Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Archive 5

message: I would like to use the Cross Triumphant logo of the United Church of Christ on the UCC article.  The UCC website  says that it is trademarked.  I know next to nothing about copyright and trademark legislation.  Please advise: will I have to write to ask for permission, or will it fall under fair use?
Thanks very much aliceinlampyland 14:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You could probably use it under the  tag (fair use). --βjweþþ (talk) 14:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I would imagine you could, too.  Besides, they are unlikely to grant permission in any sort of usable way, by our guidelines. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church denomination logo 

message: I noticed that the DYK template now has a drawing of some grunion made by the California Department of Fish and Game. The drawing has a template claiming that works of the California government enter the public domain. IANYAL, but I assure you that states do have the right to protect works of their government employees by copyright. Someone, preferably a California lawyer, needs to check whether the California state government claims copyright on works of its employees. Dale Arnett 17:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I pointed out to Dale Arnett: The images were clearly tagged with Template:PD-CAGov, and the image descriptions gave the URLs for where they came from. From there, it is not too hard to find their copyright status . ALL text on the Cal. F&G website is in the public domain (just as almost every bit of written information from the State of California). The photos on their website may not be, but the drawings I used appear to be produced specifically for the Cal. F&G and therefore should also be PD. BlankVerse ∅  03:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  State government works not necessarily PD!! 

message: uk:Wikipedia:Авторське право
Rh 19:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Please add link to Ukrainian Wiki

message: Under the section "If you find a copyright infringement" on the project page, can we add a mention of Template:Cv? It's a template for user talk pages, similar to Template:Test1, Template:Test2, etc.. except for dealing with people that post copyrighted material. TheCoffee 12:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Cv]] 

message: I'm trying to prepare a copy of a book at Wikibooks for print publication.  I intend to actually publish this information in a dead tree format and give it to a couple of local schools and libraries. (It is only about 70 pages long right now).
As a result of doing this, I'd also like to apply for formal copyright registration of this Wikibook, which is going to give me a whole bunch of problems, including primarily author attribution (the information found on user pages is totally inadequate for filling this out), and determining exactly who "owns" the content covered in the book.  The book I'm going to publish is the Wikijunior Solar System.  I have a PDF file on there right now with the layout in the format I wish to actually publish and take down to a local printing company.
The wikibooks:Wikibooks:Copyrights page is woefully inadequate to cover this concept, and IMHO very out of date as well in a number of areas.  If there is somebody who really knows copyright law, I would appreciate some help in this circumstance.  It is also possible that a major change of policy with the Wikimedia Foundation may have to take place if we need to accurately determine the country of origin and residence for each contributor, to keep with registration laws under United States code.  I would also like input from users in other countries as to what specific requirements are involved if you formally register copyright in your country and what information your government is asking that you provide with copyright.
The relevant information for copyright registration (under U.S. law, and what I intend to file) can be found here:
:http://www.copyright.gov/register/literary.html
Some discussion on this can also be found at the Staff Lounge on Wikibooks.  It is from that discussion that I am trying to get input here.  --Robert Horning 02:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Printed copies of Wikimedia content 

message: In short, what do I need to do to use individual Wikipedia articles on my site without jeopardizing the legal status of my otherwise copyrighted site? The long version of this question follows:
I have read and re-read the GFDL and other articles here and still find myself wondering what I can and cannot do with individual Wikipedia articles. I have a site that already contains many articles which are copyrighted. I wish to fill in the "knowledge holes" in my site by using Wikipedia articles. I also wish to make it very clear to anyone who sees them that they come from Wikipedia. And lastly, I wish to be able to incorporate the WP articles without alterting the copyright status of the rest of my site. Sounds simple enough. But is it? It seems that About.com and others have managed, but I'm unsure of their standing in this community after reading the section on GFDL compliance .
I'd like some direction from those of you who are passionate about this. From what I have read, I can copy an article from Wikipedia and put it on my site, so long as I include a disclaimer like this:
 "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License."
 "It uses material from this Wikipedia article, which is probably more up to date than ours."
(The "this Wikipedia article" part would be linked to the original article here and the latter is because I do not have the technical expertise to automatically update these articles.)
I am aware that by so doing, I am granting others the right to use this version of the article under the same terms it was "licensed" to me. I just want to make sure that this "viral" thing I've heard about in the media doesn't mean that I've just essentially licensed my whole site via the GFDL (which I don't actually have the right to do in any case as a good portion are from other contributors). I want to do this "the right way" and not upset folks here. I appreciate the nature of the work that has been done. Thanks for reading and for any advice!
:I've been thinking the smae thing and I am not sure. I think that the rest of your site is not affected, but I don't know. What I am more interested by is if you could make a paper encyclopedia with certain articles copied from Wikipedia and under the GFDL but others completely copyright. --βjweþþ (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Section 7 of the GFDL says "When the Document is included in an aggregate, this License does not apply to the other works in the aggregate which are not themselves derivative works of the Document." A website would be imo, an aggregate work. note IANAL. Matt 05:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that info, User:MattKingston, I needed to confirm this, as my site  uses a couple of Wikipedia articles, modified to fit into the site. I use a template called "Template:Wikipedia" to mark the pages as Wikipedia-derived, and GFDL-only. The rest of the site is dual GFDL/CC-BY-SA-2.5. Your comments will help me to rest a bit easier in thinking that I'm not tainting my whole site as GFDL-only. -Harmil 14:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using individual Wikipedia articles on otherwise copyrighted site 

message: This was just added: "any of a number of formats available from us, including the wiki text, the html web pages, xml feed, etc."
From the GFDL:  "[...]standard-conforming simple HTML, PostScript or PDF designed for human modification.[...]Opaque formats include proprietary formats that can be read and edited only by proprietary word processors, SGML or XML for which the DTD and/or processing tools are not generally available, and the machine-generated HTML, PostScript or PDF produced by some word processors for output purposes only."
The HTML web pages here are designed for output purposes only.  If you read through the HTML pages, not only do they contain a ton of garbage, they're difficult for a human to sort through and modify, especially if they want to change the formatting.  The WikiText undoubtedly makes changes much easier for a human, which was why it was created--human modification of the raw html would be too arduous.  The XML export includes the WikiText itself, so it's redudant to mention.   Nathan J. Yoder 11:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transparent copies 

message: I came across Ashton Calvert and was surprised by the copyright notice on the bottom.  Apparently the Australian gov't had released his bio information for "for your personal, non-commercial use or use within your organisation".  I'm not sure if "use within your organisation" includes Wikipedia.  i have an ethical issue with this as well.  Please see associated Talk:Ashton_Calvert.  The author has also started other articles in the same vein. -- Bubbachuck 05:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: perhaps you should elaborate on what ethical issues you have. I've listed it as a copyvio since the text is not licensed under the GFDL. I'll do the same with the others. Matt 03:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just read at Wikipedia:Public domain resources that no US government material is copyrightable and is thus public domain.  I'm not sure how Australia's copyright laws work (i can't find any mention on wikipedia), but if its the same as US, then technically someone could legally copy and paste an article from a government site onto Wikipedia, right?  if a work is public domain, it does not have to be under GFDL right?  clarification would be most appreciated.  the ethical issues i have would be whether copy and pasting a webpage by the government just because they allow it for "non-commercial use" on Wikipedia is "right" considering that there exists an exact copy of the work on a government site already and there was not proper credit given to the government (not for the Calvert article but for others).  -- Bubbachuck 04:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you know for sure that Australia works the same way, don't assume it. I believe Australia has Crown Copyright which is quite different than the U.S. policy against copyrighted works of the federal government. "Use within your organisation" most likely only means "for internal use only", which is not what anything posted on Wikipedia generally is (as it is "published" to the entire world). Even if they release it for non-commercial use, that is not compatible with the GFDL (GFDL allows for commercial use). --Fastfission 21:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  predicament of actual rights vs. ethical rights 

message: Is it generally forbidden to add lyrics (which may be copyrighted) to descriptions of new songs?NightBeAsT 00:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Small portions can be quoted under fair use.  You can even put the entire text in if it's interspersed with analysis as far as US copyright law is concerned because fair use protects such scholarly examination.  Some Simpsons script sites use this technique. Copies can also be made for educational and classroom use, IIRC, but as with so many aspects of the Internet, how this would apply to an encyclopedia is unclear. Lunkwill 06:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that's 100% correct. Even with scholarly examination, quoting the entire body of a copyright work would seem to go pretty far towards violating the substantiality clause. Anyway -- the answer for Wikipedia's case is NO, don't post song lyrics from copyrighted songs. You may have some brief quotes from such lyrics as is relevant to the article, but that's it. --Fastfission 21:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lyrics 

