  morgueFile 

message: This is just to let you guys know that User:Polaris999 is requesting at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Requesting verification of a new PD tag that someone look at his proposed .  This seemed to me like a good place to find people who'd know if it's a usable tag.  — Laura Scudder ☎ 18:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PD-Cuba 

message: egyptology
I see scientific need to provide detailed information about ancient egypt artefacts.
They are cultural property, and in some cases "public available objects", means anyone can theroretically create a digital image of them.
The rules say that "describing labels" should not included into images. In the case of egypt artefact images, such labels are often already included.
To keep them means to avoid re-work.
However i wrote "the license does not cover commercial egyptian artwork". alex 10:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the image is two-dimensional, please use .  If it's three-dimensional, it must follow the rules of fair use, a reasonable summary of which is in the template (actually the template is stricter than fair use law).  So it seems fine to me, although of course free licenses should always be requested if practical. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  egyptology 

message: I cannot find any template to cover this:"Public domain: See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#official_works By German law, documents are in the public domain (gemeinfrei) if they have been published as part of a law or offical decree or edict, or if they have been released as an official announcement or for public information. The relevant law is section 5 of the UrhG. The first and most important sentence states: "Gesetze, Verordnungen, amtliche Erlasse und Bekanntmachungen sowie Entscheidungen und amtlich verfaßte Leitsätze zu Entscheidungen genießen keinen urheberrechtlichen Schutz."
Someone needs to make a template.  The lack of this has caused some problems.--Fahrenheit451 06:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't copies of German legislation go to de: Wikisource?  I don't understand why we need a template here. Jkelly 18:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't. See Template talk:PD-Germany. Lupo 18:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no German government PD template 

message: avatars
Any hints to improve the formulation.
Some avatars are designed for website display (externally), and available to the public.
Hence i believe the display on wikipedia "for documentation purpose" is possible.
It is also interesting to document graphical styles for a future age.
But it clearly takes the remark about "commercial avatars/avatar items".
This is something which is not possible under "fair usage". Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 08:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This tag is too specific. You should use , , or . You can upload images like :Image:Avt nikemoto---- large.png and claim it as fair use as long as you have proper discussion of the image, even though it's a commercial work. ~MDD4696 15:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  license for public avatars (documentation purpose) 

message: If I accidentally uploaded an image twice under two different names, how do I delete one of them? What tag should I put on the image for redundancy?--Eva db 14:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tag the one you want deleted as . --Carnildo 17:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant Images... 

message: How would a yearbook photo from a public school be tagged? --Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis 19:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say  though you would have to figure out who hold the copyright to the image... --Sherool (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yearbook 

message: Does this mean I cannot use these two images for the Lawrence Kohlberg article?  They are two, of, and i'm serious, like less than a dozen that exist of him. What can I do? JoeSmack Talk 20:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably one (and only one) would be acceptable under .  Ideally, you should track down who owns the copyright to one of the photos; it may be that the copyright wasn't registered, or that it wasn't renewed, either of which would render the image public-domain if it was taken sufficiently long ago.  If you take the easy route and go with the fair use rationale, make sure you note that the copyright on the images may well be expired, and that you don't know who the author or owner is. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  tagging these two images 

message: What is the best copyright tag to be used for images released to the associated press and are distributed throughout? I am currently having a dispute with someone on this matter. --JOK3R 00:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The best tag for images released to the AP 

message: I downloaded an image from the Center for Food Security and Public Health at Iowa State University.  Before I upload it to Wikipedia, I need to know how to tag it. This site says that use of the image would be considered fair use, assuming certain conditions were met, which Wikipedia does meet.  However, the fair use tags do not seem to cover this instance, nor would an image from this site be in the public domain.  I have no doubt that there would be no problem in using the image, but I do want to tag it properly.  Thanks.  --Joelmills 19:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot accept licenses that prohibit commercial reuse.  The GFDL requires that anything uploaded to the site be reusable commercially, unless it's being used under fair use.  The use of the image you linked to would probably not qualify as fair use, because it would be used in a fundamentally nontransformative fashion (i.e., for the exact same purpose they're using it for).  I suggest you check out Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission and ask them to release the image under an appropriate license. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you could tag it as "fair use" with a regular tag, and include that information above. When a place says that they will consider certain usage "fair use", all that means is that they are agreeing that a certain bare minimum of use would in their eyes be "fair" (and thus saving anyone who uses it in that way from any threat of a suit, due to estoppel). However it does not mean that other uses would not be fair -- "fair use" does not need consent of the original copyright holder at all. So in effect it legally is the same category as most of our "fair use" images, in terms of re-use. It's actually even clearer, since the copyright holder has already obligated themselves to certain types of "use" being "fair". --Fastfission 01:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What tag for fair use? 

message: Hi,
I want to download some images from soccer-europe.com, I saw quite a few images from this site on various soccer articles.
Can you please tell me whether Wiki has an understanding with Soccer-Europe.com for using images from this website for all the articles?
There are lots of soccer articles which requires various images, which can be downloaded and used on Wiki.
Thanks for your help.
Gurudatt 10:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't upload images from that site.  Only images uploaded by the site's owner are released for use on Wikipedia. --Carnildo 18:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The only way you'd be allowed to use those is under Wikipedia:Fair use, which it's very unlikely a significant number would qualify for. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images - soccer 

message: You say, if a file requires attribution, please state who should be attributed. Wow. thanks. How 'bout some info on attribution? Where? what license? I'm tired of dead-end streets here in "images". How about a link in the statement? --RogerK 03:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what your complaint is.If you tag an image as requiring attribution, please specify who needs to be attributed!That means, if you're using a tag that says something to the effect of "this has to be attributed", you need to attribute it to the appropriate people.  No?  Is there something confusing about that?  Hopefully you've read the tag you've added to the image, right? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Attribution

message: What would I use to tag an image that is just a photo of the location in question, like :Image:RJ Reynolds High School Front.JPG. It's not an artistic photo and I didn't take it, but it's not like anyone couldn't have taken it. None of the tags seem to fit, including the one on there now. Any help? -Platypus Man | Talk 06:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: .  You're correct that anyone could have taken the photo, but not anyone did.  Despite not being artistic, it is still subject to copyright (you don't think stock-photo agencies would pay people to go around taking pictures of things if they didn't have rights to them?).  Fair use appears unlikely to me, at least without further info on the photo, because you're using it for the same purpose as the author was using it, i.e., it's non-transformative.  So it would probably be most convenient all around if you would just use , and (since you appear to go there, or at least kinda) take your own image of the school, upload it to Wikimedia Commons, and use that.  Thanks. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generic photo tag 

