Wikipedia talk:Media copyright questions/Archive 1

1

Well, I think this page has a shocker name, but it's a bit late now. Just a small reminder to please direct users with freely licensed images to the Commons:. Wikipedia:Commons contains some useful information about how image policy and handling between here and there differs. pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree on the name too :-p, but hey, I didn't make the page. And we do remind people about Commons: :) --Admrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 16:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I made the page, based on a discussion elsewhere, but I'm not really sure I like the name either, it's not necessarily too late to change it though, just a few templates etc. What are some ideas for a better name? I don't like the word legality because it might imply actual legal advice which we certainly aren't giving. Anyway, if people come up with a good name I don't think it's that hard to change. - cohesion^t 18:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright questions? Are you restricting to images only? Media copyright questions? Just copyright questions? pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

We would handle other media also, not just images, so media in the name is probably a good idea. - cohesion^t 05:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll give it a few more days for responses, then change it to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, unless another idea comes up :) - cohesion^t 17:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Media can now be undeleted

Just to let everyone know that works on this page. See [1]. It only affects media deleted after the change, which is about 4:30 UTC 16 June. Yipee! - cohesion 05:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

Does anyone object to User:EssjayBot II archiving this page? Say discussions over a week old, every week. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes please, reply also on talk page. - cohesion 07:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Anton Corbijn- how to tag?

I have shrunk and reloaded one of his images. Then I got a message from ophanbot. Do we attribute his images some way other than fairuse?

Thanks,  :) Dlohcierekim 12:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Category?

This page badly needs a category. Does anyone know the appropriate category for this page? --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. This page is now under the category Wikipedia copyright. ^F_L(some restrictions apply) 22:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

How to delete images?

I can't seem to find an article detailing how to delete an image. Let's say I uploaded an image in error and I have no intention of replacing it, how would I go about eliminating said image?

Or is it automatic?

There are three main methods of deleting an image.

1. Become an administrator.
2. Beg an administrator to do it for you.
3. Place a speedy-deletion tag on the image - I recomend the {{Db-noncom}} tag.

Jecowa 04:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Thanks :) --Jecrell 06:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Building a flow chart to aid the process for new users

I'm currently building a prototype flowchart at User:Megapixie/CopyrightFlowChart in an attempt to reduce the number of "I have no idea" beginner questions. Feel free to tweak - but if you want to make any major changes please let me know at User talk:Megapixie/CopyrightFlowChart. Megapixie 04:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Good luck. I tried to make one once, but got bogged down trying to build a series of questions that would let anyone distinguish between a free-license image found on a website, a fair-use image found on a website, and an unusable image found on a website. --Carnildo 05:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Do I know for sure that the copyright to this image belongs to the website's operators? If no, unusable. If yes, does the website specify licensing terms that allow for commercial and derivative use? If yes, free license. If no, do I need to talk about this particular image for an article? If no, unusable. If yes, check the current conditions at Wikipedia:Fair use. Jkelly 05:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If you do manage to make a visual flow chart - I think it'd be a really useful addition to the uploads page. --Peta 06:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It would probably be too big and too complicated with too much text to make it useful on the upload page. But then again - you never know. I'll finish doing a text version (that everyone agrees on) first. Megapixie 07:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it'd be too complicated. Compare Commons:Image:Decision Tree on Uploading Imagesv2.svg, an attempt at an ultra-compact tree that doesn't cover fair use. ×Meegs 12:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I was trying to go for using less technical language as well, which is always more verbose. Feel free to dive in and make changes. Megapixie 12:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"Licensing terms that allow for commercial and derivative use" seems to be too complicated for most people. Likewise, the large number of Creative Commons licenses is a major problem -- people can't tell the difference between CC-BY-SA and CC-BY-NC-ND. --Carnildo 20:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You could probably use graphics. For instance: "If the Flickr image license contains or , it cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia."↔NMajdan•talk 21:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this for a while now and I believe it would be difficult but doable (both designing a user-friendly and comprehensive wizard as well as the technical implementation.) —Ruud 22:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyright flowchart alpha test at User:Megapixie/CopyrightFlowChart

Before I add a link at the top of the page to the flowchart - could a few people have a critical pass over it. I'd rather make any neccesary substantial changes now, before attracts any attention/traffic. Thanks. Megapixie 04:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I see a few problems in the flowchart:

On User:Megapixie/CopyrightFlowChart/InternetImage

• " is the image the work of the US Federal government or its armed services?" - many people have trouble distinguishing between the various levels of US government. I'm not sure how to fix this.
• " does the website the image is from have a copyright disclaimer allowing you to download and use the image?" - Very few people will get this one correct. "Copyright disclaimer" is vague, and people often don't know how to find it.