message: United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is an agency of the federal government, and as such images produced by a USAID employee during the course of their work are public domain. The  copyright notics on the USAID website states this explicitly:
:Unless a copyright is indicated, information on this Web site is in the public domain and may be reproduced, published or otherwise used without USAID's permission. We request that USAID be cited as the source of the information and that any photo credits or bylines be similarly credited to the photographer or author or USAID, as appropriate. If a copyright is indicated on a photo, graphic, or any other material, permission to copy these materials must be obtained from the original source. This copyright notice does not pertain to information at Web sites other than this Web site. 
The photolibrary on the USAID website enables users to download medium resolution images. All of the images I have seen in this library do not specify a copyright and are therefore (see above) public domain. It is possible to request high resolution copies of these images via a form. However, this form states:
:By submitting this form you agree to comply with the following terms of use:
** Photos are intended for non-commercial use only.
** Photos may not be stored or redistributed for any purposes without prior permission.
** Photos should be used in a context that properly reflects the nature of the subject(s), situation, and location depicted.
** When requesting high resolution photos, users are asked to provide information on how and where photos will be used.
How are the above conditions compatible with the public domain nature of the images? TreveXtalk 20:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to recall that the high-resolution versions are hosted by a an external company that sells them for commercial use. But then again, it's been a while since I checked. -Harmil 22:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  USAID images 

message: The text in the article does not mention this important fact:
According to the Iranian "Law for Supporting Authors, Composers, and Artists" (قانون حمایت حقوق مؤلفان و مصنفان و هنرمندان), passed on 11 Dey 1348 (January 1, 1970) and published in the official newspaper number 7288 on 21 Bahman 1348 (February 1, 1970), for many images, including paintings, the work is in the public domain if all of its authors have died for at least 30 Iranian years (may be different from 30 gregorian days in a few days).
As special exceptions, if the work is cinematic or photographic or if the (economic) rights of a work have been transferred to a legal person, the work will become public domain after 30 Iranian years from its publication or offering.--Zereshk 20:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Iran

message: Is there some reason there's no link to Wikipedia:Fair use? --Howcheng 22:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Fair use link 

message: I recently got . I will remove  it but I believe that such a list is uncopyrightable under US law.  of Wikipedia:Fellows of the Royal Society, basically a list like the following:
* Abbot, Charles, 1st Baron Colchester Charles Abbot, 1st Baron Colchester   14 October 1757 - 08 May 1829 Fellow 14/02/1793 
and so on for about 8000 fellows.
That I'd changed into wikilinks to see where they led.  What about British law (under which they were origially copyrighted), and international copyright law?  Dunc|☺ 00:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyrighted lists  

message: The terms (yes, terms... sigh) of the National Geospacial Agency's data is the following:
In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 425[2], the use of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) (or predecessor organizations, National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) or Defense Mapping Agency (DMA)) name, seal or initials to imply or suggest approval or any commercial endorsement by NGA without written permission from the Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence is prohibited. All non-Agency published products, information or data which include the NGA, NIMA or DMA name, seal or initials or otherwise express or imply any association with NGA, NIMA or DMA shall contain the following disclaimer:
"Disclaimer
This reproduction, partial or complete, of any National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) or Defense Mapping Agency (DMA) product, information or data is not approved, authorized or endorsed by the Secretary of Defense, the Director of Central Intelligence, the Director, NGA or any other element of the US Government.  The US Government and NGA accept no liability for the accuracy or quality of this reproduction or the use of any NGA, NIMA or DMA products, information or data."
This disclaimer shall be displayed prominently on the cover and first page of any hardcopy publication, on any map or chart, on any media, video cassette, on the shrink wrap of any CD or DVD, on any DVD or CD-ROM, on the jewel case label and any insert in the jewel case.  This disclaimer shall be displayed prominently in the start up or initial screen of any software product or program as well as in the "About" dialog window (usually accessible by the "Help" drop-down menu).  In addition, any installation diskettes, CD-ROMS, or DVDs will contain the disclaimer in a separate text file located in the root directory and named "disclaimer.txt."
NGA will not be liable for the accuracy or quality of any user products, regardless of the amount or complexity of NGA information or data used in their production.
:
This would seem to require, at the very least, that we replicate the above disclaimer in Wikipedia:Copyrights, because we do use the seal and name at National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, and we also use data from the agency in many places.
Have I missed something important that mitigates this concern? I mean, I know we're an encyclopedia, and so logically it makes sense for us to use the name and logo, but U.S. law seems to be contradicting logic, here. Perhaps just a disclaimer on National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (and perhaps on a PD template box for their images) saying that they don't endorse Wikipedia would be sufficient to get past the first conditional in the requirement? -Harmil 22:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NGA data and images 

message: In section 4, the phrase "that material will remain under GFDL forever" should be "that material will remain under GFDL until its copyright expires". There may be other phrases like this that I haven't noticed. – gpvos (talk) 10:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction: copyright is not forever 

message: Upon advice from Gmaxwell I changed the text about images from .gov and .mil sites being in the public domain "as a general rule". There's a lot of commercial stock photography on US gov't sites that is definitely not PD (from Getty Images, for exmaple, for several mistakenly uploaded in the past). Notice replaced with a caution to be careful and first email the webmaster to be sure. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: .gov and .mil images

message: Following up on Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/copyright#Pre-1923 Images from original sources: I noticed that the image of the cover of Ulysses was tagged fair use (Template:Book cover).  However, I believe that since the book was published before 1923 (here, 1922), it falls into Public Domain in the US and since James Joyce died over 70 years ago, it falls into Public Domain in many other countries.  This holds true for as well for Makers of American Silver and probably for many other books.  Also, since the scan of a book cover can hardly be construed as "original" or "creative" (I think Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. applies here), these book cover should be tagged as Template:PD-old-70.  I want to know if anyone agrees before I do this and also if anyone knows what to do for books that are published 1923 or later or authors who died less than 70 years ago.  However, as the similar question I noted above has not yet been answered, after over a year(!), I'll just go and do it soon unless told otherwise.  Telso 23:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a bit late, and my answer is certainly not authoritative, but I have been taking a similar approach with images published pre-1923, though I generally use PD-US. Note that your example with a James Joyce book cover may or may not work under PD-old-70, since it would be the date of death of the artist, not the author, that would apply.  Under PD-US, all you need be sure of is the publication date.  For images where the artist died before 1905, you can use PD-art. -- Mwanner | Talk 16:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Book Covers 

message: It is always bad to link to copyrighted works?  What if the article is about such a work, and a version exists online?  Even if the host is violating copyright, we're not, and it seems like fair use.  — Omegatron 21:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking to copyrighted works 

message: I own a book that I think has passed into public domain, and might be a good source for the (currently somewhat light) engineering section of Wikipedia. It's Mechanics of Materials by Laurson and Cox, 2nd edition (the Wiley & Sons edition, not the Chapman & Hall Amazon is selling). I went here and looked through the renewals for 74, 75, 76 and 63, 64, 65 (since the copyright dates listed are 1938 and 1947), and couldn't find it under the title or either of the authors' names. Is this enough effort to consider it expired, or should I do more?  Thanks in advance, Joel 03:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The good folks at Wikipedia:Reference Desk sugggested I direct this question here, due to your specialized interest.  So, uh...what do you guys think?--Joel 03:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Add it to wikisource.org, have fun. Travb 23:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright expiration

message: please add
 sk:Wikipédia:Autorské práva
~~helix84 17:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki 

message: There are several photographs which would be extremely useful at http://pre-grouping.fotopic.net/
They are mostly scans of postcards published pre-1923 in England and Wales and Scotland, some of them are Victorian.
The owner of the website thinks that they're all public domain.  I'm not so sure, though if he owns the copyright he has admitted that he thinks they're public domain anyway.
But I think the creator of the work owns the copyright, or his estate, and the company that employed him to take the photographs, but it is nigh impossible to identify them.
It may be that they are ultimately owned by the NRM, having gone through the 1923 grouping, 1948 nationalisation to the British Railways Board to the NRM.
I think there is a recognised problem with identifying who owns ancient copyrights within the railway book business.  
But should I use them?????? Dunc|☺ 21:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: anything published before 1923 is in the public domain, still dont beleive me?  Go to http://www.gutenberg.org/ and see tens of thousands of examples. Travb 23:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  copies of pre-1923 postcards 