message: I notice a lot of users upload images from websites and simply tag them with a fair use template.  I understand the new  template can now be used to tag images such as this.
Just to clarify, can I use this to tag all images without a rationale uploaded after May 4 2006, or does it only apply to images tagged as , not  etc?
I'd like to know this so I can help with the amount of uploads simply tagged as "fair use" because the uploader is too lazy to add a rationale or simply doesn't care :)  Thanks --Tim 10:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can only use this in conjunction with  or or .  If it's something like , you'll still have to  it, unfortunately. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If the selected fair use tag is clearly incorrect (such as  on something that isn't a logo, tag it as  to get it speedy-deleted.  If you think the fair-use claim is invalid, but the tag is not clearly incorrect (say, a magazine cover used to illustrate the article on the person who appears on the cover), tag it as , and state why you think it isn't fair use on the image description page or image talk page.  --Carnildo 00:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NRD template 

message: I propose a tag for logos of sports leagues which no longer exist, such as the World Football League, the United States Football League, the American Basketball Association, the American Football League, etc.; and for logos of teams that no longer exist, from leagues that no longer exist, such as the Arizona Wranglers, the Kentucky Colonels, etc..
It could say something like: 
This is a logo of a corporation, sports team, or other organization that is no longer in existence, and there is no legal entity extant to claim protection by copyright and/or trademark. It is believed that the use of images of logos to illustrate the corporation, sports team, or organization in question on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.  Since there is no "owner" of the logo, any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may not be copyright infringement. Certain other commercial use of this image may also not be trademark infringement. See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Logos.
Use of the logo here does not imply endorsement of the organization by Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation, nor does it imply endorsement of Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation by the organization, which, since it no longer exists, cannot endorse or prohibit any use.
:When an organization is dissolved they will usually sell their assets in order to recoup costs.  This often includes intellectual property, trademarks, logos, etc.  Or in the alternative, such intellectual property may be deeded to one of the principal stakeholders.  Hence it is still plausible that a legal owner exists even if it may be difficult to identify who that is.  In most cases defunct leagues/organizations/etc. should be treated the same as extant organizations unless you have specific information showing that the item was ceded to the public domain, etc.  Dragons flight 00:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think  is sufficient. As Dragons flight wrote, the intellectual property might still be owned by someone. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defunct Leagues tag 

message: I propose a tag for images from newspapers, magazines and other periodicals which no longer exist, such as SPORT Magazine, the Buffalo Courier-Express, etc.
It could say something like: 
This is an image (or text) from a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical that is no longer in existence, and there is no legal entity extant to claim protection by copyright and/or trademark. It is believed that the use of images from the periodical in question on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.  Since there is no "owner" of the image, any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may not be copyright infringement. Certain other commercial use of this image may also not be trademark infringement. See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Logos.
Use of the logo here does not imply endorsement of the organization by Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation, nor does it imply endorsement of Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation by the organization, which, since it no longer exists, cannot endorse or prohibit any use.
:See directly above.  Dragons flight 00:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  is sufficient. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: And as Dragons flight implies, just because something is defunct does not mean its copyright claims have disappeared into thin air. Usually they are sold as assets to someone else, or become property of new owners when the place is bought out, etc. Without sure-fire proof of someting actually being in the public domain, one can't assume it, in a situation like this. --Fastfission 01:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defunct Publications tag 

message: In August 2004, User:Gdr added the sentence "But if the person or organization who digitized it has released it under another license, list that other license as well as this one." to the  description.  Why is that still there?  If  is applicable, other licenses are completely irrelevant and indeed nonsensical.  I've removed it; any objections? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PD-art and digitization 

message: According to discussion at WP:PUI#15 May (the bottom of the section), it seems that someone has produced a specific law of Hungary that, translated, means "Not protected by the [copyright] law are the legislations, other instruments of state control, court and authority decrees, authority or other official notices and files, as well as legislationally mandatory standards and other related resolutions."  If no one has any objections, I'll be creating  in a day or two and adding it to the list. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All legislation, rules, regulations, court records and other "edicts of government" of every recognized domestic and foreign government are considered to be ineligible for copyright in the US.  Simply put the public has an essentially interest in the laws under which he might be governed, whereas the government is regarded as having no substantial interest in protecting the creative value of legislation.  (I've never quite gotten why the US applies this to all foreign legislation as well, but they do.)  See WP:PD for reference.  Dragons flight 04:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really.  Peter Veeck v. SBCCI concluded that in certain cases, government regulations might be eligible for copyright protection insofar as the copyright holder could prevent their widespread distribution over the Internet, provided they were still available at appropriate government offices for free inspection.  Thus, while court cases and actual laws of the United states government are generally in the public domain, that only applies unconditionally if they're drafted by government employees (although it does apply even to state employees); if they aren't, it's possible for them to be subject to copyright.  Furthermore, I don't see anything justifying the claim that things such as :Image:Motorway Hungary.jpg would be automatically public-domain under US law, but the specific Hungarian rule explicitly states that "legislationally-mandatory standards" are PD. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Seems pretty useless to me.  It sounds like everything on that list is textual, so there's no need for an image copyright tag. --Carnildo 06:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, most laws are written records, so I wouldn't think that there are usually much in the way of images for it to apply to.  The exception is probably images that become part of an official court record, but those would be pretty rare.  Do you have something specific in mind?  You are right though, I can't guarantee that the coverage is identical.  Dragons flight 05:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The specific idea was for :Image:Motorway Hungary.jpg.  User:KIDB suggested that under the quoted law, it constituted a "legislationally mandatory standard".  Since presumably it is required to be put up by law, that seems like a good point. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hungarian PD 

message: I'm pretty new to policing image copyright on Wikipedia, so please help explain this confusing situation to me.  Please see my comments .  I believe this image is violating copyright because under its license a copy of the original must be made available in order to allow modification.  It appears it has been modified without leaving a copy of the original, except in the edit history.  Is this a copyvio or not?  Kasreyn 23:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is now in compliance with even the strictest reading of the license. --Carnildo 06:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  Kasreyn 08:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help 

message: I'm pretty sure that when I started uploading images a few months ago there was not a dual licences (self-made) option, which includes Creative Commons and GFDL (previously I tagged them all GFDL (self-made)).  I would like to have the tag that allows for free use of the image in the easiest way.  So is it OK to change the copyright tags on the other images I have uploaded?  And if it is, should I use the copyleft option or the attribution required?  --Joelmills 04:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you've released an image under the GFDL, you can't take back that release.  You can, however, release it under additional licenses to the GFDL, in which case it could be reused under any one of the licenses.  Additional licenses can be as permissive as you want; you could even release it into the public domain if you like.  (I personally am not a fan of BSD-style licenses, and much prefer genuine copyleft, but it's up to you.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yep, just add whichever ones apply.  Like if you want to release it under CC-by as well, just add  in addition to .  The image will then have two tags. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it OK to change a copyright tag? 