User:Megapixie/CopyrightFlowChart/WebsiteDisclaimer

You're asking people to make some very tricky judgement calls here. People have trouble telling who the copyright holder is, or what the copyright disclaimer allows. I've recently had problems where someone has interpreted Flickr's "this image is publicly viewable" tag as meaning "this image is in the public domain", or interpreted a website's copyright-grab ToS as being a free-license grant. You should split this up into a series of concrete yes-or-no questions, such as:

• Is this an unofficial fan site or news site? - leads to 'probably not fair use; ask on Media Copyright Questions if you want a second opinion'.
• Does this website have the phrase "some rights reserved" in the copyright statement - leads to a page on telling Creative Commons licenses apart.
• Does this website have the phrase "personal use" in the copyright disclaimer? - leads to a page explaining that Wikipedia is not personal use.

User:Megapixie/CopyrightFlowChart/NotFairUse

You should split this out into separate pages for each question that can lead here, and include the reason why the image isn't fair use. People are more likely to do the right thing if they are told why it's the right thing.

User:Megapixie/CopyrightFlowChart/GoodWebsiteDisclaimer

Too vague. You can't put a {{cc-by}} on an {{attribution}} image, or vice versa. This page, however, implies that you can.

The pages covering the easy cases of fair use look quite good. --Carnildo 07:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback (and tweaks other people are doing) - I'll attempt to tweak it tonight. If anyone else can see anything - please either fix it or make a suggestion here. Be bold people. Megapixie 08:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Misdirected questions

Is it just me, or has there been a particularly high number of misguided questions ("mould problem", "The New Amerie Album", "How many humans die in ayear?")? My guess is that a new link to this page was added somewhere which users are now following. Is there any way to check this out? ShadowHalo 04:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The other possibility is that it's hit the top of a Google search for some term. --Carnildo 08:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Tweaked User:Megapixie/CopyrightFlowChart based on feedback

I've attempted to address some of the concerns raised above, and I've added a lot more branching. However some of the pages could do with fleshing out a little more. I would appreciate it if someone could give it another once over. If it's okay - I'd like to add a link at the top of the page to it (experimentally) to see if it answers users questions (though it might be hard to track). Megapixie 13:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the page that "no" links to on User:Megapixie/CopyrightFlowChart/CheckGFDL to one directing people to ask on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. If they reach the CheckGFDL page, and there isn't a GFDL release, then it's more likely that the image is under simple copyright than under a free license. --Carnildo 22:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Questions by User:NAHID

I'm sorry if I brought NAHID's questions to the wrong place. They were flooding Wikipedia talk:Image use policy, so I brought them here. I know that they are not entirely traditional copyright questions. I hope it is appropriate. --Iamunknown 15:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps in a case like this, with so many similiar questions, all the user's questions, and the answers of others, should go on his talk page. That avoids needless clutter of a heavely used page. Once on his talk page, its up to individual people, to decide if they wish to read/answer the questions. --Rob 04:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably a good solution. The next question of the Nahid's questions I answer, I'll move directly to his/her talk page, and note that I'll be answering any further questions there and also that I'll watch Nahid's page. Is that appropriate? Would anyone else consider watching Nahid's talk page? --Iamunknown 06:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll watchlist it too. ShadowHalo 08:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you change your mind? ShadowHalo 22:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I must have forgot about my idea. I still would like to do it. Sorry. --Iamunknown 22:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

FAQ for this page?

Anyone think it would be a good idea to add a FAQ to this page, similar to WP:VPT? It should only handle simple things and perhaps explains the first steps of fair use and their questions (Why is it replaceable?). I'd be happy to work on it, but I would definitely need help in putting some of the "common" questions on there. Here's what I can think of:

How do I add a license to an image?

Go to the image description page. Click on "edit this page" and add the appropriate license.

Where can I see all the licenses?

See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Why can't I use this fair use image for this person/building/place?

The fair use criteria #1 is replaceability: An image of something that could be replaced. It does not matter if an image currently exists to replace that fair use one.

I got permission to upload this image to Wikipedia, how do I license it?

We don't want or allow images that have been given permission for just our use. We want images for everyone to use. Please do not upload an image with this permission.

Or if there is a FAQ on images somewhere already then we could just link to that. --MECU≈talk 12:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems like that would be fine, most of the messages sending people here at least attempt to explain the problem, but people find this page in other ways. I think we have plenty of real-estate at the top of the page to work with. - cohesion 03:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

I'm switching to miszabot for archiving, and going to move the archive names a little, nothing drastic, but I thought I'd mention it somewhere :) - cohesion 01:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I just changed the archival settings to archive sections older than 7 days. It appeared after a cursory glance at some of the older sections that issues are usually resolved before 14 days. Feel free to revert or change. --Iamunknown 06:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think 14 was the default for the bot that used to do it maybe, so it was kinda arbitrary :) 7 seems better, you're right. - cohesion 12:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Its always better IMO to start out conservatively. Hopefully 7 will keep the page a bit less cluttered. --Iamunknown 14:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

What the...?!