message: So who files a lawsuit in the case of infringement?  Since it's a civil suit, it can't be filed on behalf of other people, the contributors themselves need to file suit, which is a bit strange.  What exactly would happen, would they need to contact all the contributors and files a massive class action? Nathan J. Yoder 19:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawsuits 

message: I noted a copyvio in an article, which has been added to quite a bit but is still very obviously derived from the original source. After I reverted to a non-violating version, the user who originally introduced the copyrighted material and is also one of the major contributors to the article reverted it back, saying he would edit out the non-original material "in a month or so."  I would think that the correct thing to do is revert the article until the rewrite is available, but I wanted to ask.  How long can the article remain as a copyvio while awaiting or in the process of having the "bad" material removed? --Bgruber 16:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 0 seconds? This is simply not allowed. Known copyvio material should not be in Wikipedia, even temporarily. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to fix copyvio 

message: There is a section on Fair use, but it provides no link to Wikipedia:Fair use.  Could we get this added (or changed)?  TIA -- Mwanner | Talk 00:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use (again) 

message: What about pasting copyright protected material on lots of users talk-pages? Like all the things User:Armour copied from Encyclopædia Britannica. Doesn't it has to be Copyright violation in some way? How should it be dealt with? --Boivie 22:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting issue, not least because I keep encountering cases in which a certain user copies material from websites to talk pages, in order to use them as arguments in a discussion. If you edit a talk page, no matter if it is a user one or not, you'll see "DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION" at the bottom of the page, and "Only public domain resources can be copied exactly—this does not include most web pages." I've adjusted my User preferences to de:Deutsch, which has another sentence. It tranlates as "Please DO NOT COPY WEBSITES which are not yours, do NOT use COPYRIGHTED WORK without permission of the copyright-holder." It seems to me to be an obvious case and anyway, I do not think the people from Britannica would like to have their work published. Don't forget that talk pages can be found via Google too. I cannot tell you whether their translation is a copyvio too but I think it is. NightBeAsT 15:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyvio on User Talk-pages 

message: This page needs a  tag, because it is listed in :Category:Wikipedia official policy. (Or remove the Cat). --Michael (talk) 13:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy Template 

message: Please provide a link to the Cebuano WP equivalent of this page: ceb:Wikipedya:Katungod sa pagpatik. Thanks! --58.69.21.243 07:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for ceb interwiki 

message: Do we have any policy -- or even, suggested course of action -- about copyright notices on user pages, purporting to withhold permissions that the GFDL grants?  (Such as redistribution.)  It strikes me this could cause a certain amount of confusion, though I assume it doesn't cause any legal problems as such, given how explicit and up-front we are about the GFDL being a given.  In other words, ignore 'em, ask the user to remove them, remove on sight?  Alai 02:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a big flap about this some months ago.  I forget the name of the user involved.  The outcome was that such notices aren't permitted, for exactly the reasons you cite.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm much obliged;  the pages one doesn't have on one's watchlist, until some time after one realizes one needed 'em.  Alai 03:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  User page copyright notices 

message: It was pointed out to me that http://www.caninecrib.com/dog/pictures/ is using many many pohtos from Wikipedia w/out attribution. I've sent them email, but does anyone know whether there's a procedure to follow or a committee that handles this kind of thing or whatever if they DON'T comply? 
I'd monitor it myself except that wikipedia has ruined my life (well--not really--just takes too much time) and except for today I've been avoiding it and will have to go back to avoiding it.  71.131.35.122 00:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos used on other site w/out attribution

message: I would like to create graphics for some of the more incomplete mathematics articles, using Mathematica and possibly Matlab. I don't know what kind of licenses I can use, is there anyone that knows, or can suggest someone to ask? -Monguin61 01:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphics for Mathematics Articles 

message: I tagged Gary Barnett as a copyright violation. Another user, acting in good faith, restored a slightly cleaned-up version of the copyrighted text, which was a biography of Barnett posted on a website of Barnett's former employer, the University of Colorado at Boulder. Is  still a copyright violation? NatusRoma 02:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about [[Gary Barnett]] and rewriting copyright violations 

message: A friend asked me what does she needs to do in order to reprint part or entire Wiki article in the small non-profit magazine she publishes. Would it be enough to add information that 'this article is based on article on Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia and as such is licenced under the GNU Free Documentation License'? Do we have any standard boilerplate or such? Would she need to reprint the entire text of GNUFDL? Does the fact that I am the sole writer of the article in question and I agreed to colicense my contributions under Creative Commons changes anything?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: IANAL, but I'm pretty comfortable in stating that if you are the sole writer, that makes matters much simpler: when you contributed the article to Wikipedia, you gave Wikipedia GFDL license to your writing, but you retain copyright on that material yourself. So you can relicense it any additional way you want. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tnx. In order to promote Wiki and copyleft, I asked her to add the following text: This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html). It uses material from the author's own memory supported by Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page). You are free to copy, modify and distribute this article according to the terms of the GNU license. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about reprinting Wiki articles 

message: Wikipedia:Copyright issues is sitting around waiting to be dealt with.  Is there anything there that needs to be incorporated into this page?  There seem to be some unanswered questions there.  Or should it just be archived? -- Beland 00:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Copyright issues]] 

message: I want to get rid of every singe right I have over all of my Wikipedia contributions so that anybody can use it for any purpose whatsoever. I thought Public Domain covered this but after reading these copyright pages, I'm not sure if that's true. Could someone help out? Currently, on my userpage it says:
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              	
{|
Released into public domain                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   	
I agree to release my text and image contributions, unless otherwise stated, into the public domain, hereby releasing all rights. I actively encourage the use of it for any purpose. Please be aware that other contributors might not do the same, so if you want to use my contributions under public domain terms, please check the multi-licensing guide.	I agree to release my text and image contributions, unless otherwise stated, into the public domain, hereby releasing all rights. I actively encourage the use of it for any purpose. Please be aware that other contributors might not do the same, so if you want to use my contributions under public domain terms, please check the multi-licensing guide.
--Celestianpower hablamé 19:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. --Celestianpower hablamé 19:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting rid of my rights 

message: The copyright tag at :Image:Stephen hawking1.jpg states that it can be used for "identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents".  It's currently used in Stephen Hawking only.  Is that a problem? —Simetrical (talk) 05:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably just needs the addition of . I'd say there was a pretty strong fair use case for using it in the article on Hawking. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephen Hawking 

message: Wikipedia:Restricted image licenses is a proposal to accept a slightly more limited license for images, one which might be acceptable to many content creators/copyright owners who are not willing to release images under the GFDL. Your comments and views are welcome. DES (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Limited license for Images

message: Should probably have a  template at the top. Stevage 22:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggest template

message: Hello. 
I'm gathering source material for an article on the Murphy Oil Spill caused by Hurrican Katrina in Chalmette, La. 
A now defunct parish website hosts a graphic that was printed from yahoo maps; drawn on my Murphy Oil officials; given to parish government leaders; and then posted on their temporary website. 
Subsequent maps have been published; however this map differs greatly from the area published by the EPA. 
Can this be used on wikipedia? I believe it maybe fairuse; but I'm just not sure. 
http://stbernardparishgovernment.com//img/Photos/extentofspill090605.jpg
--Kunzite 17:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The fair use justification seems pretty straightforward: the map itself presumably figures in the story, especially if it differs from other maps. The trickiest thing will be to accurately describe the copyright status. Presumably the copyright on the underlying image belongs to Yahoo! and that of the drawing to Murphy Oil. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Katrina Copyright Question 

message: See The Turner Diaries, which contains links to online copies of the book in its entirety.  I've tried to remove those, but another user readded them.  Assuming there was no official release of the books into the public domain, who would own the copyright now (the author died in 2002)?  The author's next of kin?  Either way, don't you think the links need to be removed for the time being? —Simetrical (talk) 05:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Turner Diaries: public domain? 