message: I would like to know if its ok to upload and use a map released by the Indian Air Force after the Atlantique Incident shown to the press and if so what licence tag? It was telecast and published in some newspapers and websites so is it PD? Please help --Idleguy 07:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The image in question is unfree.  Works of the Indian government retain copyright. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map released to the press by an Air Force 

message: See Template_talk:AMI. Here's my exchange with Vésteinn, head of the Árni Magnússon Institute, verbatim:
[see history]
One could wish for a more explicit legalistically worded reply but he basically says that he's fine with what we're doing and it ought to be clear to him what that is since I gave him a link to an image description page. His last letter says: "Dear Haukur, Thank you for this. I can see from this that we should put information onto the page that we allow such usage, but of course we request that the source is mentioned, preferably the manuscript registration number and that it is preserved here. Regards, Vésteinn." 
He didn't seem very interested in the niceties of copyright legislation and I did not make another attempt to get a more explicit answer from him, hoping that he would indeed put some licencing information on the website. It's too bad if they haven't.
But the thing is that all the images I've uploaded under this licence fall under the Bridgeman ruling anyhow so we did not really need any specific licence. Or at least Wikipedia didn't need it - I might personally need to ensure that I'm not violating the copyright legislation of my own country which was one of my motivations for writing to them. I was also a bit interested in what they would say and whether they had actually given any thought to this. 
If you want more details I suggest you write to Vésteinn. That way you can get something in English straight from the horse's mouth.
If it's all the same to you I'd like to blank this exchange once it is over (with a note that the content is in the history). I'm slightly uncomfortable publicly publishing my exchange with Vésteinn and I don't want this page to become a Google hit for his name. Haukur 14:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, go ahead and blank it.  I really don't think that copyright permission is sufficient, but given that it's all PD-art anyway, I've updated the wording to make that clear. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 08:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AMI

message: This tag  is from the Commons, although it should probably be double checked. ed g2s • talk 20:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serbia PD 

message: Msclguru asks: "how do I tag things that were created by the government of the District of Columbia?".
I looked at Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags for possible tags. It is known that US States hold copyrights to the material they produce (no PD), as the work of the Federal Government goes generally to Public Domain. But Washington D.C. is a federal district and "Congress has the sole authority over this federal district and thus the municipal government" (from District_of_Columbia), so tagging the work created by the government of the District of Columbia as  is correct? FYI I did multiple searches thorough google and it seems nowhere in Wikipedia has this been discussed. If applicable, please add something to the PD-USGov talk page about this also. feydey 19:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oi, this doesn't look like a simple question at all. I went over the relevant code a few times and it has nothing which would indicate unequivocally what the copyright status of DC-produced works are. I think the odds of running into infringement problems are, for all practical purposes, nil. --Fastfission 14:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Happily, by sheer coincidence I came across this, which answers the question.  Unhappily, the answer (206.02(c)) is "Works of the government of the District of Columbia, as now constituted, are not considered U.S. Government works." —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 16:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot for the answer. feydey 21:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: US-GOV-PD and Washington, D.C.

message: User:Maayaa has asserted that all Croatian media enters the public domain twenty-five years after publication.  If this is true, and I have no particular reason to doubt that it is other than that being a remarkably short span of time, why do we not have a PD-Croatia template here or at Commons?  Jkelly 18:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thuresson has cited an English translation that appears to contradict that, so I wouldn't worry too much about it.  Next time, you can always ask a few people who know Croatian. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The relevant paragraph is quoted on the talk page where Thuresson posted, and it clearly says, for IMAGES (and not for all media, as JKelly wrongly attributs it), the copyright expires in 25 years. The paragraphs 99 and 101 quoted by Theresson do not contradict the other paragraph (83 or what it is) at all, the other paragraph treats IMAGES specifically (and some other cases), while 99 and 101 give the upper limit that applies always. Please mind that the copyright law in question is available online, and that the provisions for photograps were quoted, they are verifiable and clearly state that expiration for photographs (and some other media) is 25 years. The template should be made. Maayaa 21:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PD-Croatia? 

message: I just came across this case in the Second District Court of Appeal of Florida.  The basic point: "Florida's Constitution and its statutes do not permit public records to be copyrighted unless the legislature specifically states they can be."  Some exceptions have been passed: "See, e.g., § 24.105(10), Fla. Stat. (2003) (authorizing the Department of the Lottery to hold copyrights); § 601.101, Fla. Stat. (2003) (permitting the Department of Citrus to hold legal title to copyrights); § 1004.23, Fla. Stat. (2002) (authorizing universities to secure copyrights in certain works). . . . Section 119.084 permits agencies to acquire and hold copyrights for data processing software the agencies have created."  But most works of the Florida government are nonetheless in the public domain, given the definition of "public records":
all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, tapes, photographs, films, sound recordings, data processing software, or other material, regardless of the physical form, characteristics, or means of transmission, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by any [state, county, district, authority, or municipal officer, department, division, board, bureau, commission, or other separate unit of government created or established by law].
Should this have its own tag?  It could come in handy. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been other tags like  and  for North Carolina and California govnernments, but these have recently been deleted.  Try it and see if admins will accept your citations.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does  look good?  If so, I'll add it to the page. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|PD-Florida}} 

message: There should be a crown copyright tag for Crown Copyright in Canada (See Crown copyright). Which should state "Non-commercial use under the conditions that 1) due diligence is taken to ensure accuracy, 2) the source is identified, and 3) the material is not represented as an official version." Cavenba 01:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How would this be helpful?  It is just  with more restrictions.  Jkelly 01:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a few images in WP that say the image is PD. I think it would help people ID how the image should be used. Cavenba 01:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A template along such lines should be nominated for deletion, no matieral that is non-commerical use only should be uploaded to Wikipedia. Did you read the page - images under non-free governemnt copyrights hsould not be uploaded to Wikipedia. Such images should be dealt via regular fair use mecahnisms.--Peta 02:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Please tag as  the images tagged as PD which you find to be under Canadian Crown copyright. If you feel some of them can be used under the fair use doctrine, you could tag them using the appropriate fair use tag and write a fair use rationale for those images. Thanks! -- Paddu 23:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Canadian Crown Copyright grants a "non-commercial only" license. Works still subject to Canadian Crown Copyright therefore are not appropriate for use on Wikipedia unless a fair use case is made. For works on which Canadian Crown Copyright has expired, you can use . Lupo 09:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Canada & Crown Copyright Tag

message: I'm looking into cleaning up some of the d20_System articles, and i wanted to upload relevant images. However, i couldn't find a template which seemed appropriate for tagging the images, and created Template:RPG-artwork before i noticed the advisory at Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags to check here first. My apologies, i'm open to any discussion, and if it's decided that this is not needed or should be deleted for any other logical reason, i won't object.Lucky number 49 19:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing wrong with it, in light of what we have.  Add it to the list below  if you like.  I'm not sure I see the use of all these subrationales anyway, however; if anything, surely they make things more confusing for people looking for the right tag to use?  Why do we care about the difference between an album cover and a book cover?  Obviously it's useful to categorize rationales, but the rationale for those would be completely identical. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RPG artwork 

message: "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of promotional material"
Does this mean that promotional images must be reduced before they're uploaded? What if the original image wasn't very large? Ladlergo 19:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose the only restriction is that the image should be low-resolution, whether reduced by you before uploading, or already available at a reduced resolution at a "promoting webpage". I think the latter would be better since that would be an "official version" and hence there can be no issues with the "quality" of the image, etc. -- Paddu 16:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any guidelines as to what's high-res vs. low-res?  I work at 1024x768 and I only consider something high-res if it covers more than a third of my screen, but other people undoubtedly have different measures. Ladlergo 19:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have always taken the guidelines to be the difference between print and web media. If you can successfully reproduce the object at its normal size by printing it, it is too high a resolution. (i.e. if an image of a CD cover could be used to create a CD cover by printing it out, the resolution is too high) This is semi-arbitrary but is intended to make sure that it is only large enough for Wikipedia's purposes. --Fastfission 21:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused by sentence in promotional tag 

message: Which one is the image tag that says roughly "permission was granted to use this image under the GFDL in an email (ticket #) to the wikimedia fundation"? It is needed for :Image:CentralAvenueCornell2.jpg and possibly others Circeus 17:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like  would fit the bill. --Sherool (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I found it: . Why isn't it on the page already? Circeus 01:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special Wikimedia image tag 

message: Can images taken from the European Parliament website  be used with the following tag:

Afonso Silva 22:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only under fair use. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: A simple change to the template should suffice. The licencing conditions are the same. If we can just get someone to alter the template to a "switch" i.e. it will display the "europa.eu" address if you put in , but if you put in  (or something like that) it displays the parliament address. I sent an e-mail to ask if it's OK to just acknowledge "europa.eu" even if it came from the Parliament (they are the same group of sites). Also, I changed the template to ".eu" instead of ".eu.int" since that's what they're advertising on the site (even if you put in .eu.int) - Рэдхот 11:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Just received a reply to the e-mail. We better modify the template. - Рэдхот 13:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: European Parliament images

message: Can someone tell me what tag this image falls under? Is it ? By any means, permission has definitly been given by Greenland's Department of Information, as that's what was stated on the image I made it from (:Image:Greenland coat of arms.png) - Рэдхот 13:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The original page didn't say anything about permission being granted, it just said "by courtesy of . . .".   is invalid as a copyright claim anyway.  It's fair-use until demonstrated otherwise; rationales should be added for each use.  (Note that incidentally, you have exclusive—but not inclusive—rights to your vectorization; that is, you can prohibit others from using it, but not permit them to use it without Greenland's permission.  You've released it under the GFDL by uploading it here, although we will typically honor requests to delete material that a contributor has authored.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Greenland coat of arms.svg]] 

message: Is the "Crazy Animal Head" in the GNU licences meant to be there? 
The Only Non-Brainless Person Around Here It Seems 
26:32, 22 June 2006 (Non-UTC)
:Yes.  Did you try clicking it?  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Crazy Head Of Some Animal

message: I'm trying to locate the right tag for an image which has been explicitly allowed free use on condition that it be employed in a non-profit or educational capacity. Which one should I use?Serendipodous 22:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: .  Images which don't allow completely free use, and which don't meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use criteria, can't be used on Wikipedia. --Carnildo 23:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: tag for image allowed for educational or non-profit purposes

message: Along with the pre-1923-in-the-U.S. rule, why don't we add "or was published outside of the United States before July 1909." This would resolve most of the ambiguities which come up with people regarding things which are old enough to be PD-US but are not necessarily published in the US, but are not old enough to fall under one of the PD-Old tags. Thoughts? --Fastfission 23:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Images created before 1923 outside the US are also probably in the public domain outside the Ninth Circuit, which does not include the state where Wikimedia servers are hosted (namely Florida), according to that chart. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PD-US template addition

message: I'd like to use images from NZ Rugby Football Union website, as their copyright makes them available for not-for-profit use (http://www.allblacks.com/index.cfm?layout=termsAndConditions). The copyright status seems to meet the criteria for "Fair Use", so I would like to propose a new tag to be categorised under "Fair Use":Publicity Photos, or perhaps "Other specific tags" - "Official sportsplayer images" User:A.J.Chesswas 11:03, 26 June 2006 (NZT)
: sounds right here.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 23:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A new fair use tag: Official Sportsplayer images

message: Okay so here is my conundrum. I have been working on art forgery, and would like to add some pictures of forged artwork (photos of paintings 2D, not photos of statues, I understand that that copyright belongs to whomever took the picture). 
So here are my questions:
Now it just strikes me as logical that forged artwork cannot be copyrighted no matter when it was produced, (i.e. it is PD-ineligible)?
Second, given I am correct in thinking that forgeries are public domain, which tag is the most appropriate? PD art, PD ineligible, or something all together different? Please help--DO11.10 22:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to me that, since the purpose of a forgery is to produce a "slavishly accurate" copy of the original, Bridgeman v. Corel probably applies, and the forgery is ineligible for copyright in its own right.  There still may be issues if the original work is copyrighted.  Additionally, forgeries that are new works falsely attributed to an artist are eligible for copyright, and if created after 1989, are automatically copyrighted. --Carnildo 23:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: In general, forgeries are copyrighted.  That the forger isn't going to sue us for it is irrelevant.  However, if the work was made in the US before 1978, it's not copyrighted if it wasn't registered with the Copyright Office, which presumably it wouldn't be.  This last bit doesn't apply to foreign works, however, unless the forgery was in the public domain in its home country as of 1 January 1996. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures of FORGED artwork 

message: I got an image from this page: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/i?pp/ils:@field(NUMBER+@band(ppmsca+09869)):displayType=1:m856sd=ppmsca:m856sf=09869 and gave it a tag of PD-USGov-Congress but I don't know if that's right?
:Image:Rapier.jpg
-plange 03:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  It's probably  or .  The LoC website should have a full entry on the picture somewhere that gives the copyright status. --Carnildo 06:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Library of Congress tag? 

message: Hi, is it okay to add a soundtrack from a film into wikipedia? Thank you! Häsk 13:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but only short extracts, as littleaspossible to demonstrate the point. See fair use criteria #3. Circeus 15:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, you can only add such snippets if they're useful for understanding a subject of an article, and they must be as short and low-quality as possible while still allowing the listener to understand the relevant point.  They may never be used outside of articles. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soundtracks? 

message: I'm looking at :Image:Alhawsawi.jpg in which Quadell (who I consider knowledgeable about this stuff in general) asserts that passport photos are not copyrightable, which doesn't strike me as correct. Anyone know about the legal status of images like this? Thanks. howcheng  {chat} 18:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on the country.  In the US, I believe passport photos are considered "noncreative works", and are not eligible for copyright.  In Germany, they are in a special category, and are protected for a much shorter time period than creative works.  Other countries have their own rules. --Carnildo 19:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Passports are not considered uncreative.  The angle and background may be fixed, but the photographer will still typically make sure that the subject is centered, for instance.  Remember, the bar for creativity is very low; even modest amounts will suffice. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so they're treated as other photographs would be, subject to the copyright laws of the country where they were taken. Makes sense to me. howcheng  {chat} 06:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passport photos of people 

