Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• /archive1 (before April 2005)
• /archive2 (April 2005–June 2005)
• /archive3 (June 2005–September 2005)
• /archive4 (September 2005–December 2005)
• /archive5 (January 2006–March 2006)
• archive6 (April 2006–August 2006)

Please place new topics at the bottom of the page.

Contents 1 GPL question 2 EU image 3 Changing obviously incorrect tags 4 New image tag proposal: {{Registered trademark}} 5 Photo credit/attribution 6 {{cc-sampling}} 7 States? 8 Pre-1923 / 50 years PMA 9 Perscription medications 10 Google Book Search 11 2D vs 3D 12 PC Wallpapers 13 Making sense of all this 14 Received permission of Photographer..what is correct tag? 15 Smallville (TV series) 16 Mascots 17 Conflicting Licenses and Summaries 18 Possible new free use linking template 19 Copyright tag found "in the wild" 20 Is this a source? 21 Deprecating "PD-release" with "PD-author" 22 PBS-Character and PBS-Logo 23 "Demoting" {{wikipedia-screenshot}} to a mere "source" template. 24 Image originally published by a commission 25 Proposed tag for terrorist, etc. images 26 legal help -- do we need GFDL or other free license info for images on pages that are titled "free download"?? 27 Question re. image copyright 28 Less free licenses vs. fair use 29 Sorry To Be A Bother 30 Template:Book illustration as possible new template 31 courtroom sketch 32 PD-Japan 33 Can I upload a by-nc-nd picture? 34 What about CC-BY-ND-2.0? 35 Am I Missing Something? 36 Personally owned photographs 37 Tag for PD films, TV series 38 UK Government licenses are not free 39 Mapping software screenshot 40 Baseball Cards 41 broken system 42 Template:SerbiaFairUse 43 Word(Art) 44 Templates for release to the public domain 45 Cuba 46 Trademark template 47 Wondering? 48 Images with urls, etc 49 A guy who works on the CMS article 50 Images of images, images of record labels

[edit] GPL question

Many images have been tagged with the GPL license. This page says that GFDL should be selected for images. What does this mean as compared to GFDL? Are there any drawbacks with the GPL license for images?

Fred-Chess 21:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm also wondering about this. The GPL by itself does not seem to be compatible with Wikipedia's license, in that it does not allow sublicensing of any type. The GPL (at least up through v2) is really only compatible with itself—though many licenses are compatible with it. It seems to me that something solely licensed under the GPL would only be appropriate for Wikipedia under fair use. Xtifr _tälk 20:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EU image

Why can't these images be used? I understand they can't be modified, but what's wrong with that? We don't need to modify them do we? Or is it some other reason? In short, can someone explain why we can't use these images with just this licence? I mean, we can't modify fair use images either. - ^Рэд_хот 14:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If they can't be modified they are none free. In theory fair use images could be modified as long as that use remained fair use.Geni 14:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok. But why do we need the ability to modify them? Maybe some might, but for the ones that clearly suffice as they are, why can't the terms of licence by europa.eu just be used as given? - ^Рэд_хот 15:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Being able to modify them is part of an image being free.Geni 17:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but why isn't the freedom we have sufficient for our purposes? That's what I'm trying to establish - ^Рэд_хот 19:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

1 because we may want to modify them and two it's not just us but we also have to think about reusers.Geni 20:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but there will obviously be some who will be fine as is. And I don't get what you mean about reusers. Don't fair use tags pretty much warn against reuses unless its also fair use? In this case all a reuser has to do is give the source. And not to be rude, but why do we care about reusers. I mean, being completely frank, I don't see how whether or not someone else can modify it, is our problem. I thought that's what Commons does. - ^Рэд_хот 09:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Because this is a free content encyclopedia. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changing obviously incorrect tags

Howdy, I came across an image today Image:Karla foxnews.jpg, which was tagged pd-self, which is obviously wrong. I could list it at PUI, but is it acceptable to simply change the tag to a more appropriate one (such as {{Tv-screenshot}})? Are the general guidlines on when it is acceptable to change tags on other people's uploads? Thanks, --TeaDrinker 01:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

For obvious cases like that just fix it, and save the process for stuff where there the correct tag is not blindingly obvious. Note that if you can not identify the source (ok it's a tv-screenshot, but from what show?) adding {{subst:nsd}} might be more apropriate. --Sherool (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New image tag proposal: {{Registered trademark}}

Is this suitable? --  Denelson83  07:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What would this cover that {{logo}} doesn't? --Carnildo 07:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that logos are not covered by copyright law, but trademark law, which is a completely different animal. --  Denelson83  09:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo credit/attribution

I am sure this is covered somewhere but I can't seem to find it, but do we have to give credit/attribution in the captions of images used in articles that are licensed with cc-by or {{attribution}}?--Clawed 23:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No, giving it on the image description page is good enough. howcheng {chat} 06:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Howcheng.--Clawed 06:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{cc-sampling}}

Picked out from Uncategorizedimages patrol: Image:Asa Dotzler.ogg is licensed under a Creative Commons Sampling 1.0 license. Terms Is this a free license? It says You are free: To sample, mash-up, or otherwise creatively transform this work for commercial or noncommercial purposes, which sounds like it is a free use license, but also says You may not perform, display, or distribute copies of this whole work for any purpose, which suggests otherwise. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 05:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not. Since it does not permit the distribution of the original, it doesn't meet the definition of free content. --Carnildo 05:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] States?