message: Section "Soviet Union (pre-1973)" - completely erroneous.
1) May 27, 1973 - date of adoption the Geneva convention by USSR.
2) Before this - was some another cross-states agreements.
3) copyright status published in pre-1973 S.U. works is defined by local nowaday copyright laws (i.e. different in the different countries).
--Ru_magister 26 December 2005
I agree - pre-1973 = PD is a myth. --Historiograf 01:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet Union copyright 

message: Screenshots of a 1996 airphoto of northern British Columbia from a GIS layer of an online GIS application, from the provincial Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources are used in two articles: Chetwynd, British Columbia and Dawson Creek, British Columbia. The photos in question are: :Image:Chetwynd airphoto.png and :Image:Dawson Creek 1996.jpg. I posted these as . My place of employment (Peace River Regional District) has a license to use the layer which consists of ~200 airphotos georeferenced to the BCGS 1:20,000 map grid. We do as we please with them, give print outs away, publish them (government Board meeting agendas, reports), etc. Our restriction is that we never touch the data. We can give away print-outs of the airphotos, but not the data attached to the photos, or the layer in general. The layer in question is available to the public online here: http://webmap.em.gov.bc.ca/mapplace/minpot/min_titl.cfm. Anyways, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chetwynd, British Columbia, User:Kmf164 opposes the article based on belief that this is the incorrect tag for the photo but is requesting a second opinion. So the question: is  the correct tag for this image? If not, what tag is? --User:maclean25
:Whatever permission you or your employer has is unfortuantely irrelevant.  Only licenses or permissions applying to all third parties are valid here (except for fair use...). As best I can tell, there are none.  The associated copyright page says "This material is owned by the Government of British Columbia and protected by copyright law. It may not be reproduced or redistributed without the prior written permission of the Province of British Columbia."  I suggest you fill out their copyright request form.  However, be sure you are getting permission for anyone to redistribute the images.  The best way to do this is to get GFDL permission.  You may want to use a template letter. Superm401 - Talk 02:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Airphotos

message: I am korean user. I use kowiki more. In korea, fair-use idea is not exist. so, I think...why don't use we non-commercial image in kowiki?
question! kowiki user can't use non-commercial image? it is worldwide wiki project rule? korean can make a policy for allowing non-commercial image? in kowiki only?? -- WonYong 11:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: I have put a notice on the Village Pump (Assistance branch) but no one has reacted. Can any one explain User:Battlefield that he is bad informed concerning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:GermanGov ? --Historiograf 01:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, I'm unfamiliar with German law. Otherwise, I'd try to help. Superm401 - Talk 02:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HELP NEEDED 

message: See Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy/copyright#Please_recommend_the_best_tag - this subtalk page seems rather abandoned, maybe it's time to close it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please recommend the best tag 

message: Hello.  I belong to a site called FordEurope.net and we've started up a section on historical Fords sold in Europe.  For most of the vehicles listed, I've found Wikipedia articles that could prove useful alongside official Ford material.  In addition, if we at FordEurope.net (more specifically FordEurope.net's admin) post the articles, we'd most likely use the article in its entirety - text, photos, et. al - as well as a citation showing where it's from.  Is it possible, or do we need authorized permission to use the whole article?  -Daniel Blanchette 03:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All Wikipedia content is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.  In essence, you can feel free to copy the entire article, provided you link back to the original and note that it's licensed under the GFDL (with a link to that).  (Linking back to the original is required so that the list of contributors can be viewable.)  Of course, you're allowed to then modify the page however much you want, with your modifications themselves licensed under the GFDL, subject to certain conditions.  You can even use the page for commercial purposes.  I suggest you look at the text of the GFDL for the full story. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 09:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this is an older posting, but you do not need to link back to the original article.  I would recommend reading the full text of the GFDL for futher insight.  There is a requirement to maintain a source on the internet (for just one year) as one of the options instead of providing a CD-ROM on printed materials, but that is optional as well.  Listing contributors is a good idea, but all the GFDL requires is listing 4 or 5 authors, from whatever criteria you care to use (the GFDL is rather vague on this point).  I would suggest major contributors, but you can in theory list just about anybody who did add even a single word to the text, even anonymous users with just an IP address.  Linking back would be strongly suggested, but not legally required.  The whole debate over opaque vs. transpararent content is another matter, but HTML is generally considered a transparent data format, so as long as you maintain the content in HTML format, you are generally safe.  A PDF file is opaque for the terms of the GFDL, as a note, and invokes other sections for consideration. --Robert Horning 02:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on the use of Wikipedia material 

message: Yes, I know that these photos are PD in Canada but I think it is more relevant if these pictures are PD also in the US. Could a law expert please look at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yousuf_Karsh. Thanks --Historiograf 19:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karsh photos 

message: Please update Spanish interwiki to es:Wikipedia:Derechos de autor. Thanks.
* Done. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwikis 

message: Can I use templates from here on another wiki? --pevarnj (t/c) 13:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an unclear question. Are you asking whether it is technically possible to reference them from another Wiki, or whether you can copy their content or what? Wikipedia templates are under GFDL, just like the rest of Wikipedia. If your other Wiki is under a license compatible with GFDL, you can copy them. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  templates 

message: I often see on school pictures that the picture is copyrighted,am I supposed to belive that they spent 30 Dollars(US) on a copyright on each student's picutre.
Dudtz 1/13/06 10:09 PM EST
:Copyright is automatic once something is created. You don't have to register it with the Copyright Office for it to be covered by the legislation. Sarah Ewart 03:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  School Pictures 

message: I've got several files I want to upload from The Nutcracker ballet, for use in that article.
Now, Tchaikovsky, a Russian, finished composing the ballet in 1892, making the music itself public domain by this time. However, the music I want to use comes from a 1995 performance by the National Philharmonic Orchestra, recorded to CD.
The ideal situation here would be me uploading all the files, each of them full-length, at high quality, for use in the article. However, it seems as if I cannot do that because the performing orchestra/composer holds rights to this particular performance.
Can someone experienced with this sort of situation offer clarification?
–ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 20:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uploading the original score of the music would be alright. If you performed the music yourself, or the performer released their performance under a suitable license, this would be alright also. However the sound recording of the NPO is their interpretation of the music and is therefore their creative work (even though it is a derivitive of a public domain work), and so they can put whatever license on it they want (and it's almost certainly sold for personal use only and not for redistribution). Perhaps you can find someone to perform it for you under a suitable license. There's lots of musicians in the world. Matt 20:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd pretty much need a full professional orchestra for a decent performance...I guess I'll try to crop the files and reduce the quality, to comply with fair-use requirements. Thanks for your help, though. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 22:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry I don't have any cites, see my comment below. Matt 05:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: My information came generally from Wikipedia:Fair_use#Audio_clips and Template:Music_sample. I don't remember the exact location where I read of the performers having rights to the pieces, but it was also on Wikipedia. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 01:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure thst it is. a human performance contains subtle differences between any two performes, even whrn the exact same notes are hit. a Midi file that mechanically uses a standard interpretation of the notation of a piece of PD music might not fit the same logic -- but it probably does fit the same code section at the moment. Laws are often behind technology. But if there is a copyright in the recording of suvch a midifile, it quite probably would not prevent anyoen else from constructign a different recording by the same means. DES (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that some people here think that an orchestra simply creates a mechanical reproduction of a piece of music. There is more than subtle differences between any two performances, creative decisions of what instruments and how many of each for each part of the music, variations in volume and tempo of the various parts, all these things and more will make the difference between a performance that is brilliant and one that is "uninspired". To the same degree that each of the 3000+ recordings of Yesterday (song) are different, so to would each performance of any classical work. So I think that the best solution is to find or create free versions of the music. I see from Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky we do have some of his works available, perhaps finding out who contributed them might be useful. I did some googling, looking for some nutcracker midis that were clearly free license and found these sites    The last link doesn't have license info but provides the emails of the people who sequenced them, they might be willing to make their files free. I think that midi is not considered an acceptable format for wikipedia (though I'm not certain on this, something to do with patents). The midis should be converted to oggs. I expect you could find someone who could do this. Matt 05:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Separate human performances of the same piece are different, and so too are separate MIDI compilations of the same piece.  Both involve exactly the same decisions, just the one requires them to be made in real-time and the other is more precise.There are no legal problems with Wikipedia distributing even MP3 (which is patented), never mind MIDI (which is a free industry standard).  It's mainly, as far as I can tell, that the Wikimedia Foundation wants to promote open alternatives to MP3 such as OGG, since theoretically you could be required to pay for an MP3 decoder and Wikimedia wants all content to be as free as possible.  MIDI is fine, I would assume, since it's an open format. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope my above statements didn't imply that midis weren't copyrightable. Anyway, there is an interesting proposal at m:Music markup for including a method of marking up music score on wp. It seems to have died (or gone dormant), despite the fact that everyone agrees that it's a good idea, no one knows how to make it happen. Part of that page is discussing whether midi is an open format (i.e. patent free) and no one seems to know for sure. Note that wikipedia:media doesn't mention MIDI files either way, I guess it's an oversight, I'll also look at the commons and see what comments are there. Matt 03:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: yes, I see that they have midis there e.g. commons:Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart Matt 04:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on audio copyrights 