message: There has been some discussion at WP:PUI on pictures of statues that are still under copyright. Pictures would be derivative works but using them for critical comment would easily fall under fair use. Would it make sense to create a new tag see User:Dr Zak/Statue, something like this, or should we rather fix the wording on  to include three-dimensional imagery? Dr Zak 18:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to make it clear that there is a copyright both on the statue and potentially a separate one on the photograph of it. So even after the statue is old, a recent photo of it may still be copyrighted by the photographer. Rmhermen 00:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The template text  says "Also indicate the license that the derivative work is released under." Dr Zak 03:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Or how a parameter to make it look like this:
This is a two-dimensional representation of a copyrighted sculpture, statue or any other three-dimensional work of art. As such it is a derivative work of art, and per US Copyright Act of 1976, § 106(2) the copyright owner has the exclusive right to authorize derivative works. 
Per § 107 is it believed that reproduction for criticism, comment, teaching and scholarship constitutes fair use and does not infringe copyright.
It is believed that the use of a picture 
*to illustrate the three-dimensional work of art in question,
*to discuss the artistic genre or technique of the work of art
*or to discuss the artist or the school to which the artist belongs
*on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,
qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement.  
To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as copyright information on the original artwork. 
----
The derivative work is released under the following license:
Dr Zak 03:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures of sculptures, statues etc 

message: I have never added a photo before so I don't know what to do. I want to add a photograph to a page, but I there is no copyright info anywhere that I found it. I've seen the same picture used on many sites but there is never any copyright info. Can someone please tell me what tag or whatever that I should use if there is no info about the photo? It's not a publicity photo, it's not a screencap, I can't find any category that it fits under. Thanks for any help!
:If you can't find out its copyright status, we probably can't use it.  In some very rare situations such images could qualify for fair use, but our policies in that regard are fairly strict.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help. Not sure what to do 

message: When you upload a file the page gives you a list of licenses to choose from.   isn't one of the choices.  I upload a lot of promotional pictures for tv shows.  It would be very helpful if  were added to the list of options. SnappingTurtle 18:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was removed due to massive abuse.  People were using it for images that did not come from press kits.  It had become a dumping grounds for "image I found on the web somewhere".  Jkelly 18:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Promotional' in Licensing drop down list 

message: Perhaps somebody has already asked this but I can't find it. I want to upload some old photographs but there doesn't seem to be an appropriate licensing tag. The photos were taken in the UK before 1945, and as such are public domain (see http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/faq/copyright/oldphotos_1945.htm). I don't think they're quite old enough for PD-old, though. Tim giddings 21:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The United States does not observe the rule that copyright on foreign works expires whenever that nation's laws says they do.  Therefore, the image will not fall into the public domain in the US for some decades yet, and has to be used under fair use if it's used at all. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, please observe that the extlink you gave explains the effect of the EU Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection: such pohotographs may indeed be under copyright again in the UK. :-( Lupo 06:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends. If the works in question were published between 1923 and 1977 inclusive AND they were in the public domain in their home countries as of January 1, 1996, then they are in the public domain in the US as well. howcheng  {chat} 22:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I always forget that bit.  :( —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: But this is irrelevant in this context because this EU directive became effective on July 1, 1995 (see ), also in the UK (see Copyright_law_of_the_United_Kingdom#Extension_of_copyright_term). Hence copyright restoration in the UK occurred before the URAA date of January 1, 1996, and thus any such EU-restored copyrights also became restored in the U.S. Lupo 08:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why no PD-UK?

message: I am trying to figure out the copyright status of the many images that fill up this article. According to the text, the copyright on the film lapsed in 1974 but it's still under copyright as a derivative work (copyrights on the screenplay, score, etc. were all renewed). Does this mean that still images from the film are no longer covered under copyright (because it expired), but the respective copyrights of the film's components prevent it from being aired without royalties? I first marked :Image:The bailey house.jpg as PD-US but then thought twice about it and figured I should ask for advice. Thanks. --BrownCow • (how now?) 22:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming that the copyright for It's a Wonderful Life really did expire without renewal, I would be surprised if that screenshot was found to be a derivative work of the screenplay.  That said, if you're at all uncomfortable taking responsibility for it, an alternate would be to find images used in the movie's trailer -- the screenplays for those almost never had their copyrights renewed.  Jkelly 22:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images used in [[It's a Wonderful Life]] 

message: OK, this page has officially confused me. I'm not sure whether I would still be considered a Newbie, as I'm mostly lurking, but I'd like to write the Porth-Yr-Ogof page and I have a book by Martyn Farr to help me do it. There's some photos in the book I think would help a lot, especially the map of the cave, but I'm not sure how to go about this - at all. I'm not doing it just yet, 'cause I have no access to a scanner, so I won't do anything prematurely. Lady BlahDeBlah 19:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll asume you mean to ask what copyright tag to use since you asked the question here. I would say  + a fair use rationale. Images inside books does not fall into any "blanket" category, you should also be carefull when giving the source of such images because you can not automaticaly asume the copyright for photos printed in a book to automaticaly belong to the author or publisher of the book. They might simply have bought (or otherwise obtained) a non-exclusive license to print the photo (see if there are any "acknowledgements" or simmilar wich name the photographer(s)). Illustrations made espesialy for a book are somewhat "safer" though as they can reasonably be asumed to be "work for hire" and thus copyrighed by the publisher. --Sherool (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only works by employees are works for hire, not works by contractors.  Many books' illustrators are undoubtedly contractors. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images from a book 

message: I want to make sure I do this right... I'm interested in uploading an image of Elaine Tanner from the Library & Archive website of the government of Canada for use to illustrate the article. To be precise, the picture found on this page. So I fired off an email asking about that specific image and the reply I got back was this: The material you wish to obtain is protected under Crown copyright.
So which tag would I use to illustrate that this is how the image is licensed? Or can I even use it?? Tabercil 01:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi.  Here is the full image description.  As it is not freely reusable (it is basically  with an "advertising" clause), you would have to argue that it fits Wikipedia:Fair use criteria.  I think that might wind up being a bit of a waste of time; I cannot imagine a strong argument that this image could meet that criteria, and the image might wind up deleted as part of image cleanup.  It's hard to find freely licensed images from the late 60s; I don't even know where to suggest you try next.  Jkelly 01:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think that description is of the image in question. The image states that it's of "Elaine Tanner displaying the medals she won at swimming events", yet the image is of her in the water, and there's no sign of any medals whatsoever. Tabercil 02:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, sorry about linking to the wrong page.  Jkelly 17:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem as no foul intended, but it still leaves me with my original problem: can I make use of the image, and if so, how? It sounds like I might need to put a few more questions to the contact at the webpage about what they mean by "Crown Copyright" - any suggestions on what those questions should be? Tabercil 21:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may still have been the right page. The French description doesn't say anything about her "displaying" the medals; it just mentions that the image shows Elaine Tanner, who won two gold medals. At least the reproduction number seems right; and searching for "Elaine Tanner" at the LAC yields only that PA-207885. See also here, where they got that English description right. Lupo 06:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read this:  Crown copyright means that the government holds the copyright, in this case presumably Library and Archives Canada.  If there is a copyright, you have to ask for permission, and you probably have to take measures to make sure that your use doesn't lead to future commercial use.  In any case, I think you have to ask for permission, explaining exactly what you are doing with it.  There are form letters available here somewhere. Canadiana 01:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian Crown Copyright 