In the last few days I've received messages from on high telling me that practically every image I've ever uploaded is about to be deleted. Don't you people have anything better to do?

Go ahead, delete 'em all. Just stop bothering me about it. RMc 14:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You're receiving the messages from an automated bot. Asking here probably won't do anything. ShadowHalo 14:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It is getting out of hand mind you, we're encouraged to add images, but the image procedure is such a pain in the ass now... Douglasnicol 16:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If you learn it, it's not much of a PIA. So don't give up! We all went through this. It's a little rusty but not all that hard when you get the hang of it. Wikidemo 00:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you advise on how best to learn it? Everything I read confuses me, and when I step through the wizard, I'm left doubtful at every turn. I feel like because I'm not a lawyer, I don't have a clue. --Melty girl 00:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay:

• First, you need to use the wizard to choose an appropriate and valid image copyright tag, one per image. If you miss it with the wizard you can add the tag manually. Wikipedia:Image copyright tags has a list, some instructions and some xamples. By "appropriate" I mean it has to be one of the tags we accept. Either there is no restrictive copyright, or it is a copyrighted work claimed under fair use. Other situations like a limited / noncommercial release aren't appropriate. By "valid" I mean correct. You can't say it's public domain if it isn't, for example.
• Next you need to include sourcing information about what it is, where you got it from and who owns the copyright. No fancy rules there, just say it as best you can on the image page.
• Finally, you need a "use rationale" (formerly called a "fair use rationale") on the image page too, one for each time you insert it into an article. One rationale will do if the image is only used once. The reason you need different rationales for multiple uses is that the right to fair use depends not only on the image but how it is used. There's a discussion of which situations qualify for non-free use at WP:NONFREE and a discussion of how to write the rationales at Wikipedia:non-free use rationale. It also helps to look at some examples of good rationales and they include some there too.

Do all that and your images are unassailable. After a while you can do it in 30 seconds to a minute per image so it's just a little pain, not a huge pain to deal with. Hope that helps. Wikidemo 01:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much! This should put me on my way. There's one link that's bad above though, and I remain clueless as to how to search Wikipedia: pages. --Melty girl 07:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

My problem is that I upload images so infrequently that it turns into an hours long process of trying to figure out what the heck the wiki-people want. Language like "use rationale" and "nonfree" is not plain English! It gets even worse when an image that someone else uploaded for an article I like gets tagged meaning I don't have the back story of exactly how the image arrived on the Wiki. The only reason I'm here is a robot noticed an image for an article I like and dumped a full 1/2 page of legal gooblygook. What a PITA - I'll just let the image get deleted though it seems like it already had a valid rational in the first place. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 10:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Screen grabs

Using a program like PowerDVD to screen grab an image to illustrate an article is okay isn't it as long as I provide a fair use rationale and the appropriate copyright tag? Douglasnicol 17:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No, please read our policy on original research. (Just kidding.) Yes, that's fine; you should probably also specify in the image description that you took the screenshot yourself. In you have any questions in the future, make sure to ask them on the project page. This talk page is for discussing the question process itself. ShadowHalo 18:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Help with Tags

I uploaded Image:Louis sockalexis portrait.jpg recently and tagged it with the {{PD-US}} template. The orphan bot keeps adding warning labels and i can't figure out why. How do I add information about the picture to prevent the orphan bot from tagging it?

Topic moved to main page here - cohesion 01:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Long levi Banned. FYI, Longlevi -- who posed the original question -- has just been found to be a sockpuppet of a banned user named Tecmobowl, who has used socks in the past. Accordingly, he has also been banned indefinitely. See [2]--Epeefleche 00:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Warning

This is such a minor thing, but apparently we need to discuss it. User:Sparrowman980 keeps adding warning messages all over the page regarding the archive. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] I personally don't feel that the existence of an archive requires a warning. It's noted, people can find it. This page already deals with people who are a little frustrated already, better to not throw stopsigns and warning images at them for no reason. I've reverted a few times and other people have also, but can we state that we don't want them here as a record? - cohesion 00:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning. Dr Aaron 01:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Severely messed up edit

Can anyone sort out this mess? Carcharoth 00:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Note to self: when page is restored, add comments to panorama of signs discussion re: pics of blue heritage plaques and the Tolkien fan art discussion. Carcharoth 00:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

here's what happened. SSilver was evidently reading an old version of the page and added a comment to it. We can just revert. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Carcharoth 00:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Wikipedia:Requested copyright examinations