message: According to the page, instead of including a link, "Alternatively you can distribute your copy of "Metasyntactic variable" along with a copy of the GFDL (as explained in the text) and list at least five (or all if fewer than five) principal authors on the title page (or top of the document). The external Page History Stats tool can help you identify the principal authors."
Is it really legal for them not to include only 5 authors and no link.  Point I says they must perserve the history section which includes all authors (the 5 authors are only for the "Title page").  Point J of the GFDL for Modified Versions says "Preserve the network location, if any, given in the Document for public access to a Transparent copy of the Document."  That seems pretty clearly to be our edit page.  I wish we hadn't used the GFDL.  It's a respectable licnese, but totally wrong for an online encyclopedia.  Superm401 | Talk 16:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Link 

message: Can the image :Image:Chetwynd airphoto.png be used as "fair use" in the Chetwynd, British Columbia article? --maclean25 19:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: imo, no. In this case, I think, is that I don't think the image adds that much to the article. The article seems very well done, it might benefit from a better map, but I don't think that this black and white low resolution image improves the article all that much. Also, and probably more importantly, the article doesn't talk about the image. In an article on the British Columbia Ministry of Energy, in a section that describes their GIS database or their involvement in generating GIS data, this image might serve as an example of the material that they generate and publish. But this article is about the town and you're using the MoE image as an arial shot of the town. Finally, although it would be difficult/expensive, one could produce their own arial photo of the town to release under a free license. So it's at best an iffy fair use image that doesn't add a lot to the article, I'd suggest you drop it. Also I see you've tagged it as free use which isn't the correct tag for this image (unless the MoE did release the image for any purpose in which case fair use arguments are irrelivant). I've changed it to fair use, but if you plan to keep it, then it would be good to use the Non-free fair use in template and provide rationale.Matt 03:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Airphotos

message: Also a shortcut, pls. add it to the page.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 07:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added. Never would have found out about it without administrator's noticeboard. ;-) — Ambush Commander(Talk) 04:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:C 

message: This page says:
Contributors' rights and obligations
If you contribute material to Wikipedia, you thereby license it to the public under the GFDL (with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#Other_considerations_for_photographers says:
On Wikipedia, images licensed under incompatible but similar copyleft licenses (like ) are allowed, as they can be incorporated into articles at will (as the actual GFDLed text just has a pointer to the image) and the only thing that can't be done is using parts of both images to create a new image (as derivatives must be under the same license).
I think the latter is more accurate, as if you contribute an image it doesn't have to be GFDL, just appropriately copyleft. So I think the word material should be amended to text.
--pfctdayelise 02:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Physchim62 (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images not GFDL 

message: The page should be changed to recommend that the site host its own copy of the GFDL.  I think this better reflects the GFDL's request that "that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies."  I don't feel it's a reproduction if one merely links to the GNU copy, and I don't think doing it correctly should be an unreasonable hardship. Superm401 - Talk 22:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommend on-site link to GFDL 

message: The article currently says the following:
:Althought there has been no treaty between Iran and the United States regarding copyright protection, according to Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia contributors should respect Iranian copyright law as best they can, the same as they do for other countries around the world. 
The trouble is, we don't respect other countries' copyrights, if the images are considered PD in the U.S. Mexico, for instance, respects the copyright on images created before 1923, so long as the author was still alive 100 years ago. So if a Mexican man took a photo in 1850, and was still alive in 1906, Mexico would consider the image copyrighted, but of course the U.S. would not. Because of this, there are scads of images used in Wikipedia and tagged  (or even ) that are considered copyrighted in Mexico. The same is true of other countries; nearly every country except Canada has longer copyright terms than the U.S. Shouldn't be be consistent here? Either pre-1923 images (considered PD in the U.S.) should not be used on Wikipedia if another country considers them copyrighted -- which would lead to many, many image deletions -- or we should stick to what is considered copyrighted in the U.S -- in which case Iranian works are not copyrighted.
Jimbo, in his link, brings up the fact that the German Wikipedia does not allow fair use images, while the English Wikipedia does; but I think this proves my point. The Persian Wikipedia should of course not allow works that Iran thinks are copyrighted, but I think the English Wiki should, so long as those images improve Wikipedia articles.
(This isn't just true of Iran, by the way. This is also true of Bhutan, Ethiopia, Nepal, San Marino, Yemen, Afghanistan (before 2002), Iraq (before 2004), and the Soviet Union while it existed. See Wikipedia:Copyright situations by country for more.)
I'd really welcome comments here -- this is an area I see as inconsistant, and I'd like to see it addressed if possible. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 23:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree.  The only meaningful thing is whether or not the content is legal for redistribution in the United States.  Superm401 - Talk 01:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I had always assumed that Jimbo's comment was about images published post-1923. Of course U.S. law takes precedence, and I think there is a strong consensus on the English Wikipedia (less strong on the commons) that for pre-1923 images, we just go by the U.S. law and thus consider them PD. The copyright situation for post-1923 images is complicated (see WP:PD), and it gets even worse when international aspects are considered. I understood Jimbo's comment to mean "for Iranian post-1923 images, apply the rules as if Iran was a WIPO member, even though it isn't". I think this is sound advice, as it also helps minimize future problems. Of course, if you want to truly clarify this, ask Jimbo himself. Lupo 09:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could treat Iran as if she were WIPO member, even though she is not, but I'm not sure why we would want to. After all, we could treat the Soviet Union and Poland as if they had been WIPO members, but we don't: see  and . In my mind, there is no difference between :Image:1905 Advert in Le Rire for aberrant and deviant sex.jpg (published first in France in 1905, and considered copyrighted in France but PD in the US), and :Image:Jalaseh Majles.jpg (published first in Iran in perhaps 1998, and considered copyrighted in Iran but PD in the US). In both cases, these images would restrict distribution of the English language Wikipedia in those other countries - but why would we distribute the English version in France and Iran? They would presumably rather read the French or Persian Wikipedias. So why the double-standard? I say we either respect every country's copyright -- which would be prohibitively difficult -- or we go by the U.S. copyright. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For Iran, the whole thing is most likely a non-issue. According to , the copyright on photographs and movies expires 30 years after publication in Iran. Thus, this would only concern images published post-1976. (Well, post-1965 if we assume that anything PD in a foreign country by Jan 1, 1996 was PD in the US also because not eligible for copyright restauration under the URAA.) And the URAA means that we have to consider foreign copyright law anyway when dealing with material first published 1923 or later in countries other than the U.S. There is no double standard there, it's just that Jimbo extends reciprocal protection enjoyed by WIPO countries also to Iran (and by extension, to other non-members of WIPO). PD-Poland is about a case in Polish copyright law which makes images published prior to May 23, 1994 without copyright notice PD in Poland. Nothing to do with international treaties, so no double standard. About PD-USSR, I would have to check the talk page (no time right now). If indeed the wording is correct, one could ask Jimbo about the "double standard". Lupo 17:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jimbo could mandate that Wikipedia treat non-WIPO countries as if they were WIPO countries, but (a) I'm not sure why this is beneficial, and (b) I don't think that's what he said. Looking at Jimbo's statement, he said "we should generally respect Iranian copyright law as best we can, the same as we do for other countries around the world". This is a tricky statement, for reasons I mentioned above. I think we can all agree on the following points:
# It would not be illegal to show images copyrighted in Iran on the English Wikipedia, because that copyright is not enforced in any English-speaking country.
# Wikipedia often has policies against things that are legal, so if it's Wikipedia's policy not to use images copyrighted in Iran, then we shouldn't, no matter what the law says.
# On the English Wikipedia, we often display images that are copyrighted in their country of origin, but are considered public domain in the U.S.
# Jimbo is right in saying "As always, we have to balance various factors in thoughtful ways.  Simply saying 'Well, this is legal under US law, so let's do it' is not a very compelling argument."
# But on the other hand, simply saying "Well, this is illegal under Iranian law, so let's not do it" is not a very compelling argument either. Pictures of women in shorts would also be questionable if that were the case.
# There seems to be some confusion about what Jimbo meant by "we should generally respect Iranian copyright law as best we can, the same as we do for other countries around the world." See point 3. It would help if he clarified.
So I'm going to leave a message on Jimbo's talk page, and hopefully he'll comment. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 12:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Jimbo is trying to reconcile "Wikipedia does not encourage the violation of any laws" (from the general disclaimer) with the rather more complicated task of creating an online encyclopedia. We certainly use material in violation of copyright: I for one risk three years imprisonment every time I view a fair use image. My own view is that, in cases where we choose to use an image which is still under copyright in a non-US jurisdiction, we should mention the copyright on the image description page. Physchim62 (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I see that Jimbo hasn't answered yet. I wrote above that I considered it sound advice to treat Iran as if it were a WIPO member. Let me explain why. Take the image Quadell mentioned, :Image:Jalaseh Majles.jpg, published ca. 1998. It is currently not copyrighted in the U.S. due to a lack of copyright treaties between Iran and the U.S. There are no bilateral treaties, and Iran is not a member of international copyright conventions. Photographs are copyrighted in Iran for 30 years after publication according to . Now assume that Iran joins the Berne Convention in 2010. What happens? Very simple: as the image is still copyrighted in Iran in 2010, it suddenly becomes copyrighted in the U.S., too! And Wikipedia has one more image incorretly tagged as PD... Lupo 07:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. I can't see Iran joining in a copyright treaty with the U.S. in four years, but I see your point. I'm not sure Jimbo will answer -- maybe I'll try e-mailing him. He's a busy guy. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 16:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyrighted in Iran 

