Wikipedia talk:File copyright tags/Archive 7

I didn't mention who took the photograph in my version since that gets into complicated territory that we would do better to avoid if possible. Really we should apply whichever template is more conservative in order to make things simple (and protect Wikipedia). For example in the beer photo example you gave, I would switch it to just be a fair use template such as the one above and delete the GFDL license entirely. But that's just me. Kaldari 05:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This template would basically be a catch-all for any kinds of products that weren't covered by

Template:Albumcover, etc., etc. Kaldari

05:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

tiZom_(2¢) 06:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think all fair use images have to be low-resolution regardless. I guess that means the beer example would have to be resized to qualify. I'd definitely like to get input from Wikiproject Fair Use before we take things any further. Kaldari 06:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support this template. It is very useful to our readers to have photographs of various products available. Unfortunately, several thousand such images have been deleted from the English Wikipedia in the past several weeks (a vast number without the deleting editors informing the uploaders, posting to the discussion pages of the articles on which the photos appeared, or even allowing for any discussion before deleting). If this tag allows for such images (to which the companies would likely not object to their use in our educational forum) to be used in our encyclopedia, this can only be a positive thing for Wikipedia. Badagnani 06:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

PS — I think we should be including not just packaging, but even the product itself. Right now, Ipod 5th Generation white.jpg is listed as GFDL. tiZom_(2¢) 04:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the GFDL license on that image is probably legitimate. The difference is that a product cannot be actually reproduced in an image, but product labelling can be, i.e. you don't violate the copyright on an iPod's design by reproducing a picture of it, you can however violate the copyright on a logo by reproducing a picture of it. Kaldari 18:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. Packaging and labelling it is then. So where are we with this template? The response hasn't been much from the Fair Use WikiProject... think we should move the discussion over there instead of just notifying them to come here? tiZom_(2¢) 18:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What if I got it from a business, the

As a general rule, news media photos may not be used on Wikipedia. Please see

WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5. Wikipedia's goal is to create a free encyclopedia and using non-free images is contrary to that goal. In some cases, there's no way around it (ie, a screenshot of a TV show), but news media photos aren't really an appropriate place to go at all. BigDT

05:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Are images which have urls or other markings to denote their creator desirable? I would assume not because they are probably either unfree or, if free, possibly allowing advertising on Wikipedia. Is there a template for identifying such images or a policy or guideline? Please respond on my talk page if you know -- this page is too edited to watch. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 09:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be {{

watermark}}. --Sherool (talk)

09:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

           --Heero Kirashami 01:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone advise as to the copyright status of the following:

1) Images of images. Let's suppose I took a photograph of a scene, and I want to release that photograph under GFDL or to the public domain. However, there is a copyrighted image within that scene. One example would be a photograph of a bedroom with a copyrighted movie poster pinned to the wall. Another would be a photo of a commercial product, such as a box of Kellogg's Corn Flakes. In the latter case, does the copyrighted image on the box make a photograph of the box ineligible for GFDL or public domain? (What if I scanned the front of the box using a scanner, instead of taking a photograph of it?) Edit: sorry, the product question is already answered by another post above, but I'd still appreciate an answer for my original example!

2) Images of record labels. Some articles about record companies are illustrated by images of labels from

217.34.39.123 13:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

1)it depends. How much of the poster can be made out how much of the image does it make it up?

2) the photo would be a derivative work. Which means at least part of the copyright would be held by the record company. Thus no GFDL.Geni 13:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

See Commons:Commons:Derivative works, which I think answers your questions pretty well. BigDT 13:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

1) There is no cut and dry answer here. It depends on a variety of factors: how prominent the copyrighted work is in the image, how the image is going to be used (or could be used potentially in the case of a free license), the resolution and potential commercial value of the image, etc. Kaldari 00:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

2) Definitely a derivative work, not eligible to be released under a free license, unless the cover artwork is also under an appropriate free license. Kaldari 00:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a question about the image of Patty Heast (which I did not upload by the way) currently being used on that subject's page: Patty Hearst

Right now it has the "publicity" tag on it, but it doesn't really seem to fulfill the definition outlined on it:

This is a copyrighted image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit.

