Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓
Skip to the bottom

Welcome · Tutorial · Cheatsheet · FAQ · Glossary · Help · Help desk · Media copyright questions · Reference desk

Shortcuts:
WP:MCQ
WP:IMAGEHELP
WP:ICHD

Welcome to the
Media Copyright Questions page

A place for help with image copyrights, tagging, STBotI, non-free content, and related questions.

For all other questions please ask them at Wikipedia:Reference desk.
General help
Help desk • Site directory • Editor's index • Image and media copyright • Userpage help • New user help
Report abuse
Request assistance
Noticeboards
Caution If you have a question about a specific image, please be sure to link to it like this: [[:Image:Example.jpg]]. Thanks!
How to add a copyright tag to an existing image
  1. On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts Image:), click Edit this page.
  2. From the page Wikipedia:Image copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag. For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators".
  3. Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{GFDL-self}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page.
  4. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}})
  5. Hit Save page.
  6. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below.
How to ask a question
  1. To ask a new question hit the "Click here to ask your question" link below.
  2. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end.
  3. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page.
  4. Don't include your email address, for your own privacy. We will respond here and cannot respond by email.


Click here to ask your question

Contents



This page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II.

Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive. Sections with fewer than two timestamps (no replies) are not archived.


[edit] Attribution for images which are links to anywhere other than the image description page

I've seen a number of images which are links to pages other than their description page, such as {{Featured article}}'s usage of Image:LinkFA-star.png (Image:LinkFA-star.png). As attribution of images is, to the best of my understanding, done using the description page, it would seem to me that use of images as links to other pages violates the attribution clause of licenses such as GFDL, CC-BY-SA and similar ones - licenses which cover most of Wikipedia's and Wimedia Commons' free image content. Is this really a problem? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting point and imo you're correct: in order to comply with attribution requirements the link must go to the image page, which shows the author's name. The only way around this, as far as I can see, is for the creators of such images to release them to the Public Domain. What does everyone else think? -- Hux (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that is strictly true. Unless you provide a tooltip or some other link, then it would appear that we are breaking copyright there. Stifle (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Does the fact that the target page has the same image linking to the description page matter? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate, but exactly what "attribution requirement" requires a link? The image description page includes attribution - that should be adequate. Do we need to have every word in an article link directly to the author who added that word? Gimmetrow 12:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect Gimmetrow is correct, but I'm curious to know the "actual" license. Why is the local PNG using {{LGPL}} (a software variant) when the the Commons version is tagged as {{GFDL}}? Эlcobbola talk 15:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this question the question of whether a given image MUST link to the httpd'd URL of the author demonstrating he owns the image by hosting it "online"? Or just whether they must be credited in the Image: space? Only the latter is required--no Main space/article attribution typically, or direct URL. rootology (C)(T) 13:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think either you misunderstood the question, or I misunderstood your answer. The credit for an image is on the Image: page, and that's fine because when a thumb is included in an article, clicking on the thumb leads to the Image: page with the credit. However, in a small number of cases (such as Image:LinkFA-star.png at the top of any featured article), clicking on the image doesn't lead to the image description page, so there's no way to know who created the image. I do think this is a problem. I know the French Wikisource requires that only PD and Wikimedia-owned images be used in cases like this (see s:fr:Modèle:Lien sur image); other wikis probably do the same, and I think the English Wikipedia should too. Pruneautalk 14:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that {{Wikipedia ads}} is a problem. Here you have a GFDL image where a click gives you a WikiProject page; directly under the image, there is a link "File info" which brings up the Image: page for the image. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please help me understand this? Where is the line drawn? Why clicking on the Wikipedia globe logo doesn't lead me to an image description page? Likewise, the many images used in the "sister projects" section of Main Page. Why is our site the only one required to provide direct links to attribution while others only provide a boilerplate license note somewhere in the footer? Thanks, Миша13 16:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a note in the footer is connected well enough with images at the top left corner of the page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An old painting I own

I own an anonymous folk-art painting, created in Mexico in 1947. What's the correct licensing that I should select when I add it to a Wikipedia article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whbonney (talk • contribs) 02:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Who is the copyright holder? Stifle (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Judging by the notes at Commons:User:Drini/Mexican_copyright_law, the Mexican government might be the effective copyright holder, if the work is truly anonymous. In any event, Mexico has a 100 years PMA copyright, so even without knowing the author, if it was made in 1947 it's copyrighted and would be {{Non-free 2D art}}. --dave pape (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Old Encyclopedia: Copyright Status