They overlap, but are not similar: the Wikipedia:Requested copyright examinations page is to request someone to review a license, while here people can ask whatever they want (besides the same questions done at Wikipedia:Requested copyright examinations). This is more of a Help Desk for images (maybe it could be moved into the Help Desk, though). -- ReyBrujo 02:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Another similar one is Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use... Garion96 (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no real need to merge itSparrowman980 01:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems like significant overlap with Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use..., so I vote merge, not so sure about Wikipedia:Requested copyright examinations though. That's a little different. - cohesion 02:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know which pages should be merged with which, but some consolidation is in order and some direction for inexperienced users. As it is we get "why is my image tagged/deleted", "is this image okay", and "what do I need to do to upload an image / find a tag / create a use rationale" questions placed indiscriminately on quite a few different pages.Wikidemo 03:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Most (all?) of the templates point here already, so that seems much easier. Also, I like this page's name better, but I may be biased :) - cohesion 04:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Support merge of all three, no need to have so many pages doing essentially the same thing. Calliopejen1 23:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be a page where you can ask copyright related questions and a separate page for copyright examinations to prevent backlogs and to distinuguish between the 2. However I thunk 2 pages is enough. I would say keep Wikipedia:Media copyright questions and Wikipedia:Requested copyright examinations. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 12:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

They should all be merged as they all serve essentially the same purpose, requesting an opinion on whether copyright and/or the NFCC are being complied with for one or more image. Stifle (talk) 11:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

And merge in Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk too. Stifle (talk) 11:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I merged requested copyright examinations and can i use. The image copyright help desk still needs to be merged. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I was watching Wikipedia:Requested copyright examinations. Most things posted there belonged elsewhere anyhow, so the merge sounds reasonable to force all discussion at one place. I think some active questions from several months ago should be been copied here, including one of my own questions. Royalbroil 14:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge. There are confusingly too many help desks located in too many different places. Of course they should be merged unless the level of traffic is ridiculously high. It is much easier for those answering questions to pick out the ones they should be answering than it is for the user to work out where to post in the first place. At least, that is my experience from answering Science questions. They should at least all be accessible from a single help index page organised in a self-explanatory way. SpinningSpark 11:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Doubt about this kind of images

I'm willing to use a computer-drawn picture, to illustrate a particular instance of a data structure. It is a diagram of some instance of the data structure, simple but illustrative. I found an image like this, in a book. I re-drawn that image by myself, but only to achieve a better quality than the scanned pages had. So, I have an image that depicts a diagram of a simple instance of a data structure; it is the same diagram and the same instance of one found in a book. May I free to use it in my article? To what extent? Thanks in advance! Alfredo J. Herrera Lago 04:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed template change

I'm proposing an additional category in the Template:Editabuselinks to reduce the number of posts at WP:AN and WP:AN/I, please feel free to comment here User:Mbisanz/TemplateSandbox. MBisanz ^talk 13:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

New tool

Per [8] BC has created basically an NFCC-checker tool that looks very promising and should be easy enough for even a beginner to use (I understand it at least). MBisanz ^talk 19:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-free promo claiming fair use

Here's a question about Image:KosherLamp.gif. As far as I know, a free version cannot be reasonably found. So, that leaves the question of whether it can be created. Right? So, what are the expectations about creating such an image? Would I be expected to either buy the product or somehow find such a product? This is a speciality item purchased by a narrow market. I'm wondering if the expectation on editors should be relaxed in such cases. Thanks. HG | Talk 17:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

various attack lines would be asking identified jewish wikipiedians if they know someone who has one or contacting an othodox jewish organisation to see if they have anything of use.Geni 11:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Completing merge

See Wikipedia talk:Image copyright help desk#Completing merge. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I linked the to archives "Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk" to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive.

ps. because the "Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk" was archived after the merge the link above is broken the new link is Wikipedia_talk:Image_copyright_help_desk/Archive_2#Completing_merge.

--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 11:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Own image

Hello, a bot recently informed me that I need licenses for Image:Ma'amoul.JPG and Image:Nuts and Watermelon seeds.JPG. I took both of the pictures myself and then uploaded them to illustrate the Palestinian cuisine article. If I need a license what could I use? --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You choose which image license you'd like them distributed under; see WP:ICTIC --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

New copyright-related CSD criterion proposal

Just a quick note to invite comment here on a proposal to create a new criterion for speedy deletion. The proposed criterion is that where an uploader has supplied a copyright tag but has specified a third party as the content owner, without any evidence that their permission was ever given, the media will be speedied seven days after the uploader is notified if no such permission is forthcoming. This is equivalent to the NPD process used at Commons, and parallel to our NSD and NLD. Please weigh in! --Rlandmann (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed guideline: Wikipedia:Guide to image deletion

There is a proposed new process guideline at Wikipedia:Guide to image deletion gathering together image deletion processes currently spread through other pages. Since a good many of these involve copyright issues, this may be of interest to contributors here. Your feedback there would be very much appreciated, both on "how to" specifics and on the general advisability of such a guideline. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject proposal

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#WikiProject Copyright Cleanup
• User:Moonriddengirl/WikiProject Copyright Cleanup