So I was wondering: what tag do you use in this kind of instance? The organization which released the photo (the "Symbionese Liberation Army") doesn't exist anymore, and they most certainly didn't copyright the image. Also, it is a very famous picture which is important for its historical value if nothing else. If anyone could point me in the right direction it would help for future reference. Thanks. -- Grandpafootsoldier 00:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You are probably looking for {{historical photo}}. Jkelly 00:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, guess I didn't see that on the list before. -- Grandpafootsoldier 00:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm really frustrated with image tags on Wikipedia. Everytime I put up an image, it gets removed and deleted. I can't seem to find anyone to help me. I guess if no one does then, hell it gets deleted. I'm almost to the point of not caring anymore.

I posted this Image:Barbararoberts.jpg months ago and it's been removed and will be deleted in 7 days. For the life of me I don't understand the tag issue. Most all of the pictures I post have to do with state politicans. I've tried to find the right tag, but never able to and then the image gets removed and deleted. Davidpdx 05:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note that you tagged the image as a public domain work of the federal government, but is is actually a work of the State of Oregon, not of the US Federal government. Works of the federal government are public domain. Works of most state goevernments are not. So unless the state of Oregon makes their works public domain (or releases them under an acceptable "free" license), we would only be able to use this image if it qualifies for "fair use" under Wikipedia's

fair use policy. Criterion #1 of that policy specifies that the image must not be replaceable. Because this individual is still living, the photo is considered "replaceable" because anyone could take a photograph of her. If you would like to use a photo of her, I would suggest writing to her office and asking if they would be willing to release an image under the GFDL or another suitable free license. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for more information. I'm sorry that this may not be the answer you are looking for, but Wikipedia is a free-content encyclopedia and sometimes we sacrifice on images to stay as free as possible. BigDT

05:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This type of confusion has come up a lot. Maybe we should make it more clear on the list of tags that if you can't find an appropriate tag it is very likely your image is not acceptable. I think many people look for tags forever with the assumption that their image is ok, and, failing to locate an appropriate tag, get frustrated with the whole system. - cohesion 03:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that Cohesion's point here is important. I'll note that it is very easy for me to forget how arbitrary and confusing Wikipedia:Image use policy must seem to someone who is internet-savvy but not copyright-savvy, which describes a lot of our users. Practical suggestions welcome! Jkelly 03:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone hate the idea of a box or something with some color on the tag page saying something to the effect of, "If you cannot find a tag that suites your image please ask about it at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. It is possible that your image may not meet our criteria for inclusion." That alone might solve a lot of problems. - cohesion 21:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

(I'm not part of this discussion, just chipping in randomly) -- "meet our criteria for inclusion" sounds like we don't want it because we don't like it. I would suggest "meet the legal requirements for inclusion" which clarifies that it's not us that are stopping it from getting included. — Timwi 21:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

See Template_talk:Game-cover#Merge. I'm trying to centralize discussion there. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi all,

I have created an SVG version of this picture (excuse external-looking link). The thing is, do I give it the same tag as the original (Public Domain) or can I give it a 'free' license (because it's my own work)? If you want to comment on the picture itself, a screenshot (I didn't think SGV would be supported by the site) can be viewed here, where it was uploaded for that purpose. I would be grateful for any response.

--

Seeing as no-one can be bothered to answer my question, I'm putting it in the public domain. This seems like the best idea under the circumstances. If you don't think that's a good idea, you'd better tell me quickly. By the time this message is submitted, I'll be uploading the aforementioned image.--

Man

15:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

If it makes any difference, I am now uploading the image under a Free License (all rights released). This is because there is no public domain tag that suits the provenance of the image.--

Man

16:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

But why? ... we hear you cry.

Well, it is a few things:

1. What's "fair use" in one country may not be "fair use" in another country; this allows people creating derivative works in other countries to extract images which aren't legal in their country.
2. It is harder to create decent images than decent text, so the temptation to break copyright is bigger, so we like to be a bit more vigilant. For this very reason, sublicenses of Wikipedia are going to be especially concerned about images, particularly for printed versions.
3. Thirdly, it's easy to rewrite text that turns out to be copyrighted, but harder (though possible) to do the same for images.
4. It is good practice to cite our sources, where we've (legally) copied images from elsewhere. If we give due credit, we're more likely to get permission (and some licenses require due credit anyway).
5. Where Wikipedians have created the images, they should have a bit of fame! Putting some text on the image description page that they took it themselves, and they license it under the GFDL, is a good way to do that.