Please kindly let me know if this is already in the public domain: text and image contents of The New Book of Knowledge, Grolier Incorporated, 1977. Thank you. - AnakngAraw (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No, 1977 is much too recent to be out of copyright. Assuming it was published with a copyright notice on it (which is extremely likely for an encyclopedia), it would remain under copyright until 2072. See [1] for a brief summary. The best encyclopedia currently in the public domain is the 1913 edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Dragons flight (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much, very helpful and informative. - AnakngAraw (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Languages problem

hi i'm from malaysia and i try too search 'bahasa malaysia' language about 'hydropneumatic suspension', where can i found it...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aminnem01 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You want the Bahasa Malaysian language's equivalent of the Reference desk. This page is for copyright questions regarding images and the like on the English Wikipedia. Sorry. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 03:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photo of a ship's bell

Would a ship's bell qualify as a piece of art, making a photo of it a derivative work? In particular, I'm asking about a bell that came from a U.S. Navy ship. Musashi1600 (talk) 07:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't personally think so. Also if it's a US Navy ship it may well be a work of the Federal Government anyway. Stifle (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confused about licensing an image already uploaded.

I hope this is the right place to ask this. Image:JOSE1.jpg is already uploaded and in use in José Sarria. It's tagged as PD but in the course of an FA review the tag has been questioned because it's supposedly been released by an organization. The uploader and I have no clue what needs to happen to clear up this issue. I find image licensing the most confusing thing about Wikipedia so if someone can talk me through the proper procedure like I'm a six year-old I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Otto4711 (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries for a boilerplate e-mail to use. Njcraig, or someone who can speak officially for the International Court System, should send such a message, stating exactly who owns the copyright to the image and asserting that the copyright holder agrees to release it to the public domain (or change it to a CC or GFDL license, if, for instance, they want to require attribution and didn't realize that PD gives up all rights - the fourth sentence of the example message doesn't actually apply for PD-self). --dave pape (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the reply. Another editor gave me the following text:

    I own the copyright to the images attached. I grant permission to copy, distribute and/or modify these documents 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.

    to send to permissions. Would that text along with the name of the copyright holder suffice as well? Otto4711 (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
The above is equivalent to the first two sentences of the example message. The other text is preferable, because in addition to stating the license, it has the sender acknowledge important aspects of a free license that sometimes people aren't aware of (they might otherwise think they're just giving permission for Wikipedia, not for the entire world). --dave pape (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • So am I reading the directions correctly, once the declaration is received the rest is all handled internally? The copyright holder doesn't need to do anything else? Otto4711 (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
The OTRS volunteer who handles it might e-mail back, if anything needs clarification. Otherwise, usually the volunteer will take care of everything and add the {{PermissionOTRS}} tag to the image (sometimes I've seen the uploader adding it, so I don't know for sure if it's guaranteed that the OTRS person will do it). --dave pape (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, great. Thanks for all your help. Otto4711 (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Old UK Photo

Can I upload this 1884 UK photo of Bedlay Castle? It has a photographer (Fleming) indicated but no date of death. Under UK law the photo is only public domain if the author died before 1st January 1938 (commons:Template:PD-UK-known), since the author is indicated. Can I assume this is the case because their is a 54 year span between the photo taken date and the death cut of date and through no reasonable method can I find the author's death date? Any help is appreciated.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 20:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Try {{non-free unsure}}. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan Reynolds Pics

Hey, I have scans that I took from magazine I bought containing Ryan Reynolds. Can I post the pics on wiki? If so, can u help me b/c I do not know how to do the copyright stuff and the other things. ~~talk Raizen 18 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raizen18 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No, sorry. Almost certainly the magazine does not license them under a free license. And they cannot be used under Wikipedia's non-free image policy because someone could take a replacement free photo of Reynolds. —teb728 t c 06:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
In order to be usable in Wikipedia, a photo would have to be freely licensed—that is licensed so that it can be reused by anyone for anything. This rules out almost any photo taken by a professional photographer. Perhaps the easiest way to get a free photo would be for a Wikipedian to take a photo him or herself.
Or perhaps you could get a freely licensed photo from his publicist. But understand that it is not enough to get permission to use the photo on Wikipedia. See WP:COPYREQ. —teb728 t c 08:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of Dead Person from CNN