message: I'm wondering if someone can tell me whether or not photographs of Pictish symbol stones and cross-slabs count as public domain in the USA. Here is an example. Wikipedia would be so much for the better with use of these pictures, but will I have to take them myself, or get permission from the person who took them, in order to upload and use them on wikipedia? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The ruling of "public-domain art is still public-domain in reproduction" only applies to photographs of two-dimensional art (ie, not of carvings, sculpture, engravings), since a two-dimensional reproduction is a modification of the original. So we can't use them without the owner licensing them... Shimgray | talk | 16:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The main problem with engravings is that the lighting can impart creativity to the photograph.  An additional issue is that the angle would probably constitute creativity by itself if it's not simply perpendicular, as it isn't in the image you linked to.  Therefore, it's unlikely that such a work would be automatically in the public domain.  Try getting the authors to release them under a free license, or take some yourself, yes. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright question 

message: Is it legitimate to take screenshots of movies or TV shows for the purpose of depicting a single person on Wikipedia, such a sports player, or a place such as a sports stadium? If they are, is it required that the station logo be kept intact on the screenshot or must it be removed? Cheers, --mdmanser 04:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, no, such screenshots aren't permissible.  Try bringing a camera with a good zoom lens to a game instead, and take a bunch of pictures yourself. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshots 

message: Is an Indian photo taken before 1946, but published much later in PD?--ppm 19:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to our :Template:PD-India, copyright begins from the time of first publication.  This is the case with most, but not all, countries.  Jkelly 19:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  India photography published? 

message: I've just been through "Category:Uploader unsure of copyright status" (wikilink isn't displaying) in its entirety and found approximately 200  unused untagged images that have been here for months. Most of them have been speedily deleted. However, there might be a few images which I have missed accidently or ignored because I want a second opinion. Could someone(s) please go through the images again to make sure there are no untagged images that have been here for more than a week. Thanks in advance, MER-C 05:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prefix a ":" to get the link to the category without including this page in that category. Like this: :Category:Uploader unsure of copyright status. Lupo 07:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untagged images 

message: See Template:PD-status, a work in progress.  Some test cases are at Template talk:PD-status.  Hopefully we can institute something like they have at Commons or at de, so people can correctly fill out the template (dropping the arcana about registration and renewal that 99.8% of uploaders won't have any idea about), or better yet, get some integration into the software in place of the current drop-down menu.
Eventually, if this sounds like a good idea to people, I'll try working on a similar template for fair use. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unified public domain tag 

message: This template claims that works of the government of Alberta (and all works of the Canadian government) are public domain.  I have nominated it on TFD, believing this to be an incorrect claim.  Can someone familiar with Canadian copyrights take a look and confirm that I am correct? BigDT 03:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|PD-ABGov-DOT}} 

message: Hello, I am wondering if :Image:Narniabooks all.jpg is correctly tagged. Can anyone give it a glance? Thanks! -- ReyBrujo 20:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not.  The work is intended to exhibit the copyrighted cover art, and is a clear derivative thereof.  I've retagged it appropriately, and reuploaded it as :Image:Narnia books.jpg under fair use. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright tag at a specific image 

message: Template:Mugshot and Template:HistoricPhoto have been listed for deletion here and here, respectively.  You're invited to comment. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Mugshot]] and [[Template:HistoricPhoto]] proposed for deletion 

message: Similar to the above, I have placed Template:Italian Air Force website copyright on WP:TFD.  Would those familiar with image copyright tags take a look at the discussion and help build a consensus?  BigDT 23:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Italian Air Force website copyright]] 

message: I've run into a couple images uploaded by a user as "PD-self". When asked, user replied he did not take the original photos but has them in private possession as non-copyrighted photos. One of the images is from 2002 and doesn't look to me like a private photo. I couldn't decipher what to do from this page. In general, what should be done when an image is tagged "public domain" but this status is suspect for some reason? Gimmetrow 15:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: List it at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. --Fastfission 16:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do when PD status is suspect? 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oldwestwoodstudio.jpg
I have no earthly idea what would be used here. It's a personal photograph released on a company website which is now defunct. If there is a problem, I can probably get Frank Klepacki to release a photo of his office specifically for the article. --Zeality 19:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: as you have it now is incorrect. That's for when you are not the uploader and you think the uploader is OK with GFDL. In your situation, you will need to get clearance from Mr Klepacki, but it shouldn't be just for Wikipedia. He needs to be OK with image being redistributed for any purpose, including commercial. He can, however, select from a number of free licenses (see WP:ICT#Free_licenses). howcheng  {chat} 19:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. E-mail worked. --Zeality 03:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What would this image be? 

message: Is an image able to be used if it is on a website with a copyright at the bottom of the page but nothing next to the image? I want to get a photo from here. There is a copyright thing at the bottom but nothing next to any of the pictures. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thank you :) 208.111.197.115 05:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please help 

message: What should we do with this tag? It's not only NC/ND, but also forbids the "distributing" of the image and using for any public purpose. bogdan 15:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added "For the purposes of Wikipedia, this is a non-free license and must have an accompanying "fair use" tag and criteria." to it and placed it in the appropriate category.  I'd say IFD anything that isn't fair use. BigDT 19:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Template:MINDEFCopyright]] 

message: For US image copyright, what is special about the year 1923 which makes it a cutoff point for free use? Does this year change over time? Is it arbitrary? thanks for any clarification Bwithh 16:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to be a fixed cutoff date, based on the Copyright Term Extension Act (according to the article's intro paragraph). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the info. That sucks. I have an magazine cover from 1924 that I'd like to use for an article which is not about the magazine. I guess I can't use it? What if I mention the magazine in the image description when I place it in the article? Bwithh 16:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If we assume that the magazine cover is a corporate work whose copyright was registered and renewed, it's covered by copyright for a term of 95 years after publication, meaning its copyright expires in 2019.  Most works' copyrights were not renewed, but we can't necessarily assume that.  Stuff about renewal and registration only applies to the US anyway; what magazine was it, and where was it published? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about 1923 

message: I've uploaded :Image:Stoney Middleton well dressing.JPG, but I'm uncertain which tag to use.  It's a photograph of a well dressing; a temporary work of art created using natural materials.  I've used the  tag, but I'm unsure whether this is accurate, as it can not be said to have been published - and certainly not in the U.S. (and it could be questioned whether it is strictly a two-dimensional work of art, although it's no more three-dimensional than some paintings).  As it is unpublished, would it be correct to say it is in the public domain, or that the photograph is mine to license as I choose?  If not, what tag would be appropriate?  thanks, Warofdreams talk 00:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not published per the definition, no.  Works do not have to be published to be copyrightable, however, they only have to be fixed in a tangible form.  The work is subject to copyright and must be used under fair use if it's used at all. Note that unpublished works are traditionally given a stronger presumption against fair use than other works, because it's felt it intrinsically infringes upon the owner's decision of when, how, and whether to publish, and consequently unpublished works are typically not permitted as fair use on Wikipedia.  However, the rationale might not apply so strongly to works that were intended only for free public display, with the author indifferent to publication.I would strongly urge you to locate someone who makes these and ask them to release one under a free license.  Fair-use images are discouraged here (theoretically prohibited, in fact) when a free equivalent is readily obtainable, and surely many of these authors would be happy to share their work.  If you can take a photo, can't you find out who made the dressing to begin with? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments.  I would guess that the dressing was made by the Stoney Middleton Well Dressing Committee, who were given an award for a similar design two years ago, but I can't find any  contact details for them.  I will try the parish council, who may be able to help. Warofdreams talk 23:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unpublished artwork 