Please also see this announcement from Wikipedia founder

Why is it that every single time that I upload an image AND tag it with the CORRECT tag, the Orphanbot still puts it up for deletion? I even put a note on the image's talk page and low and behold, two seconds later the image is up for deletion. What's wrong here? Somebody please help.

Hi, I assume you are talking about Image:Zeus carver.jpg. Please note that tagging an image alone is not sufficient in all cases. You must include a source of where the image came from, and that is why the image was tagged with {{no copyright holder}}. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 14:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Earlier this year, I uploaded some scans of an old map from the Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority, a division of the

The images listed are as follows:

• Image:Old Exits 38 & 39(MSBA).JPG
• Image:Jericho Old-Ramps(MSBA).JPG
• Image:Wantagh-SOB Interchange(MSBA).JPG
• Image:Bethpage-Northern Parkway-LIExpressway.JPG

DanTD 04:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Dan, the MTA holds copyright on them, and we cannot use them here. {{nonfreedelete}} --ChrisRuvolo (t) 14:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

How do I edit an image I uploaded so it has the appropriate tag? I got a message about this image:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hen.JPG#metadata

and I just need to know what I need to do to edit this image's information so it will not be deleted. Thanks

Cougar616 19:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Cougar616

I propose this:

I am really confused now. I would like someone to help me out with the correct tag for an image I have uploaded for use on a page level 1.org.uk which is Image:Level1org.gif. If the following tag is wrong please tell me why and which is the right one. I think the correct tag is {{Radiologo}} KyrianKyrian 04:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You need to specify the copyright holder, but yes, that is probably the correct template. Jkelly 05:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a valuable resource for articles about United Kingdom telecommunications history, and it allows reproduction of up to one-third of an article with acknowledgment. I've tried to create Template:POEEJ but without much success because I don't understand the syntax. It needs someone who knows what they're doing, and their help would be greatly appreciated. Harumphy 17:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

First off, I do apologize if this has been discussed and is now archived. My question is regarding images uploaded for a userpage. Many people upload pictures of pets, their homes, and themselves. My concern is that some people consider these types of pictures private, or at least personal. Not personal enough to prevent them from uploading, obviously, but at least personal enough that they may only want them used for the specific purpose of of their userpage. I know some people may feel that uploading a personal photo to a public site makes it public, but I argue that there is a difference between making something publicly available and losing control over how that image is used beyond its uploaders intent. When someone uploads a personal photo of their cat, they make a CHOICE to have that picture visible to those who visit their user page. Any use of that picture, be it for someone else's personal, educational, or commercial use is not the choice of the user and might be outside of the uploader's comfort zone. I could very well be misreading the terms of the free-use and public-use copyright tags, and I apologize if I'm making a case out of something that isn't a threat. I would very much like to know:

• if there is a copyright tag that limits an uploaded photo to use on wikipedia or a wikipedia user page
• if this type of copyright doesn't exist, if there is already a reason, legal or policy based, for not having a tag like this in place

If such a tag does exist, I strongly feel that it needs to be made more clear, both on the copyright tag main page and on the drop down list on the upload page. If there is some reason why such a tag doesn't exist, I think this needs to be made clear with a disclaimer on all pages related to image uploading which states "Warning! Any pictures uploaded for use on a userpage will be considered fair-use and therefore could be used on other webpages without your permission!" Or something equally informative. Now, I am aware that even if such a tag DID exist, that limited the use of an image to one page, that anyone could save the image regardless and use it as they see fit and that most users would never run across their image again, but the matter is one of legal protection and the amount of comfort wikipedia can offer its users at least on paper that such images are considered for one sole use. It is not good enough to know that an image maintains the credit of its creator, or even that the creator has the right to tell any one person or group that they don't have permission to use the image. There needs to be some way a user can say "noone at all has the right to use this image for any means beyond this page unless I've stated otherwise." And once again, if this is not something wikipedia can or will do, users need to be informed of this in clear words before uploading a picture.Crazytonyi 19:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Such tags get created once in a while, and usualy promptly deleted or redirected to a speedy deletion tag. Everyting you own the copyright to that you submit to Wikipedia have to be released under a suitable

not a host for personal photos. In fact even properly free-licensed "personal" photos are routinely deleted if they have no value to the project and are not in use on a userpage (a few photos on a userpage is ok, if suitably free-licensed). Long storry short, if you want something restricted in any way do not upload it to Wikipedia. --Sherool (talk)

21:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand that wikipedia is not a host for personal photos, as a rule. I think that this is very agreeable with the intent of wikipedia, along with the guidelines for things like biographical pages. But it seems that wikipedia does encourage users, with some discretion, to add personal touches, including pictures, to their user pages. In fact, it's the only area where someone who doesn't fall under the biographical guidelines can have biographical, personal, information. I think that not only would it be reasonable to have specific copyright tags specifically for the use of user pages, it could also be a way of limiting the number of personal images people upload for that purpose. If a user only got, say, 5 uses of such a copyright tag, or if they were not allowed to have more than 5 images at any one time with such a tag, that could put an end to the few users that upload dozens of personal photos for their user page (I'm not sure how rampant this is, but I can imagine more than a few users are guilty of this.) Again, this would be a tag with the specific intention of a user page. If the main argument against this is that EVERY photo uploaded, even personal ones for the use of a userpage, should be available for public use (I'm assuming for the principal that all info on wikipedia should be for public use), than again, I think this should be made MUCH clearer to users when they upload a file. They have a right to know, beyond just selecting a "fair use" tag from a drop down menu, that their photo is now public domain on some level. If nothing else, I suggest that a tag identical to the GFDL-self tag be added, but labled "userpic-self", or something similar, so that when this tag is selected, not only will the users intentions be stated in the tag, but the user is alerted when selecting the tag of the breaches of privacy they are agreeing to. Essentially, if that wasn't very clear, a tag should be created that, when looking for tags will be specific to what the user is doing (ie uploading a personal pic for their user page), which, when selected, alerts the user of their "risk", and after uploading, creates a tag informing anyone looking at the picture that the file is available under the GFDL license, but that the user uploaded it primarily for use in their user page. This way, the picture is still free use, but the user knows the implications, and anyone viewing the image knows both that it is free use and that the user uploaded it primarily for their user page. And anyone who still wants to use it may, but will have to make a personal choice whether they feel comfortable using the image. Crazytonyi 21:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I know this will look shoddy, but something like this?

I, the creator of this work, hereby grant the permission to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
I, username, having granted the permission listed in the previous statement, also state that this document was uploaded for the purpose of sharing private information on my user page and any use of this document other than for my user page, while permitted, is not the original intended use of this document.
Subject to disclaimers.

I'd like to look at the use of the “Linux-software-screenshot” tag for GPL software. Many of the screenshots that use this tag are of GPL-licensed software. Therefore, the “copyright” part of the tag doesn’t apply; GPL software is under no such copyright from the authors of the software, at least not as the tag suggests (yes, I’m aware the original submitter of the code still has a copyright on it, but a GPL-released program can’t sue someone for taking a screenshot of it.)

I recently replaced the former “Linux-software-screenshot” tag with the “Free Screenshot” tag on an image I updated a while back at Image:Rtorrent.png [5] and I’d like to get suggestions here on how to handle screenshots of other software under the GPL. Take a look at what I’ve done with the rTorrent image and let’s see if something similar make sense for other images. Maybe we should even create a template for screenshots of GPL software? There are probably enough of them to make that worthwhile, and the tag could include the notation about GPL as an extension of the “Free screenshot” tag mandates (again, look at what I’ve done with the rTorrent image as an example.)

At heart here is the question of how to label an image by an artist who took a screenshot of GPL software. Also note that I’m not talking about an Image that itself was released under a GPL license, but screenshots in general taken of GPL software. I think the “Free software” tag fits better, because it reads “…or the author(s) of those programs has released it under a free software license…” This seems to describe the situation much better than the “Linux-software-screenshot” tag does.