message: How can this be explained? The original text is from 1903, and it was digitized as a plain html text (as well as a pdf and probably other variants) by a Polish university project. The page clearly states (in Polish) that original text is unchanged and there are no addition. Does process of digitalization bestows some form of copyright on the digitalizating party? If the material is in PD, then we could use it on Polish wiki or translate into en Wiki.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 06:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Under United States copyright law, it's public-domain.  Digitization confers no copyright.  I don't know about Polish law, however, so you might want to be careful about using it on the Polish wiki. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1903 text still copyrighted?

message: I'm attempting a re-write of the Copyrights page to be better organized and more user-friendly. My draft is here. Feel free to comment at the talk page. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 18:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-write 

message: I have hidden the lyrics to One-Winged Angel (edit it to see the lyrics). It is a composition of various lyrics from Carmina Burana, a work beyond copyright law. My question is whether the lyrics can be used, or is it copyrighted, regardless of the copy-and-paste job? ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 01:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the lyrics were written well before 1923, they are in the public doman. They are not copyrighted, and can be used. However Wikisource may be the most appropriate place to put them. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 03:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Song lyrics

message: Why did this article suddenly schism into three articles? Yes, be bold, but that's a bit excessive. There wasn't even a template for discussion. Stevage 19:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure you aren't confusing this policy with that draft version of a rewrite? Otherwise, I just don't understand what you're talking about. Lupo 20:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Copyright violations and Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia material (and of course this article itself). Was there any discussion of this anywhere? Stevage 21:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is now - what do you think? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 21:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the reusing Wikipedia material is justified, as it's not really a copyright issue. I think the other two should be remerged - copyright violations is very clearly a subtopic of copyright. Stevage 22:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Split

message: Just a minor thing - being a lowly non-admin I am unable to change the page myself.
On the main page (Wikipedia:Copyrights), under "Russian - copyright exemptions", there is a link to en.wikisource.org/wiki/Закон об авторском праве и смежных правах - this page does not exist. ru.wikisource.org/wiki/Закон об авторском праве и смежных правах does, however, if only as a redirect. This may not be the most appropriate page to link to (being in Russian, not English) - there may be a translation of this law elsewhere on the web. I didn't take the time to read the whole of the PD-USSR discussion above, but perhaps one of the links in there would work best. Darobsta 09:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made the change you suggested.  Thanks. Superm401 - Talk 20:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that the original Russian of the Russian copyright law from 1993? Actually, I'd be far more interested in the other law/decree from 2004 linked at that Russian page. Anyone have that, either in Russian or (preferrably) in English? Lupo 09:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Self-correction: It's the 1993 law with the 2004 changes incorporated. Lupo 10:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: In fact, I found it in Russian here. Lupo 09:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's basically the Russian equivalent of the U.S. CTEA. It extends the copyright term in Russia from 50 years p.m.a. to 70 years p.m.a. (or for corporate authorship: 70 years since publication or, if unpublished 70 years since creation) of a work. This extension applies only to works not yet in the public domain when that decree was published on July 28, 2004. However, that doesn't give us July 28, 1954: §27(6) of the Russian copyright law of 1993, which is untouched by that decree, states that copyrights expire at the end of the year. Thus works whose author died between January 1, 1954 and July 27, 1954 were still copyrighted on July 28, 2004 (under the 1993 law, their copyright would have expired on December 31, 2004), and thus are subject to this copyright extension. Therefore, the correct date would be January 1, 1954. A correct phrasing of  would thus state that works of authors who died before January 1, 1954 would be in the public domain in Russia. Whether they would be in the public domain in other successor states of the USSR, I do not know. There may also be other cases that make certain works in the public domain; see Ajvol's post above: it appears one needs to consider quite a few cases and even historical changes of law. Lupo 10:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Russian Wikisource 

message: The user who uploaded this picture asked me if the current tagging was ok (after I alerted him about it's previous missing tagging), and frankly I don't know. The image in question is :Image:Canmilhist.jpg wich is a crop of a Canadian propaganda poster from WWII. He tagged it as , wich at first glance looks ok, but then I read the tag again and I'm wondering it it applies. First of all it's not a photograph, secondly the tag says that it only apply to stuff that is not subject to [Canadian] Crown copyright. As I understand it Crown copyright is used for work of the government, wich I would asume a propaganda poster would be. So, can  be applied to WWII propaganda meterial, or are such posters still protected by Canadian Crown copyright meaning we would have to invole fair use to use it? --Sherool (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Canadian Crown copyright expires 50 years after the first publication of a work, so the poster is clearly in the public domain in Canada. The interesting question is whether it would also be in the public domain elsewhere. I think that any Canadian work where the Canadian Crown copyright expired before January 1, 1996 is also in the public domain in the U.S. (See WP:PD for an explanation of that date.) Thus any work subject to Canadian Crown copyright published prior to January 1, 1946 can be considered in the public domain in the U.S. The European Union applies the "rule of the shorter term" to foreign works (again, see WP:PD), so any Canadian work subject to Canadian Crown copyright published more than 50 years ago (currently, that means published prior to January 1, 1956) would be in the public domain in the EU. Likewise for Japan, which also applies that rule of the shorter term. I don't know the situation in Australia or NZ. Maybe we should have a new tag "PD-CanadaGov" for such works, or you could tag it as  and give the reasons I outlined here. Lupo 07:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aah, the intricacies of international copyright laws. Kinda silly how something that be considered public domain by the host country but not nessesarily elsewhere... Maybe  would apply, but I guess that's not a given either. Anyway thanks for the help, I sobbled togeter a PD-because tag for the image in question for now. Would be nice if anyone could check it (:Image:Canmilhist.jpg) to make sure I got it right. --Sherool (talk) 10:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Surely the Canadian government is effectively stating that it allows free use of the image by declaring it free of copyright within its own laws.  Technically that might not stop it from suing under U.S. law, but at this point I think it's safe to assume the image is free and avoid copyright paranoia. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some minor rephrasing, but I notice that this image does not have a source. "From warmuseum site" is not good enough. The URL should be given as the immediate source, and if they state where they got it from, also mention it. Maybe they even give a year for the poster. Lupo 15:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If the publisher (Canada) thinks it's in the public domain, then it's PD everywhere, no matter about "international copyright". It's basically the same as if officers of the government were to go around and add  tags to all 50-year+ images - who has standing to tell them they can't do that? Stan 22:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stan, that is wrong. If the Canadian government told us that they consider Canadian Crown copyright expiry to apply world-wide (as the UK did), then the above might be all right. Such a statement would be the same as "officers of the government were to go around and add  tags". But absent any such statement from the Canadian government, even governmental works can remain copyrighted outside their country of origin even if their local copyright has expired. Please read WP:PD. Lupo 08:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi, I posted the image in question, the poster is off http://www.civilization.ca/cwm/propaganda/collection_e.html   (then search for wartime recruting posters, the search seems to be down at this time...). Mike McGregor (Can) 23:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian PD and Crown copyright stuff 