message: I'm afraid this tag is used for non-PD photography.
	This image was created in Italy and is now in the public domain because its term of copyright has expired. According to Law of 22 April 1941 n. 633, revised by the law of 22 May 2004, n. 128 article 87 and article 92, all non artistic photographs enter the public domain after 20 years counted from the beginning of the following calendar year (ie. as of 2006, prior to the 1st of January, 1986) after they were first published. Artistic photographs enter in the public domain after 70 years.	
What is exactly an non-artistic photography ?
Are all these photos : :Category:PD_Italy non-artistic according to the Italian law ?
Ericd 21:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the images I saw in a brief scan of the category are obviously non-artistic under German definitions, but I don't know anything at all about how Italy defines it. Any image in that cat whose author has not been dead for seventy years probably needs to go to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images.  Jkelly 21:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Probably they mean that simple passport-photo-like portraits of people are not artistic. However, pictures like this one: :Image:Funerali-w2.jpg are certainly artistic, despite being tagged with this template... bogdan 22:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The United States does not obey the "rule of the shorter term", except that anything in the public domain in its country of creation as of January 1, 1996 is in the public domain in the US.  This means that if the law cited above is accurate, "non-artistic" images originating in Italy are in the public domain in the US only if first published before 1976.  Later images will be accorded full protection under US copyright law.  The tag is misleading regardless of what constitutes "non-artistic". —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My god, a repeat of the  fiasco! This tempate should be deleted immediately and its creators sent to the WikiDungeon, crushed by elephant, forced to attend the GNAA convention and subjected to any other such WikiPunishements as may be appropriate. See EU Copyright Directive for a better statement of Italian copyright law. Physchim62 (talk) 15:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO they should attend the GNAA convention before being crushed by elephant. Ericd 23:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Has the EUCD been implemented in Italy yet?  Either way, presumably it will be soon, so not much point in this template. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it has been.  I'll comment on the template talk page. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PD-Italy 

message: There are several templates created for U.S. state government documents.  Can someone audit these?       .. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two things: They seem to be done by the slightly notorious Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), and none of them seem to make any comments about their licence status, rather they just say "This is from the State of X"... 68.39.174.238 10:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  State government templates 

message: (Copied from Help desk)
I have a radiograph on my teeth, and would like to put it on Wisdom teeth. But I am doubt about copyright issue. Does my dentist owns the copyright of the X-Ray picture, or I own the copyright, or ineligible for copyright? (The X-Ray picture is my teeth, so there is no privacy issue, since I agree to put my X-ray picture online.) --Leeyc0 (Talk) 10:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, your dentist owns the copyright insofar as a copyright exists (which it would in most jurisdictions). I doubt he/she would mind much if you published it though. Physchim62 (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd say "no creative effort, so no copyright".  It's a routine medical image, made by standard procedures.  Any competent dentist would produce one exactly like it. --Carnildo 18:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's probably safe, especially in the case of dental x-rays which are highly routine. Do dentists have any "creative" input in this? Every dental x-ray I've had has always been "sit here and lie still while I hide behind this barrier and push a button" which looks pretty automatic (dare I say "slavish"?). --Fastfission 18:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the case of :Image:Impacted wisdom teeth.jpg, even less creative input than most dental x-rays.  The procedure for a full-face x-ray is so standardized, even a trained monkey would produce that image.  In a normal x-ray, the dentist has the choice of which teeth to image. --Carnildo 06:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright issue on X-Ray picture

message: There are a handful of images, for example, :Image:Andrew Dickson White statue and Goldwin Smith Hall.jpg, that have an old version of  or  substed into the description page.  The "so what" of this is that this causes these images to be added to Special:Uncategorizedimages and, for that matter, could presumably cause Orphanbot to tag them as not having copyright information. Is there any reason that I should not replace these substitutions with the transcluded ?  Also, there are a bunch of images in :Category:Articles with permission confirmed.  Is there any reason that their  template shouldn't be replaced with ?  I just wanted to check before acting ... images like :Image:Andrew Dickson White statue and Goldwin Smith Hall.jpg really ought to have the transcluded template so that their categories will work ... unless there is some really good reason not to. BigDT 23:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|Confirmation}} and {{tl|ConfirmationImageOTRS}} 

message: hello all, i recently uploaded :Image:MuhammadSeal.jpg, for which i first used the stamp tag but changed it to the seal tag after some thought. i wanted to ask... does it merit restricted use on WP under fair use policy or is this image a free license one as this seal comes from 1400 years ago? thank you! ITAQALLAH 02:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  help needed for identifying correct tag 

message: I notice we have  for the Defence Department, but what about things that came from the War Department? 68.39.174.238 10:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Department of Defense is just the politically-correct name for the War Department.  The same template applies to both.  --Carnildo 20:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the more correct explanation is that the War Department is a predecessor agency of the DOD. In any case, both are works of the US federal government, so there is no copyright issue (if one was in doubt, just use PD-USGov). I added "and predecessor agencies" to the  template just for this reason (a lot of the photos are Manhattan Project/Atomic Energy Commission but the copyright status is the same). --Fastfission 23:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about War? 

message: Would anyone else really like to see these templates go away?  Looking at the categories, a lot of people don't know the difference between "freeware" (software that the author doesn't charge for) and actual free licenses (GPL, etc).  Also, there are a bunch of images like :Image:Chakra07.gif.  For the life of me, I don't see how that's a screenshot of free software.  Do these templates really serve any purpose? BigDT 21:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Free-game-screenshot]] and [[Template:Free screenshot]] 

message: There are four basic styles that currently exist, and they tend to be mostly followed without explicit rules, but there is some variance and it would be best to standardize them for clarity and visual consistency.  The existing styles are roughly: Proposed styles:
	Public domain or freely-licensed (e.g., , )
	Fair use (e.g., , )
	Obsolete, disputed, or otherwise not-good copyright (e.g., , )
	Unacceptable copyright; will be deleted soon if issue is not corrected (e.g., , )
	Source, or other thing not affecting copyright status (e.g., )
(Most of the variation occurs within the second category; I've tweaked the general idea behind , , and so on.  I've also tweaked some aspects of all the styles, such as increasing width to 85% to match talk-page templates, and matching up their paddings and alignments.)
As at Wikipedia:Template standardisation, I would recommend that they always be tables, not divs; the CSS website itself recommends using tables for vertical centering, because it's simply impossible otherwise in CSS.  And it just looks ugly when the image isn't vertically centered, but the text stretches the div to be taller than the image.
If agreement is reached here, I'll ask for appropriate CSS classes to be added to MediaWiki:Common.css.  Are there any objections?  Suggestions?  It would be good to separate fair-use and free images, if someone more artistic than I could come up with a good color scheme for fair use. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've split off fair-use from free-licensed, making it look somewhat more unpleasant.  Any opinions?  The code to add these classes to CSS follows. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I would favour splitting PD and free licence, partly because of the obvious legal distinction and partly because of the checking problem associated with claims of PD. The GNU symbol should only really be used for GNU licences. Otherwise, I think this is a great idea. Physchim62 (talk) 09:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template standardization 