--Pekster 07:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This section of the GPL might be relevant to this discussion. It is significant for things like gcc, which produce object code. The resultant object code is not subject to the GPL. It could be said the same is true of a program with a user interface, but I'm not sure if that is what this is saying. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 14:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does. [GPLv2 §0]

The Multimedia Gallery of the European Space Agency (ESA) Portal has loads of great images. (http://www.esa.int/images/EDR_m.jpg for example, which would be a great addition to the wikipedia article on the European Drawer Rack.) "Most images have been released publicly from ESA." This page describes their policy in detail. Can a copyright tag be constructed for these images that would ease their transfer to wikipedia? Some variant of the fair use tag, perhaps? Sdsds 16:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No. The majority of them do not meet

our fair-use criteria. --Carnildo

19:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Would any of the small images visable here be able to fall under

I seem to have been ignored. In any case, I have uploaded the following images.--

SeizureDog

05:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Lycee-snow.gif
• Image:Lycee-moon.gif
• Image:Lycee-flower.gif
• Image:Lycee-void.gif
• Image:Lycee-sun.gif
• Image:Lycee-star.gif

Please provide an example of how to actually ADD the tag on the main Project Page/Article. Announcements, bots, etc refer to this Page (project page) but I don't see any description of how you are actually supposed to add the tag itself to the image description. Thanks. (Isn't listing the Author, Description, Copyright Holder, and Fair Use justification enough?) - Libertas 12:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

On the image description page, at the top, click "edit" then somewhere on that page include the text of the tag surrounded by double brackets. For example {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}. It is important that you include the brackets, hit preview to make sure you have done it correctly (if you have you should see the full template text rather than the short name of the template). If you have any other questions feel free to ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. - cohesion 12:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank god someone else has asked this. I have been searching for at least half an hour for something which will tell me how to add a tag. Why isn't the basic 'how-to' information somewhere much more prominent??? --Helenalex 21:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

As some of you already know, I have been working for the past few months on cleaning up the massive mess created by the {{

1. The wording is extremely vague. Compare, for example, with {{
   NoRightsReserved
   }}.
2. A large percentage of the people who were using it were apparently confusing "Free Use" with "Fair Use".

I would say that over half of the images that were using this template were using it incorrectly. In addition to the fair use confusion, a large number of people would use this template for images in which permission was only given for Wikipedia as the wording did not specify whether "any use" meant any use anywhere or any use on Wikipedia, and people mistakenly believed that it meant any use on Wikipedia, which is clearly not in line with image use policies. I have gone through hundreds of images by hand to correct the licenses, and had two different bots working on migrating images away from this template. I have left countless messages on the talk pages of newbies and experienced editors alike trying to educate them on how to properly use licensing templates and why this one should never be used. The entire process, from initial template deprecation to nominating the template for deletion has spanned nearly a year. As of last week, I have finally eliminated all use of this template and put it up on Templates for deletion. And of course now the people who were mistakenly using it to begin with are voting to keep it because they don't understand the issues involved or the problems this template creates. If you have the time, please stop by Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_4#Template:CopyrightedFreeUse and add some constructive input to the discussion. Thanks! Kaldari 22:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a great example of misuse of this template by someone voting to keep it. Kaldari 23:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to delete your example. Jkelly 23:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem :) I'm sure it would have been deleted soon anyway (since it obviously violated licensing policy). Kaldari 00:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added two places in big bold letters that commercial use/derivative works need to be permitted in any copyright tag. I know that it's discussed quite a bit elsewhere, but I was talking with a flickr user about potentially releasing an image under the GFDL or another free license. He pointed me to this page and asked why a non-commercial license was not permitted. I took a look and saw that basically every mention of that as a requirement was gone ... we really need to keep those key points in plain sight on any page that discusses images. --BigDT 04:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If a photo is uploaded by the author as public domain, can he go back and change it to "copyrighted" after the fact? Releasing an image into the public domain is a permanent thing; it can't be rescinded, as far as I know. See Image:Sunflower farm.jpg (diff) for an example; this user is changing the tags on a lot of his free images because I've been removing watermarks of his website from them. As I understand it, once an image has been released it can be modified without consent and can't be re-copyrighted. Am I wrong? Kafziel ^Talk 13:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you're right, if you irrevocably release all rights, you can't really claim them back. But as long as it is a

good faith misunderstanding of what permission was implied (which this appears to be), there's no real reason not to allow it that I can see, at least in this case. It looks like this user wants to ensure that they are attributed for the image. Since watermarks are not permitted on user-uploaded images, they have tagged the images as requiring attribution. It would be one thing if someone leaving Wikipedia decided that they wanted all of their contributions deleted (which some do occasionally), but as long as they are being retagged with another free license (which they are), in my opinion, it isn't a big deal. --BigDT

14:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It does seem to be in good faith, and I don't think it harms anything. I was just wondering, because I've been working on fixing his photos for a few days now and if he was allowed to change the copyrights to, for example, non-commercial use, then all my work would have been for nothing. Kafziel ^Talk 14:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If he changed them to non-commercial use then it would definitely be a problem, but otherwise I don't think it's a big deal. Kaldari 08:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not legal, but it can be tolerated in this instance.

Talk

12:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Attribution(edit talk links history) states:

This image is copyrighted, however the copyright holder allows the image to be freely redistributed, modified, used commercially and for any other purpose, provided that their authorship is attributed.

Why is it that the copyright holder who allows the image, also has to allow it to be modified? Say I copyrighted my image and added {{attribution}} to the image description page. But I do not want anyone to crop or modify the image in any way... What would be the appropriate copyright tag for that if there is one, or should we create one? —dima/s-ko/ 20:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Suppose the image is a person or, better yet, a religious icon. I don't want its subject to be abused or desecrated, like someone drawing horns above the head of the deity, etc.. Do I have an option to allow the usage of an unaltered image in Wikipedia and other places but not to allow the persons which reuse the image to crop the image, draw additions to it, etc.? —dima/s-ko/ 20:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The type of license you are referring to is a "no derivatives" license. Unfortunately, such licenses are not appropriate for Wikipedia content. Kaldari 08:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Pharos04 took a GFDL-licensed blank U.S. map and combined it with a sports logo in a number of images: Image:BigTenUSAMap.png, Image:AmEastMap.png, Image:CHAmap.png, Image:WCHAmap.png, Image:Atlhockeylogo.png, Image:CCHAUSAmap.png, Image:Ivyusamap.png, Image:A10USAmap.png. He/she tagged them as self-created public domain images. This isn't really possible, as the source images are under the GFDL and a copyrighted logo.

I've retagged them as {{Sports-logo}}, and the image description page does make a reference to where the map came from. Is there anything more we need to do to note the GFDL license on the original blank map? — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a bad idea, and a violation of the GFDL. Derivative works of GFDL content must be under the GFDL, and that's impossible here. I'm nominating them for deletion.

Talk

12:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've been doing quite a lot of work on these Graffiti artists in Melbourne.

• Civilian
• Dlux
• Meek
• Pslam
• Sixten
• Prism
• Sync
• Optic
• Phibs
• Ha-Ha
• Vexta
• Rone

But I want to include some pictures in the articles. So: they would have to be scans or from the internet as I don't live in Melbourne.

Taken by another person, the image would be free, as it is stenciled to a wall. What image license would the image be under?

If the image is street Graffiti, would it be a free image anyway? Als long as the artist is credited would it be free to use anywhere?

I would greatly appreciate a response on my talk page, thanks in advance. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 00:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Any such image would be a derivative work and not free. Jkelly 00:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a difficult question to answer and would depend on the laws in australia. In the united states, though, I found a thread on an intellectual property forum discussing the issue. In the thread, someone points out that:

17 USC 103(a)

The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully.

As pointed out in the thread, that seems to say that any work created unlawfully is free of copyright and therefore photos taken of it, atleast in the US, are also not subject to copyright due to "material being used unlawfully". This then effectively puts both the graffiti and any derivative works (Photos, etc) into the public domain by default, as they can't be copyrighted. Atleast, that's my interpretation.--Jeff 03:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to create a copyright tag for the Leonardo Media Bank. Leonardo is a source of digital content for hotels, destinations and attractions in the travel industry. Many hotels & resorts have promotional images in this bank which can be used for many articles. K107 04:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I created a template for images that contain depictions of music that has been released into the public domain due to its age. I saw that there was a tag {{PD-art}} which covers 2-dimensional works of art, but I think of that as covering more paintings, drawings, and photographs, not works of music, so I created this: {{