message: I've changed the page to semi-protected status. Sure, it contains legal information, but Wikipedia:Copyrights is just like any other (unprotected) policy pages. However, I did add an HTML comment stating that the actual texts of licenses should not be changed. I do believe that pages like Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License should remain fully protected, though. --Ixfd64 11:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  page protection 

message: I wish to use a Wikipedia article on my website. I'm sorry, but I really don't understand the article at all. Could we have a simpler version or something because I don't understand exactly what I have to do to put the article on my site. Please help. This unsigned comment is by Bouncing Rat.
:You can put an article from Wikipedia on your own site whenever you want. An example of people doing this is Answer.com, which often uses Wikipedia articles to form it's results. If you look at Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License (all Wikipedia articles are released under the GNU license), you will see under the first section that: "to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially". You should however put a notice on your site explaining where the content has come from. Hope that helps. The Neokid - Wikihalo Guiding Director talk 18:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides attributing the authors, the GFDL also requires that you make the text of the GFDL available together with the article you want to put on your website. Attributing the authors is done simplest by stating (with a link to the live Wikipedia-version of the article) where the article came from. Lupo 19:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Depends. What article are you talking about? Where in the world are you located? "Fair use" may or may not apply in the country where you are, and beware of mis-tagged images. What is PD in the U.S. may not be PD somewhere else. Check the licenses of the images to figure out how to use them. In no case attempt to serve them directly from our upload server: that's commonly called "bandwidth theft", and your site will just be denied access to our upload server as a consequence. Care to also give the URL of the web page where you put your copy of the article up? Lupo 11:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: See also Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia material. Lupo 11:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: All right. And which article? BTW, you can sign your messages to talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); the software will replace that by your name Bouncing Rat and a timestamp. Lupo 11:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: In that case, I can't help you further. I've just looked through the images in Harry Potter (character): they're all copyrighted publicity photographs, screen captures, or movie stills and are being used on Wikipedia under the provisions of U.S. fair use. I do not know whether you could use them on your personal web site under the UK fair dealing provisions. I also note that :Image:Nimbus2000.jpg doesn't have a source and thus technically isn't even a correct fair use on Wikipedia itself! If you should decide to use images, make sure they are available off your server, and that they are clearly described on your server: where they come from originally, and what their copyright/licensing status is. Lupo 08:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Good question. I don't think redirects are a problem as the history is still there. Deleted articles, on the other hand... I just don't know. How frequent is this case? Admins providing the list of authors upon request is certainly one solution, or maybe the history of deleted articles could be made accessible again for everyone (just the history, minus edit comments and without links to the deleted versions: only edit times and authors). Lupo 13:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no precedence, I concede that it's - for now! - a more theoretical question. Thanks for the quick answer the Germans haven't answered yet ( I think they suppose that I should know the answer myself ...) --Historiograf 17:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  May I add something offtopic: Please sign the petition for PUBLIC GEODATA http://petition.publicgeodata.org/ --Historiograf 23:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Understanding 

message: If an article is on the same place it's no problem to put a link on the Wikipedia or the history containing the names of the authors. But what if the article is redirected or deleted? If one will continue using the article according to the GFDL - will Wikipedia's admins provide him the names of the contributors he needs or should we write a warning for this case in our policy? --Historiograf 23:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. I don't think redirects are a problem as the history is still there. Deleted articles, on the other hand... I just don't know. How frequent is this case? Admins providing the list of authors upon request is certainly one solution, or maybe the history of deleted articles could be made accessible again for everyone (just the history, minus edit comments and without links to the deleted versions: only edit times and authors). Lupo 13:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no precedence, I concede that it's - for now! - a more theoretical question. Thanks for the quick answer the Germans haven't answered yet ( I think they suppose that I should know the answer myself ...) --Historiograf 17:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  May I add something offtopic: Please sign the petition for PUBLIC GEODATA http://petition.publicgeodata.org/ --Historiograf 23:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reusing Wikipedia material 

message: Please see my proposal and rationale for creating a new version of the  image template that does not include the troublesome "Subject to disclaimers" line.  Dragons flight 18:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to remove disclaimers from Template:GFDL  

message: :This following section, including the title, was moved from the policy page by Lupo 13:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: End of copied section. Lupo
That just means that you can use them under the fair use doctrine where such fair use applies. You don't even need to ask them for that. Lupo 13:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Is the link to the magazine even legally required?  I don't think so, but I'd like to get another opinion on this matter.  --Robert Horning 02:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it isn't. Just proper attribution is required. However, Wikipedia has the policy that every image must have a source, and therefore any image taken from elsewhere on the web should have the URL where it was taken from. Lupo 07:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time Magazine 

message: We asked Time Magazine if it was okay for Wiki to use the cover photos. Here's the answer: 
*Subject: RE: AskArchivist Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:51:30 -0500 From: Bonnie_Kroll at timeinc.com Thanks for submitting your question to Ask the Archivist. Fair use doctrine allows you to use a reasonable text excerpt with a link back to the entire article at time.com. You may also use a thumbnail of our cover images, as long as you link back to a page on time.com. Best regards, Bonnie Kroll Ask the Archivist  http://www.timearchives.com    Rjensen 12:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: End of copied section. Lupo
That just means that you can use them under the fair use doctrine where such fair use applies. You don't even need to ask them for that. Lupo 13:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Is the link to the magazine even legally required?  I don't think so, but I'd like to get another opinion on this matter.  --Robert Horning 02:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it isn't. Just proper attribution is required. However, Wikipedia has the policy that every image must have a source, and therefore any image taken from elsewhere on the web should have the URL where it was taken from. Lupo 07:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Permission received from TIME MAGAZINE: cover & texts

message: from: Chronicle of Higher Education 2-23-2006  
"A fact sheet on fair use published by the U.S. Copyright Office does not say that fair use is limited to a set number of words. It says fair use of a work is permitted for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair-use guidelines published by the office... say that 1,000 words or 10 percent of a work of prose, whichever is less, can be republished. 
But at least two publishers, Blackwell Publishing and Elsevier, advise authors and editors seeking to make fair use of a book to republish no more than 400 words." 
Rjensen 22:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you should ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use. Here's my answer: there is no hard and fast limit beyond which a certain use no longer is fair. Maybe a good rule of thumb for  text quotations (just about the only case where text fair use can occur on Wikipedia—remember that our text is licensed under the GFDL) is that they must not outweigh our own text in any article. In other words: minimize the use of quotations. And of course, any quotation must be properly attributed (author, publication, date, if possible link). Lupo 07:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Those 10%-is-ok guidelines came from Copyright office publication:  page 8. Publishers and educators came up with safe harbor guidelines, that have been very widely accepted by publishers and educators:   "Publishers and the academic community have established a set of educational fair use guidelines to provide "greater certainty and protection " for teachers. While the guidelines are not part of the federal Copyright Act, they are recognized by the Copyright Office and by judges as minimum standards for fair use in education. A teacher or pupil following the guidelines can feel comfortable that a use falling within these guidelines is a permissible fair use and not an infringement. Many judges look to these guidelines when making related fair use determinations. The educational use guidelines can be found in Circular 21, provided by the Copyright Office (lcWeb.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ21.pdf )" from  Rjensen 10:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As made clear by the Stanford discussion you cite, Wikipedia is not in fact an educational use within the meaning of Circular 21.  Those guidelines are limited to fair use in the context of research or a specific course of instruction, and would not generally apply to the construction of an encyclopedia with open ended goals.  However much of the discussion is relevant, and so does point at the appropriate factors to consider.  Dragons flight 12:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those guidelines were indeed designed for schools--and of course are pre-internet.  But they show what publishers are willing to agree is "fair use."  Wiki qualifies as an educational institution: specifically the Internal Revenue Service has granted it 501c3 status as "B60—Adult, Continuing Education" --we are a "non-profit organization with the goal of providing free knowledge to every person in the world." Rjensen 13:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a key difference however, an educational service in the context of Circ 21 will generally be limited to a particular institution and so have only a limited opportunity to compete in the same marketplace as the original work. By contrast, because Wikipedia is free and global, there will be instances where Wikipedia can effectively replace the original work across much of the marketplace. Regardless of other factors, if the material being copied can result in significant economic losses to the original, then the use will almost never qualify as fair. This won't be a problem with all (or even most) fair use claims, but at the same time we shouldn't mistake our non-profit status as blanket protection for copying chunks of materials irregardless of the consequences to the original publisher. Dragons flight 13:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree--I think it would be wrong of Wiki to significantly reduce the market value of a book or publication by putting its saleable parts online.  I have never anything come remotely close on Wiki. Rjensen 13:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stick around long enough and you will.  I have modified or deleted a couple dozen pages for this reason.  For example, The 100 used to reproduce the author's entire list of the top 100 figures in history, which is of course a significant part of the reason that one buys the book, even if it is a relatively small portion of the text.  Dragons flight 14:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I would suggest that any Wikipedia article quoting even as little as 400 words from a single source was seriously flawed and out to be rewritten. Rmhermen 21:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many words = fair use? guidelines 