Image:Gallery.welles.headshot.jpg

Am I doing it right? Y/N

Metty (talk) 13:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No. You haven’t provided an image copyright tag indicating what right Wikipedia has to use the image. —teb728 t c 01:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I knew that. I was asking if it was legitimate to use. Metty (talk) 13:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan Reynolds Pics

OK, if I can't use pics taken from magazine. Then can u wikipedians upload some photos somehow. It would be nice to actually see the actor instead of just reading about him. That would be very nice of u guys to do, we fans would very much appreciate it if u can add some pics to his page. ~ Raizen18 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raizen18 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I just uploaded a free image for you and put it in Ryan Reynolds. It's not great, but I think it's better than nothing.... Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I enhanced the contrast a little. If you want a better photo, try asking at Talk:Ryan Reynolds. His fans are more like to read there than this forum. (I see that Scarlett Johansson fans have come up with two good free images of her.) —teb728 t c 18:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] acceptable use of streaming video screen shots

I am interested in uploading a few images taken from a political debate (Idaho Senate) to the Larry LaRocco wikipedia page. My understanding is that the LaRocco for Senate campaign owns the copyright via purchasing the services from Ustream TV. Is this considered acceptable use? How should I reference it on the discussion page?

Thanks. Sixdegrees2008 (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

See WP:COPYREQ. In order to be acceptable the images would have to be licensed under a free license, i.e. one that allows reuse by anyone for anything. Would the campaign license them under such a license? And you should check with Ustream TV to be sure that they agree that the campaign owns the copyright. —teb728 t c 00:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] reproduce?

Can I reproduce a Wikipedia article if I credit Wikipedia with the article?

Mary Wildmann 22:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)22:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Mwildmann (talk)

See Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content for the requirements on reproducing Wikipedia articles. —teb728 t c 00:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scanned image of a (significant) concert ticket

Can I scan my old concert ticket from the Freddie Mercury Tribute concert for use in the respective Wikipedia page? This is a significant, one-time concert. I realize that the ticket itself contains a design that would be subject to copyright but I am unsure how to treat this and whether it is acceptable fair use to show the concert ticket as a historical record. Any help will be gratefully received and, in the meantime, I will look up Live Aid :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevorhirst (talk • contribs) 06:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia’s policy on non-free content is intentionally much more restrictive than fair use law. In particular, “non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic.” I can’t imagine how a scan of a ticket could satisfy this condition. Sorry. —teb728 t c 00:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I'm confused.

I don't know why I got this message. Thanks for uploading Image:Randy_Rogers_Band_Promo.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't even know what to do. I go the picture from the bands website. So is that allowed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfft 2108 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Randy Rogers Band Promo.jpg has a {{Non-free use rationale}} on it. This implies that the image is not licensed under a free license i.e. a license that allows reuse by anyone for anything. Wikipedia has a policy that a non-free photo cannot be used if it could be replaced by a free photo. Since the band is alive and active, it should be a simple matter for you or someone else to take a snapshot of them which you could upload under a free license. So what you need is a free photo. And when you upload it you need to indicate which free license permits Wikipedia to use it. —teb728 t c 00:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well the photo is free. I got the picture from the bands website. Or yall getting confused because It has promo in the image title? Sfft 2108 (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The photo may be "free" because you didn't have to buy it, but it's not free from Wikipedia's perspective, since the band still retains copyright over the image. That copyright limits reuse of the image. Promotional press photos may be OK from the standpoint of other media, but Wikipedia restricts fair use to images that cannot be recreated or replaced easily with a "free" (as in free of copyright). As mentioned, someone will have to take a personal photo of the band and post it under a "free" license that permits reuse of the image. DCmacnut<> 21:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
More specifically, the band’s website’s Terms of Use contains the following license: “6. Grant of License. Company hereby grants to you a limited, worldwide, non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicenseable, and revocable license to use the Services and/or the Materials for personal, noncommercial use only, subject to the restrictions in this Agreement.” The restrictions in this license are not acceptable to Wikipedia. Sorry. —teb728 t c 22:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Movie artwork question