I didn't think that anyone would have a problem with it, so I created it, but just in case, I'm posting it here. I haven't added it to

Is this for sheet music? You should specify that. Jkelly 02:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, any sheet music that is in the public domain should be covered by this, because it is an image of a piece of music. It would be covered as long as the music is in the public domain. In the case of sheet music, however, we would need to be sure that the sheet music itself isn't copyrighted, which it most likely would be. Images of manuscripts or copies of music created using

Lilypond would be covered. --Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs}

) 03:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The Copyright details have being clarified. The Initial host of the picture inscribed the picture under CC, but i was unsure wether to choose CC or not. Here is the adress of the picture so the tag can be changed. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1b/21628_19533_The_Palms_jpg60f74985e5f944f70e5f7fd39d201ef6_jpg078903d5d71b5d8e6f01c21cf67f3798.jpg (Tbite 14:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

We have hundreds of historical images, copyrighted, which we would be willing to grand the use of for non-commercial use only. It is too bad that the Wikipedia policy seems to require commercial use licensing. An ideal license for us would be:

non- commercial use only

all use must be attributed with a (c)photographers name and link back to our website.

our business is licensing our images to publishers, so of course we don't want to give them away for commercial use, but would be happy to see them being of service to humanity in the Wikipedia, which would increase our exposure to publishers and filmmakers, at the same time giving the users of Wikipedia a rich resource for use with in relevant articles.

Comments? —The preceding

I would like to know which tag is appropriate for images hosted at Imageshack.Us? Their rules state that copyrights of pictures are to the user, but where there is sufficient reason to believe that the user intends their images/screenshots to be used freely may bring up questions about which CC license to use. For example, I am interested in uploading this screenshot where the user has provided links to it (and other images) in a public forum. So if I upload this image to Wikipedia or Commons, which tag would be suitable? Ekantik ^talk 04:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

What if I download this screenshot, resize it to make it smaller and then upload it to Wikipedia? Is this appropriate? If so, which (CC?) template would be appropriate to use? Ekantik ^talk 04:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ekantik. First let me thank you for being interested in contributing photos to Wikipedia. I love photos and think that any illustration is great. Now with that out of the way, you are probably not going to like me now. :) Uploading images to Wikipedia can be a complicated affair because usage of non-free images is heavily restricted and rightfully so. We want Wikipedia to be as free as possible, and as such, using non-free images should only happen in very specific cases where the subject of the image is also the subject of the article. In the case of your screenshot, the article it is used in would have to be the article concerning the show in question; not an article about the person in the screenshot.

Moving on to specifically this photo, I'd like to point out that how someone uses an image does not convey a license. The only thing that licenses a photo is the author explicitly saying "I release this photo under X license". Screenshots are never licensable by anyone other than the content creator (in this case, the television show's producing company), so regardless of who captured the screenshot, it is still not free of copyright or free of license, and the person distributing this screenshot is technically violating copyright law by doing so. A second problem I have with the particular screenshot is that it has been watermarked by whomever grabbed it. I think this disqualifies this image from being used on Wikipedia, even under a fair-use rationale.--Jeff 23:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

And speaking of which, what about Flickr? I understand that a template (Template:Flickrsource (edit | [[Talk:Template:Flickrsource|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) already exists but are Flickr images allowed on Wikipedia? Ekantik ^talk 04:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

When in doubt, don't upload. I see nothing to indicate that the image you're linking to is under any sort of free license. --Carnildo 06:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I understand the point of the Flickr template. All Flickr photos are "All rights reserved" (don't upload) or some CC license (maybe okay, maybe not) ( - it's clear enough either way. But Imageshack should never rarely be the "source", especially with a screenshot like this. It's most likely that the Imageshack user is violating copyright. Ytny 07:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That template is stupid. Any image found on Flickr under a Wiki compatible license (CC-BY-SA 2.5 for instance) should simply be uploaded to Wikipedia with that license and a link to the source.--Jeff 00:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have had it confirmed by Elections Ontario officials that electoral district boundary maps are free from reproduction prohabitions. However, it would be wise to cite them as the source. Other than that, feel free to reproduce them in the appropriate riding or elections pages.Abebenjoe 21:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Does "free from reproduction prohibitions" mean that people can modify them and distribute the modified versions? --Carnildo 23:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is done all the time with regards to showing which party or candidate won which areas of the riding as an example. Abebenjoe 09:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Why? Because it's very rarely used correctly, and is used as a catchall to upload copyrighted photographs from various websites. I honestly can't remember the last time I saw a "promotional" photo that actually came from promotional material. But I can't blame users for using the tags because there really aren't sensible alternatives other than the generic Non-free fair use in tag, and when they see, say, a photo on NBA.com, they think it's a promotional photo for the NBA, even though it's part of the site's content, not part of any promotional material, and it's the livelihood of photographers and wire photo services.