I is my hope to establish a new WikiProject to provide guidance to those who wish to help with copyright matters concerning text or files as well as (and most importantly) to allow collaboration on massive copyright issues, where a contributor's extensive content is found to need evaluation and cleaning. A project's value is in its contributors, though. While several contributors have indicated an interest in the project, I need to find out if there are enough to warrant launching it. If you have an opinion, please consider voicing it at the WikiProject Council Proposal. If you have feedback or suggestions on the project page as it is taking shape—whether something needs to be more or less emphasized or if something different should be done—please pitch in at the proposed page in my userspace. I have plenty of experience working copyright, but little in drawing together WikiProjects. :) Thanks for any insights you may be able to offer at either space. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Update: since I've received the recommended 5 supporters at the Proposal page, with several others who have indicated interest elsewhere, I've gone ahead and moved this into project namespace for further development. Please consider joining the project if you have time and interest. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

PD review

This started as a result of image reviewing at Featured List Candidates on en wiki but I know it's a problem other places. This is directed at a general situation, not at any person. Why do we have to reverify an image's PD status because of something like links changing? If it was PD, it's always PD. It does not lose that legal status because some website dropped off the net and User:JoeBlow can't find it anymore. But as it is, there is a trend to say "I can't find it, so you have to prove it even though we all know it was PD". Here I'm talking cases like it was sourced to a known PD site or even just trusting the uploader didn't invent a URL, but no, we say "the guy could have been faking a URL, so prove it again, to me". This is all unnecessary and avoidable by using a method that is used on Commons where trusted users verify a flickr image's status for Commons; it's called Flickr review. We could have "PD review", where trusted users verify a PD status and tag the image with a template. That way, two years later when User:JaneBlow posts a FLC/FAC, etc, you, me, and others don't waste our time reinventing the wheel. Not to mention a known PD image can't be used anymore because a URL changed or whatever. Do we do this with images from books? Not yet, but we probably will...Do we say "I don't own that book and it's not in my local library so you have to prove it's PD from 1900 by sending me the book", nope we don't yet, but that's basically what we do with images. Obviously, I'm not talking cases such as when the uploader didn't source the image at all. Food for thought.

• Please centralize this discussion here: commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#PD_review — Rlevse • Talk • 01:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Searching the archives

Can we get one of those archive searches here like those on some of noticeboards?--BirgitteSB 19:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done Your wish is my command. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :) --BirgitteSB 21:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Dynasty Warriors 7 Logo

I don't know how to get a tag for the photo, but I do know that it is appropriate, It is the DW7 logo Koei uploaded to their facebook, and I'm pretty sure that Koei will allow Wikipedia to use the photo, because we also used the Japanese logo image, which was also uploaded by Koei on their facebook. Write on my page for further discussion please. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamek98 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Frequently Asked Questions

Is there a FAQ lying around here somewhere, for frequently asked questions and their answers? I keep running in to questions for which Cornell's Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States is the perfect answer, but I can never remember the URL... I thought it could be put somewhere prominent. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 03:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I have an essay on the topic of trademark versus copyright usage on wikipedia available at this link. That might help somewhat, depending on your issue. I agree a FAQ would be useful, but drafting an official FAQ will likely be controverisal in my experience. BillTunell (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Help with this image

The Picture I took, was uploaded on the Arabic Wikipedia. I basically translated the article from Arabic to English and I basically took it from there and uploaded it giving credit to the upload from there and remarks to him. I am not sure how to classify or explain the license on my own.

The original Image on the Arabic Wikipedia: http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A_(%D9%85%D8%AC%D9%84%D8%A9) The Image on the English Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Al-Arabi.jpg

How can I fix the one I uploaded on the English Wikipedia so It wont be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saab 1989 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

ImageTaggingBot's talkpage

Could somebody keep an eye on User talk:ImageTaggingBot? The talkpage gets a decent number of copyright/tagging questions, and since I'm going to be on vacation for the next week and a half, I won't be able to monitor it. --Carnildo (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've watchlisted it. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Up for a change?

User:Netalarm/MEDIALAB. New proposed header that is based on the same template as other noticeboard headers. Easier to understand and navigate. Any suggestions for improvement, comments on taking it live? Netalarm^talk 00:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

"Le Petit Journal" image that illustrates WP "Cholera" article -CHANGED-

Question removed and posted on Media copyright questions "Project page". Surely I'm not the only one to find it a challenge to do this "correctly"? I clicked the "New section" tab instead. The little box that says "Click this link" is overwhelmed by the other boxes and needs to be more prominent, in my opinion. (Larger font, for instance, thicker red border, something!) Thank you. --Wordreader (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Can Wikimedia *kindly* send an email before deleting…?