I just wanted to know if i should refrain from uploading movie artwork [movie poster or dvd cover] for use on the wiki for that particular movie. For example, tonight I watched the movie Roadhouse 2. Not a real big deal as a movie. Kind of a half ass sequel, but I noticed there was next to no info about it on it's wiki, so I decided to fill in some of the general missing info. I was going to add an image of the dvd cover as well that I found on Amazon.com. Should I upload it or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1938superman (talk • contribs) 08:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There's minimal problems to include the movie poster (ideally) or DVD cover (if the poster can't be found) for use in a movie's infobox; that's generally an acceptable use of non-free media. If you follow the "Upload file" link to the left under "Toolbox", it'll give you instructions for how to do it, and what you need to include for its fair use rationale; just make sure you point to amazon with a URL as your image source. --MASEM 13:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] German copyright

This is an English translation of a German copyright. The commons helper tool does not recognise the template. Can this image be used outside Germany, and can an image with this license be uploaded to commons to be used on the en wiki. Snowman (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a CC-BY-SA-3.0, seems perfectly acceptable to me! Physchim62 (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I would inform the author of the commons uploader tool of the bug, but the bug report link does not work. Snowman (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
What bug? The license tag is Commons:Template:cc-by-sa-3.0-de or Commons:Template:cc-by-sa-3.0. What’s the problem? —teb728 t c 21:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC) It's the 16th line on the Licensing dropdown. —teb728 t c 21:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
There appears to be an alternative format {{Bild-CC-by-sa/3.0/de}} [2] on the German wiki which is not recognised by the upload helper software. There is one on this image, which will be deleted in a day or two, after I uploaded it to commons without using the upload helper tool. Snowman (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Mojos-Everythings-cover.jpg

This image is used in Decca Records, and I wondered - could I use the same rationale used on Image:Decca198.jpg (also used in Decca Records)? Also, generally, am I doing it right by tagging that image as a record cover? I've looked at several other images of record labels and they mostly seem to be classed as being like photographs. I'm confused! -- Bobyllib (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You would need to write a separate rationale explaining why the use of the image complies with WP:NFCC. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gallup poll graphs

Is it OK to use data from the Gallup website to create graphs for use on Wikipedia? (Gallup web site T&C [3], examples [4], [5]) Ha! (talk) 04:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Data isn't copyrightable, so if you make the graph for yourself (using free software to cover off all bases) then this isn't a problem. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] xenophobia

what is the reasons of xenophobia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.1.53.47 (talk) 07:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't seem like a media copyright question. —teb728 t c 07:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over two million articles, and thought that we were directly affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the online free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is a help desk for asking questions related to using the encyclopedia. Thus, we have no inside track on the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the left hand side of your screen. If that is not fruitful, we have a reference desk, divided into various subjects areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ordnance Survey maps

I wish to upload a section of an old Ordnance Survey map in order to show the location of Bank Street stadium, but I don't know what licence I should upload it under. According to the website I got the image from, the dates of the maps range from 1925 to 1945, and the maps themselves are now out of copyright. – PeeJay 09:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

UK Crown copyright is fifty years from publication, so they're public domain now. Maps from 1946–1957 are in some sort of copyright purgatory, as theoretically they're copyrighted in the U.S. but not in the UK (through U.S. copyright restoration), but pre-1945 should be fine. Physchim62 (talk) 10:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. I have now uploaded the image to Commons as Image:Bank street os.jpg. I hope I've tagged it correctly. – PeeJay 19:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FUR

Hi guys, would u mind taking a look at a question I left here plz? Ryan4314 (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Screenshots of copyrighted Audio files

If I load a copyrighted audio file into, say Audacity, take a screenshot of the waveform and save it as a PNG file, is this considered for copyright purposes to be "different enough from the original to be regarded as a new work" (under derivative works law), so it can be uploaded under GFDL; or, is it regarded as a derivative work and thus requires a fair-use rationale? I'd argue that since the bandwidth of the image is such that the original waveform cannot be reconstructed, it is "different enough". I've also asked this on Commons since it's something they should know about; but there doesn't seem to be a definitive answer anywhere. --Rodhullandemu 21:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No caselaw but people have reconstructed sounds music from waveforms. Probably a derivative work but no caselaw. Should be some free audio samples around that you could do it with though.Geni 09:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Commons seen to think it's a "derivative work", but they do that with regard to images and text; in this case, the image represents the dynamics of a copyrighted piece of music, and being a PNG file, any reconstruction of the original track from it would be pointless. I didn't want to bother Mike Godwin with this, but perhaps I'll drop him an email. --Rodhullandemu 21:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair Use? Image:Halloween Decorations.jpg.