What I propose are more specific tags for web photos, and (what I think are) common sense tags for promotional photos. First off, I propose creating two new tags:

• News image tag - for pictures from news websites like CNN and ESPN. I guess it could also cover scanned news photos. It will ask users to specify the website, the original image and the news story it accompanies.
  • {{news image |publisher= |photo credit= |imageurl= |pageurl= |date= |fairusein= }}
• Web image tag - for pictures from non-news pages. Can cover "official site" photos, photo blogs, whatever. It should also require that users be reasonably sure that the originating site owns the copyright to the photo, so they doesn't just grab photos from fansites and image storage sites that may be violating copyright.
  • {{web image |site= |photo credit= |imageurl= |pageurl= |fairusein= }}

Granted, for most purposes, the above licenses would probably not constitute fair use. But at least they will be more accurate, and it will be easier to determine proper fair use and copyvio. They should require detailed fair use rationales and have an explicit disclaimer asking users not to upload fair use photos of living celebrities or existing buildings. They should cover most photographs that are now tagged as promotional.

Now, I don't advocate getting rid of promotional photos - I do think they need more clarification:

• Artist promo tag - for artists, photographers, photo agencies
  • {{artist promo |artist= |title= |imageurl= |pageurl= }}
• Talent tag - for actors, musicians. this will be useless for most living actors and musicians, but it could work for retired people whose appearance has greatly changed since their active days or a certain picture might prove significantly informative.
  • {{talent promo |artist= |imageurl= |pageurl= |date= }}
• Product sot tag - for product photos.
  • {{product promo |company= |product= |imageurl= |pageurl= }}
• Press kit tag - for images that really do come from press kits or promotional packages:
  • {{press kit |organization= |product= |imageurl= |source= |date= }}

So in summary, here is my proposal

1. News photo tag
2. Web photo tag
3. Artist promo tag
4. Talent promo tag
5. Product promo tag
6. Press kit tag
7. Retire and deprecate the current promo tags

IANAL, but I think the above tags should clarify fair use greatly, and make it easier to weed pick out valid fair use photographs from the rest. The obvious downside is that there is a lot to input, and you can't simply put them in the rolldown menu at the upload screen. But uploaders dig for the Promotional tag even though it's not in the rolldown, and they (are supposed to) write rationales for individual articles anyway, so I can't see that being a huge problem. Comments/suggestions? -- Ytny 19:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Your proposed "news photo" tag should be a speedy-deletion tag: photos from news agencies are almost never fair use. --Carnildo 22:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it does seem like a good chunk of what's tagged as promotional are news photos (which begs the question - is there a speedy tag or criteria for a news photo?). But I think the web photo tag still has some value here. Yeah, it's still a catch all for dubious fair use claims, but it's more honest and it'll be easier to attribute the right people. Ytny 23:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

{{

Db-copyvio}}, but one is then relying on it being seen by a savvy admin. Jkelly

23:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but isn't the point of fair use that you're technically violating copyright, but giving yourself some wiggle room? And I already feel a twinge of wiki-guilt when I mark photographs as replaceable, and people respond to me like I'm crazy when I try to explain that a photo they grabbed off some site is not promotional. But that could just be my own personal issue. Ytny 23:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You can read more about the United States doctrine at our article, fair use, but important factors in making claims under that doctrine is whether or not one is impacting the original market role of the unlicensed property, and whether the use is transformative. That's why we shouldn't be republishing news agency photographs; we're doing the exact same thing with it that the copyright holder wants to do. Jkelly 00:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)