message: This is a question about the use of the logos. Dead Runners Society, a Texas non-profit organization, owns the copyright and trademark to its "carpe viam" logo and its flag. Both are currently  being displayed in its article under GFDL.  The organization is concerned that the GFDL license could result in T-shirts or other items being manufactured without its consent. Is this concern justified? If so, should the images be removed? Or is there some other license or fair use doctrine that might be used to address the oragnization's concerns? Does the low resolution aspect have any signifcance? What about the DRS Italia logo -- which was created in Italy with teh opermission of the U.S. copyright holder? Thanks.
:First of all who released it under the GFDL?  If the GFDL tag was added by somebody unauthorized by the DRS then the GFDL template is invalid and should be removed immediately and replaced with the { {Logo} } template. If it was somebody authorized by the DRS then I don't think they can rescind that license, although Wikipedia can certainly be courteous and remove the image or change it's license tag if they wish.
:The GFDL says nothing about trademark law, and I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know how releasing the logo under the GFDL would affect trademark claims.  Trademark is generally to protect a brand name from confusingly similar (or exactly similar) products, and it's use on Wikipedia would be fair use of a trademark, whereas making t-shirts with the probably isn't.  In fact, Wikipedia has the { {Logo} } tag for fair use logo/trademarked images, such as the Drexel University Logo.  If they are concerned they should change the image template to that, so that the image can be included in Wikipedia while still clearly being covered under trademark law.
:include <disclaimer.h>, IANAL, etc. etc...--TexasDex 23:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Non-Profit Logo 

message: I have found an image in the commons that is linked here with an incorrect tag, putting  is useless becouse the commons does not have that template, What should be done? Feedyourfeet 12:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What should i do

message: I know the statue question has come up a few times before but nothing exactly what I need to ask. Is a statue always under copyright even if the sculptor is deceased? I have two photos of statues on the Drexel University campus and the sculptors both died before 1920 (One statue being the founder of the university and one being totally unrelated to the university at all). I ask this because the Statue tag states 'for images of three-dimensional works of art that are still under copyright.' Additionally I have another photograph that I uploaded (without even thinking to look into detail about statue copyrights) to the Drexel page whose scultor is still living (in which case the copyright is still valid) since it is a derivative work of the sculpture and at the same time the campus mascot is that fair use rational or should I just delete the photo? Anyway thanks for any and all help. It's surprising what you can still learn about wikipedia even after being on here for nearly a year.. --ImmortalGoddezz 16:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The two former statues are in the public domain as published before 1923, but there is still copyright held by the photographer (as these are not "two-dimensional works of art"). The third statue has copyright held by the sculpter, and any image would be a derivative work. Physchim62 (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statues 

message: : Wikipedia:Help_desk#Free_license_for_pictures_of_puppets
Would there be any particular tags to indicated that, while the content of an image is fair use, the image itself is free?  --  Zanimum 14:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really.  Just tag them fair-use (assuming the puppets are in fact copyrightable; very simple ones might not be, see that Skyy Spirits case) and note in the text that you release your derivation under an appropriate license. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free license fair use tag? 

message: I found this tag while looking through the uncategorized images.  The user who created it and uploaded the images - User:Draper gives his email address on his webpage as being from the same domain where these images were downloaded ... so there is at least a decent chance that he does have the authority to release them.  Any thoughts? BigDT 15:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: E-mail the site.  See if they'd be willing to release them under something more formal like . —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|PD-GI}} 

message: I was cleaning out the  category and noticed that many of its images are tagged with the abovementioned. I suspect that there may be actually a much wider abuse of the tag out there, is this potential problem being mass-worked on? - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 17:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|CopyrightedFreeUse}} abuse 

message: I wonder if the screenshots of the Saddam-era Iraqi TV are copyrighted and what's their status, as the tv is now defunct. See example:  Thanks, --TheFEARgod 12:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For Wikipedia purposes, I think we should assume that they're under copyright. The relevant tag is , and they should only be used on WP if they fall under fair use guidelines. Physchim62 (talk) 14:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq TV screenshots 

message: For an article about Ravnica, I'm planning on uploading images of each of the Guild's logos. While the Guild symbols aren't my own intellectual property - those obviously belong to Wizards of the Coast - the images themselves were hand-drawn myself awhile ago. Which tag thing would I use? The originals are property of WoTC, but the images themselves were drawn by me (because Wizards never saw fit to give players high-quality art of the logos). Scumbag 06:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are the intellectual property of Wizards. There really is no way to justify them as fair use for Wikipedia since you can understand the topic of the article without the image. --Peta 05:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images that aren't, but are, my own. 

message: What are the rules for author photos found on book sleeves like on the back jacket or inside cover of a book? I looked at the promotional tag and it didn't seem to apply and could not find any other relevant tag. Thanks. -- Stbalbach 04:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't upload them. Ask the publisher if they can provide you with a copyright free and/or press kit image of the author.--Peta 05:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Author photo's , book sleeves 

message: Several comic-related templates such as comicpanel and comiccover refer to characters in copyrighted works as being "copyrighted" themselves.  I believe the word "copyrighted" should be removed from these templates for these reasons:
1) redundancy - the big circled C already informs the reader that copyrighted material is being presented
2) irrelevance - the template needs only justify the use of the image, not the depiction of the image's subject
3) imprecision - characters are parts of copyrighted works, not necessarily copyrighted themselves, and
4) controversy - characters lie in the gray area between ideas (not copyrightable) and expressions (possibly copyrightable)
See Marvel v NCSoft complaint in the City of Heroes article; I followed this case closely.  Marvel alleged infringement of their copyrights in specific issues of comic books, not characters.  Further, it is whole comic book issues that are registered with the Copyright Office by submission to the Library of Congress.  There are shelves in the Library of Congress for issues of The Incredible Hulk, but there are no shelves of appropriate size for the Hulk himself.
I'd also suggest small edits to these templates to clarify that copyrights apply not to the parts depicted, but to the whole works containing those parts.  For example, in comiccover, "This image is of the cover of a single issue of a comic book, and the copyright for it is..." could be rephrased more precisely: "... and the copyright for the issue is..." (emphasis added) Matt Fitzpatrick 18:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comic tags: "copyrighted characters?" 

message: Shouldn't Template:MosNews include a warning that third-party images republished on their websites are copyrighted? See . Lupo 08:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:MosNews