Hi all

I have logged in to Wikipedia after a while away and noticed I had this message:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Redhatter#File_copyright_problem_with_File:PT100-2-3-4-wires.svg

Now, problem is, I *did not* receive the message until now. Are we expected to log in every hour to see what messages _might_ be posted? The upshot is, I have no idea what the image _was_ that had the copyright problem. My guess is the image copyright was the same as the original, but I'll never know because the copy was deleted.

If someone could _un_delete, then I can correct the issue. In future, kindly keep in mind we do not poll this site every 20 milliseconds. I know MediaWiki can send emails, and if I must, I will code a patch, but a bit of courtesy on your part would be greatly appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redhatter (talk • contribs) 04:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that would put an unnecessary burden on the servers and Wikipedia contributors. Hundreds of articles and images are deleted every day, so it would be wholly impractical IMHO. – ukexpat (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Ukexpat is correct - but to be honest the "email this user" link in the toolbox is in fact not available for you Redhatter; normally this indicates that you have no email set in your preferences. Pedro :  Chat  22:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

You're not expected to log in "every hour" or "every 20 milliseconds". Most deletion processes are on a seven-day schedule, so checking for messages once or twice a week is enough. --Carnildo (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Redhatter. Seven days is just too quick. My guess is that one week was chosen because somebody in the Wikipedia administration was fearful that a copyright infringement action might be started. Normally, though, any time a copyrighted article is found up on a website, it is quickly taken down if the copyright holder complains. So there is really no goshawful rush to delete these images. I have been stung myself once or twice. Just expressing my opinion, your faithful servant, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You are clearly wrong, I'm afraid. Seven days for anything - prose, image, audio or any other media that is not clearly defined as compatible with CC BY SA 3 or our limited and stringent criteria outside of this (fair use etc.) is very much subject to summary deletion. Copyright is a real world serious issue and the fact that our internal systems may not give people enough time to sort out the copyright position on their uploads is neither here nor there. Pedro :  Chat  21:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the image so the licensing can be fixed. However, I also agree it would be impractical to demand e-mail notifications (certainly as long as it would have to be done manually). Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hm... In Special:Preferences on Commons and da-wiki you can set a mark in "E-mail me when my user talk page is changed" and you can even mark "E-mail me when a page on my watchlist is changed". It seems like this option has been disabled on en-wiki. If you upload (free images) to Commons you can choose that option and then you will get an email if file is nominated for deletion. --MGA73 (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it permitted to upload sound files from DVD's?

Hi! I want to upload some Golden Girls sound files. I want to list the different St. Olaf expressions spoken by Rose Nylund (Betty White) and so to upload a very short (max. 10 seconds) sound file example. - Is it ok and legal to upload some sound files by mentioning the source and copyright holder? Many thanks! Niikon (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Presumably the clips are not licensed under a free license; so see WP:NFCC for Wikipedia’s policy on non-free content. Although all 10 criteria apply, the most relevant are #8, which says the use must significantly increase reader understanding (which is generally understood to mean that there needs to be (sourced) critical commentary on the clip, and hearing the clip needs to be necessary to understand that commentary); #1, which says the clip could not be used if it could possibly be replaced by free equivalent (like a clip of someone else’s voice or a pure text description); and #3 which says that more clips cannot be used than are necessary. I don’t know just what you have in mind, but frankly I am skeptical that there is any rationale for using such a clip.

By the way, in the future please post your media copyright questions at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. This talk page is for discussing that forum. —teb728 t c 11:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Please leave tbs

If a helper answers a question of a helpee, please leave a {{tb}} on the talkpage of the helpee. Most don't track the changes of other pages and thus a real discussion could go on. mabdul 13:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for input

Would the people here consider it useful to get automatic notifications here by a bot about files that are tagged with neither a template from Category:Wikipedia non-free file copyright tags, nor with a free license tag? Please see the bot request at WP:BOTREQ#Bot to create a list of NFCC#9 violations for more information. Thanks. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Copyright

This proposal relates to copyrights. Feel free to discuss. --George Ho (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice work

Hi folks, I've not visited pages related to copyright issues for a while. I'm noticing that the generally friendliness of this page is much improved and things are a lot less bitey than I remember them being. In fact about as welcoming and helpful as a place can be that generally says "no, you can't do that". :-). Cheers. Hobit (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! We do our best. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Olympiacos women's volleyball and Olympiacos Women's Water Polo Team image issue

Hi folks,

I really don't understand how using Olympiacos emblem in two official Olympiacos departments fails the non-free image policy as Werieth has informed me with his post. This particular image that has been removed is used in all Olympiacos' departments such as Olympiacos S.C. and Olympiacos Water Polo Club. The usage of a club's emblem for its official departments is something very common and standard for the Wikipedia pages. I really can't undestand how using this image for particular departments violates the non-free image policy, while using it for others doesn't. It really doesn't make any sense whatsoever. And even if it does violate the above-mentioned policy for some inexplicable reason, what really matters is what can we do to address and solve this issue. So, I defer to your expertise and I hope you'll take the necessary steps to resolve it. Thanking you in advance, Gtrbolivar (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