The sole objector's charged "derivative works", I believe the image conforms wholly with the following litmus defining "Fair use".

1. What is the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit education purposes? It's art I created. I posted it with the intention of illustrating commercial applications of traditional Halloween imagery.

2. What is the nature of the copyrighted work? A random display of manufactured items shot in a storefront based on cultural objects in which there are no visible copyrighted elements. No different than photographing cars in a parking lot.

3.What is the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole? Assuming there is any copyright work at all, with the exception of the pumpkin, all other items appear in only fragmentary portions.

4. What is the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work? 17 U.S.C. 107(1-4). None. Originals are three-dimensional, image is one-dimensional.

In summery: This image is "art" composed of "found objects" based on "cultural reference" which I created and posted in the context of "educational purposes" for a free online article.

Can an image conform with fair use standards and still be considered by Wikipedia to be a derivative work? Willjay (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Free and fair use are separate licenses. You've twice uploaded an image and released it under GFDL, a free license. Since you do not own the copyrights to the objects within that work, you are not permitted to release it under the terms of the GFDL. It has, therefore, been rightfully deleted (twice). Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Image:Halloween Decorations.jpg was deleted by this IfD. If you want to contest the deletion, take it to WP:DRV. —teb728 t c 08:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neuralgia

Can an alergic reaction to a hair dye lead to Nerve problems in the jaw/check and teeth area?

Thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FEEBAP (talk • contribs) 19:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If you are looking for medical or legal advice, you should consult with a doctor or lawyer. Wikipedia is not allowed to give medical or legal advice. In any case that is not a media copyright question. —teb728 t c 21:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Are these images free-use?

I thought I'd ask this here, although the Commons might have been a better place... but we'll see. My question is about this Flickr photo set. Do you think these images are freely useable here? Firstly, the license used on Flickr is a free-use one. Secondly, these images were taken by E! Online employees. However, the account appears to be operated by Kristin Dos Santos. So, I'm confused, have E! Online released them under a free license? Or not? Gran2 20:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If the account is operated by her, we have to assume that the employers gave up any legal rights. I think we should use them with the same licence as they are in Flickr, although I'm not 100% sure. Guy0307 (talk) 13:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] National anthems of micronations

Can I upload the audio files of national anthems of micronations? If so, what template would I use? Thanks - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 14:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Not unless all copyright owners (generally the composer and performers) have released the rights under a free license. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:ThomasHammarberg.jpg

Dear friends,

This file is wholly copyrighted by the my employer (Council of Europe/Commissioner for Human Rights) , whom I am authorised to place on wikipedia on his behalf. However, there appears to be a question raised automatically about the legitimacy of this fact, or the copyright of this image.

I would sincerely appreciate some advice in this regard, as this situation is in reality very straightforward.

I would welcome direct contact on this via message, or indeed more official channels if required - but do appreciate this image being left as-is.

Thanks in advance.

Andrew Forde. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewforde (talk • contribs) 18:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's likely not as straightforward as you believe; your employer's permission for the image to be used on Wikipedia isn't sufficient for us to use it. By reason of our own policies, we can only use images of living people if they are either in the public domain or released under a free license (such as the GNU Free Documentation License) that allows unlimited re-use by any person for any purpose, including commercial use and derivative works. Would your employer be willing to license the image under such a license? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Magazine cover in an article which specifically discusses that cover

When you choose "Magazine cover" in the licensing menu of the upload wizard, it says "(can only be used in the article about the magazine)". I understand that a magazine cover can't be used to illustrate the subject depected on that cover. But isn't it OK to use a magazine cover when an article explicitly discusses that cover, being noteworthy as a cover? I'd like to use this cover at Dalek, where there's a section (Dalek#Magazine covers) explicitly discussing the use of the Dalek image on magazine covers, and specifically referencing this cover, which was recently voted "best British magazine cover of all time". Does the current text in Dalek contain sufficient "critical commentary" to justify the use of the magazine cover in the article? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

By Wikipedia standards, that should be much more than sufficient. It is on every level more legitimate to use a magazine cover in an article that discusses that cover than it is to use it in an article that merely discusses the magazine. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions"
Personal tools