message: Someone may want to include a section on the most recent situation regarding Mexican copyright law:
*Prior to July 23, 2003, all works published had copyright protection of life of author + 75 years. In case of multiple authorship, the 75 years begin with the death of the last surviving author. Works published by any branch of the Mexican government had copyright protection of 75 years from the date of publication.
*All works published after July 23, 2003, have copyright protection of life of author + 100 years. The same provision for multiple authorship remains. Works published by any branch of the Mexican government had copyright protection of 100 years from the date of publication.
See relevant articles, 29 and 46, of the "Ley Federal de los Derechos de Autor". I have also received legal advise from the government institute in charge of the copyright business (basically re-stating what I wrote above). It's available upon request to whomever wants to see it, however it's in Spanish.
Hopefully this should clear any misunderstandings I've seen around, especially regarding works by the Mexican government. These are not in the public domain unless explicitly stated (as is currently  the case with some images released by the Office of the President through a specific website). I'll post this info in the relevant project pages as well. Regards. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 22:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mexican copyrights 

message: I am considering printing paper copies of some Wikipedia articles.
I have been reading for hours trying to work out what is involved in complying with the GFDL 
but it still isn't clear to me.
I am planning to include a text at the start saying "these articles come from wikipedia and are licensed under the GFDL..." and will include a copy of the GFDL at the back. I will also provide links to the original articles at wikipedia.org Is that enough? Do I need to name the authors of each article? If so how do I get the list of authors?
I have used the wikipedia export feature to get the article text. Is there a similar machanisim to get the authors or do I have to used screen scraping on the history page- I can't believe this is the case but I haven't found an alternative. I have also seen a mention of citing Wikipedia as the author. Is that sufficient? Thanks -User:ThomasRynne
:Does Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia material help? Note that citing a wikipedia article is not quite the same as attributing authors when you distribute a copy under the GFDL. Lupo 09:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. I've just skimmed through the text of the GFDL, and unless I'm mistaken, it requires listing the five principal authors only if you distribute a modified version (together with the authors responsible for the modification). But you seem to want to publish verbatim copies, so sections 2 and 3 are applicable, but not section 4. Maybe Wikipedia:Verbatim copying could help, and if not, I suggest you send an e-mail to User:Jimbo Wales, he should know or forward it to someone who knows. Once you know what to do, it would be great if you explained it here or clarified the relevant Wiki pages. Lupo 08:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paper copies 

message: Somebody cut and pasted 2 lists (that make up the core of the article) from other websites.  I read the page on fair use, but couldn't find anything specific on including lists or chunks of text from copyrighted sources.  Therefore, would somebody who is knowledgeabe about copyrights please tak a look at this article?  Thank you.  --Go for it! 14:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really acceptable to just paste lists, even if you link back.  Arguably the "overcoming procrastination" thing may have been minor enough to be okay, at least if reworded, but then again maybe not.  Better for contributors to write their own stuff.  I've removed the sections. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request you take a look at [[Procrastination]] 

message: I want to use a photograph of a painting that was made before 1923 on Wikipedia. The painting was created in 1579 and is on the UK's National Portrait Gallery website . I understand that in the US, photographs of 2-d artwork contain no creative content so can be used in Wikipedia as long as the original painting predates 1923. But is this the case in the UK? The UK's National Gallery (not Portrait Gallery) is listed on Wikipedia:Public_domain_image_resources#Visual_arts as a site in which "All other copyright notices can safely be ignored". Thanks Andeggs 22:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is treated as the same application of the Bridgeman decision. So yes, it is ok. Rmhermen 23:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Or, to clarify: Wikimedia is based in the US and doesn't really care what UK law is.  The Bridgeman v. Corel decision did suggest that the law would probably be the same in the UK, though. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photographs of artwork in the UK 

message: I'd like to make use of some of the following icons for a menu on a page in the Wikipedia namespace, but I need to track down information on the legalities of doing so before I proceed.  What do you know of the licenses, copyrights, and trademark rights to these icons?
 - a link is included on this page to a crude translation of the author's permission.  Though it's hard to tell, because the translation is pretty rough.
:Image:Finder icon.png
:Image:Pages icon.png
:Image:Apple Dictionary Icon.png
:Image:ICal Icon.png
:Image:IPhoto Icon.png
:Image:Apple iDisk Icon.png
:Image:ISync icon.png
Though it appears that these icons are from a trademarked program.  So I'm still not sure if they can be displayed as menu items for a page.  Any help you could provide in tracking down the information clarifying to what uses we can legally put these icons to would be most appreciated. --Go for it! 13:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The icons appear to be copyrighted, if I'm not mistaken.  As such, you will need permission from Apple to freely use, modify, and sell them if you want to use them for anything more than fair use (which would not include using them as icons for menus).  The trademark issues aren't relevant provided you make it clear that Wikipedia is not affiliated with Apple or its products.  But as for the copyright, until someone provides definitive evidence that they're GFDL-compatible, they're presumptively unusable. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can these be used in the Wikipedia: namespace? 

message: After trying to explain basic copyright stuff to a number of users and tagging thousands of mistaged images I was inspired to write this. Basicaly I would like it to be a non-intimidating bare bones, easy to read primer to copyright issues that sum up all the relevant stuff without getting too "heavy". Some help mercilesly fine tuning it would be greatly apreciated. Hopefully we can make it good enough to be worth linking to from the upload page or as part of the welcome template or something like that. --Sherool (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My attempt to write a "easy" copyright primer 

message: I've added source information for this image, tracked down from the original paper. THe paper was published in 1929 in a German academic psychiatry journal, and this image is a segment from one of the figures from that paper. Now, this is just a line drawing of a segment of an image... so I'm not sure the copyright restrictions. The tag used is for author dead 70+ years, but the authore died in 1941 according to his wikipedia article. Anyone have any insight into this matter? Semiconscious • talk 06:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is debatable, but I would tag this . After all, it's not creative content; it was made by a machine, not as art. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 12:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, it's almost certainly . —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Image:1st-eeg.gif]]

message: I'm not sure with this one but it seems to be almost a verbatum copy off the catholic encyclopedia posted at [].  According to the Catholic Encyclopedia article that site was created using the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia (which is no longer copyright protected) but I believe this site's content would be.  I have not yet tagged the article for speedy deletion (it was created last night) as I'm not sure as to whether it really does violate copyrights.  --Mmounties (Talk)   13:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[History of Saxony]] 

message: BBC News Link to Story
Now, while this may not even be passed in Connecticut and may never be passed in Florida where the Wikipedia servers are located, am I correct in assuming that a similar law in Florida would prohibit all fair use images of living or recently deceased persons used in articles on Wikipedia? That would be... a problem. —Cuiviénen,  Sunday, 26 March 2006 @ 02:47 (UTC)
:It depends on the exact provisions of the law.  I suspect that critical review and commentary would apply on a constitutional basis under freedom of speech, at least under certain circumstances, but I'm not sure whether Wikipedia wants to be on the cutting edge of case law here.  If this passes, we'll have to ask the Wikimedia legal team. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radical Change in Fair Use 

message: Could someone who knows about this copyright stuff comment on Talk:Our Gang#Copyright as it's starting to escalate. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk:Our Gang