See my talk page. Werieth (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Australian Images - Copyright

Some users here might be interested in the discussion ive started:

• Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Australian_Images_-_Copyright

-- Nbound (talk) 07:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry to bother you223.62.172.56 (talk) 06:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Heritage Malta question

Some days ago I asked "Is not the logo of Heritage Malta too simple for a copyright?" here. Today I wanted to check the answers and could not find the question neither at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions nor at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2013/December. Shouldn't it have been archived? Wikipedia:Media copyright questions still appears at a search --Error (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the archive bot removed the sections from the main page [9] but forgot to copy them to the archive. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've reverted the bot edit, and the thread concerned is Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Is not the logo of Heritage Malta too simple for a copyright? --Redrose64 (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! --Error (talk) 01:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It's been archived properly this time, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2013/December#Is not the logo of Heritage Malta too simple for a copyright? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a story of an "orphan work" that could not be used in Wikimedia?

The U.S. Copyright Office is asking for commentary on possible rules about "orphan works." These are works whose copyright owners cannot be identified or cannot be located, and therefore permission cannot be obtained to use the works. Example: a photo of a deceased notable person, taken by an unknown photographer, of no obvious cash value, held by the family, that would have been useful to illustrate an article. Our wiki chapter is trying to give examples to copyright office, to help get rules that would work for Wikimedia. We'd welcome specific tragic stories at the village pump. -- econterms (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Updating Company's logo question

Hi Guys,

I'm trying to update a company's logo but each time I try upload I am greeted with 'Upload warning - The XML in the uploaded file could not be parsed.' Am I doing this incorrectly? The file type is an accepted type so i'm stumped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiairport (talk • contribs) 03:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

What type of file is it? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Looking for volunteers for the Co-op mentorship space

Hi folks, I'm in the middle of building a mentorship space called the Co-op with a small team of people called. The general idea is that we're piloting a space where we match newer editors with experienced editors based on how they want to contribute. As many of you are aware, new editors often have a lot of questions about specific images, copyright, and the uploading process. We are therefore seeking editors who are experienced in these areas, as we expect a lot of editors who are invited to the space will request mentoring related to image work. If you are interested in dedicating some time to teaching one or two individual editors these sorts of topics, please feel free to sign up here. And if you have any questions about the space, feel free to ask me here or over at Wikipedia talk:Co-op. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

OTRS volunteer?

Hi all. As we are currently facing severe backlogs in English-language tickets in the OTRS permissions queues, we are hoping to recruit several new volunteers who are well versed in copyright laws, policies and protocols relating to the same. If you are interested, or know anybody who is, please see m:OTRS/Volunteering. Note that you do not' need to be an administrator to apply. We're simply seeking active users who have demonstrated a sufficient understanding of copyright/media licensing on the wiki(s).

If you have any questions at all please contact me directly. Thanks! Rjd0060 (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to copyright strategy discussion

Hello! I'm writing from the Wikimedia Foundation to invite you to give your feedback on a new copyright strategy that is being considered by the Legal Team. The consultation will take the form of an open discussion, and we hope to receive a wide range of thoughts and opinions. Please, if you are interested, take part in the discussion on Meta-Wiki. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

OTRS recruitment

Please see this note about the current need for OTRS volunteers. Those who have this page on their watchlists are likely uniquely qualified to help with the permissions queues. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Getty images embedded in Wikipedia articles?

Getty released images for editorial use as long as they are embedded. Is it allowed on Wikipedia? I asked this on another talk page but cannot find it now. ~ SnippySC SusanneSC (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I think you would have to tell us more and/or point to examples and/or to their offer. Getty's library includes PD images, so that they might be offering them is neither here nor there. If they're offering copyrighted images and seeking to control their use, then they are no good to us, since we need to be able to offer largely unrestricted (bar compliance with strict licence conditions) reuse. ---Tagishsimon (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, MediaWiki doesn't allow us to hotlink images from other websites. They have to be uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons for us to use them. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 01:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

You asked on Commons on the page Commons talk:First steps/Reuse, which is not really a good page for questions. You can ask media copyright questions on the page Commons:Village pump/Copyright on Commons or on the page Wikipedia:Media copyright questions on en.Wikipedia. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

That aside, embedding doesn't work on Wikimedia websites. So you would have to upload the files either at Commons or at a Wikipedia which would then render Getty's embedding licence invalid. De728631 (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

RfC on hosting content from countries that do not have copyright relations with the U.S.

Those who watch this page may be interested in this RfC: Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#RfC:_Hosting_content_from_countries_that_do_not_have_copyright_relations_with_the_U.S.. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 18:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Bot proposal to automate placing di-no permission on certain files uploaded with the Upload Wizard

Any input you may have on improving the bot, or whether the bot should run at all, would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Ramaksoud2000Bot. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 19:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Gates Mugshot and arrest photo, in or out?

There has been a lot of discussion over these pictures in or out, an editor has started a head count of opinions at the [Gates talkpage] This is an important decision for the Wikipedia, please come there and leave your opinion. Off2riorob (talk) 1:35 am, Today (UTC+1)

Main page discussion archives

Are links for archives of the main page automatically added to the archive box or do they need to be added manually? Currently, only links to archives up to 2016 are visible, but as already begun archiving the January 2017 discussions at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2017/January. From the edit history of Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archivelist, it looks like the links may need to be added manually. Also, the {{status}} for 2015 and 2016 might need to be changed to "closed". -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Manually, by creating a page for the year 2017, on the model of the pages for other years, for example Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/Archive 2016, and adding a link to it in the archive list. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Asclepias. Should the status on 2015 and 2016 be changed to "close"? -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

IMO, the use in the list of those little coloured templates doesn't mean anything and their use there is only confusing. If we look in the history to when they were added in 2007 [10], we see that apparently the idea that the user meant to convey was that the archive page for 2008, which the user was creating in anticipation in 2007, was still "closed" until the end of 2007, i.e., per definition, it was not meant to receive archived text until 2008. (N.B.: Later, someone renamed the template "closed" to "status closed". That's why the rendering in the history is the rendering of a different template. Which may be the cause of the later confusion when in 2009 a user apparently didn't figure out the initial idea and inverted the templates "open" and "closed" in the archive list.) IMO, those templates serve no useful purpose in the list and it would be better to just remove them. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

That sounds OK to me. I didn't know if there was something about them that a bot needed to archive the page. They do seem pointless if there just there for show. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Flickr

Hi There, If I wanted to add a photo of a person and I see a photo on Flickr, can I use it? What if it has "All rights reserved" next to it? Does that mean I cannot use that one? I am looking at adding some photos to some Australian tennis players, such as Blake Mott, and I don't want to breach any laws here. ThanksTobyjamesaus (talk) 04:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tobyjamesaus. The best way to probably answer your question is "maybe" depending upon the licensing of the Flickr image, and how you intend to use it on Wikipedia. It also makes a difference as to whether the person shown in the photo is living or dead. So, perhaps you'd be better off taking a look at WP:FLICKR or c:COM:FLICKR and seeing if you find the information you need. I also suggest taking a look at c:Commons:License laundering because not everything you find licensed on Flickr is licensed correctly. I'm not trying to be rude by directing you to these other pages, but basically I'd simply be re-posting the content found on them here. Now, if you have a specific Flickr image or a specific article where you want to use said image in mind, then please provide a link or links. It will be easier for someone to provide you with more specific advice if they know exactly what photo you're referring to and where you want to use it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly, I really appreciate your help and your redirection and I didn't think you were rude in anyway, you were in fact very helpful. I will do some research. Thanks again Tobyjamesaus (talk) 06:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tobyjamesaus: Don't forget, if you have a Flickr account, you can always use FlickrMail to ask a Flickr user if they are prepared to release one of their images under a licence we accept. However, don't hold you breath as I have waited up to a year for even a response but one person did change a licence for me. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Template about image insertion

Hi there. How to insert an image is one of the frequently-asked questions on the Help Desk, but there is no canned answer to that, so I just went ahead created {{subst:HD/image}}. I will post this notice both at the Help Desk where people may want to discuss whether it is useful, and at copyright-savy places to make sure it is correct (I believe it to be, but better safe than sorry). Feel free to tweak the template to improve it, of course. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

University logo

What is the status of a university logo image that was published before 1923? Is that logo image now Public Domain like other images published before that date?--Orygun (talk) 03:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

If you can be sure that it was published before 1923 (proof is always good) then it is public domain in the US (and thus OK to use on enwiki). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I have a added a number of images of rugby league footballers…

I have a added a number of images of rugby league footballers (Here is a list of my uploads), all of these rugby league footballers are dead (some for more than 100-years), so there is no possibility of getting a new image, the scans are of a low resolution generally less than 256 x 384, the images are generally scans from cigarette cards, etc. some of which are over a 100-years old, so any copyright is obviously going to be expired/unclear/unknown; I believe these images the very definition of fair use rationale. DynamoDegsy (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, DynamoDegsy, but for each image you need to state the source where that particular image comes from. If it's from a cigarette card, say that, with whatever details you have. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

confusing instructions?

In the Media copyright questions section under 'How to ask a question' it says 1. To ask a new question hit the "Click here to ask your question" link above.

It's actually a link below, and reads "Click here to start a new discussion." I couldn't figure out how to edit that. --valereee (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

No, the instructions are grim and the way to change them is grimmer. I've seen to things a bit. Thincat (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)