What about state governments? No tag? Fair use? Public domain?

[edit] Pre-1923 / 50 years PMA

I'm baffled by this. What is the relationship between something being published before 1923 in the United States and countries that have a 50 year PMA rule? Surely we're not saying that everyone who published something before 1923 has been dead for fifty years. Can someone clarify? Jkelly 20:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The US Public Domain regulations clearly state that items published before 1923 in the US are in the public domain with no restrictions whatever--there are NO restrictions about any deaths. See [1] Rjensen 20:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that someone has conflated "the rule of the shorter term" and 50 years PMA and made some incoherent templates based on this conflation. PMA is immaterial to the first published in the US pre-1923 rule, as you note above. Jkelly 20:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and you can use the pd-US tag for such images. But if the author did die more than 50 years ago it's helpful to use a more specific tag because that matters in some countries. Haukur 20:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that this was intended as an intersection of two different cases needs to be more clear. Jkelly 21:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No it does not matter is "some" countries. There are no restrictions--PD in USA does not in any way depend on some mystery third country. Rjensen 21:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No one is saying that it does. The template should read "This media is in the public domain in the United States because it was first published in the United States before 1923. Incidentally, this particular media is also public domain in those countries who have a 50 year PMA rule, because the author also happens to have been dead for fifty years." This was not at all clear to me from either the description here or the template itself, but apparantly that is its goal. Jkelly 21:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's just drop the confusion. If an item is PD in the US without restrictions that solves the problem. Adding a meaningless restriction is guaranteed to mislead people: it certainly fooled me. Of course, most of the time we do NOT know the name of a photographer or when he died. so please don't say Incidentally, this particular media is also public domain in those countries who have a 50 year PMA rule, because the author also happens to have been dead for fifty years Rjensen 21:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Of all things published before 1923, a subset were created by people who have now been dead for fifty years. This template represents only that subset. This is not a restriction on {{PD-US}}, it is a more specific version that includes more information about the particular media. Jkelly 22:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The sdubset is never needed and will be confusing. Rjensen 22:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You just added a link to the non-existent PD-1923, which we don't need anyway because that's the point of PD-US, so I reverted your edit. Since this page is widely consulted, let's reach some sort of consensus on the explanatory text for PD-old-50 (and PD-art-life-50, which is almost the same) before rewriting it. howcheng {chat} 22:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia exists in languages other than English. Those other languages generally use their country's copyright rules in addition to the United States copyright rules in determining what is usable. That means, for a country with a copyright term of 50 years PMA and no rule of the shorter term, they can use media that is {{PD-50}} but not media that is {{PD-US}}. --Carnildo 23:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The template is meant to be used for places where something PD in the US might not be PD in another country without further specification. I don't think that's an inherently wrong idea. In any case the 50 years is not a restriction on the PD tag. I've added a note to the template page to emphasize that if something is pre-1923 in the US then it is PD in the US without question; the question is whether or not it is PD elsewhere as well, which for an international project is not a totally ridiculous thing to note. I don't think that it takes a "copyright expert" to apply the tag — if something was published in the US pre-1923 AND the author has been dead for more than 50 years, then it could go under that category. --Fastfission 22:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright has nothing whatever to do with language. It has to do with place of publication and all of Wikipedia is published in the USA. The PD rules we are discussing deal with books and images published in the USA before 1923. It is almost impossible to identify the death date of unknown photographers, staff writers and illustrators who worked more than 80 years ago, so Wiki should not ask editors to try to do so. It's irrelevant anyway--it is NOT a factor for Wiki. Rjensen 00:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think a large part of the problem is that we're discussing very different things here. You're talking about copyright as implemented by a strict reading of the law, while the rest of us are talking about copyright as described by Wikipedia policy. --Carnildo 01:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's only talk about Wiki copyright. All the different language Wikis are published in Florida by an American Foundation which operates under US tax laws, and is therefore bound by US laws.Wiki's official policy is clear enough:

Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia Foundation, its legal body, are based in Florida, United States. Although legislation is sometimes unclear about which laws are to apply on the Internet, the primary law relevant for Wikipedia is that of the United States. ...In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world is in the public domain. from Wikipedia:Public domain, so let's stick to our rules and not change them please. Rjensen 02:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I still fail to see what your problem is with this. It has been explained many times over that this isn't a "restriction" at all. This is simply a way of adding, "and by the way, all you re-users out there who are not in the US and whose countries may not recognize US PD-pre-1923, you can also use this if you country recognizes 50-years-after death. Just letting you know! Because we care." I am not sure what the basis of your rejection of this tag is other than the fact that you don't seem to understand it and seem to think that nobody else will understand it either, though many people here seem to understand it at this point. It is one thing to re-word a tag to make it clear, it is another to think it should be totally deleted. I am still baffled that you seem to be completely confused as to the point of this tag after having it explained to you by four different users. Please take some time to make sure you understand what we are saying before objecting vehemently. --Fastfission 17:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought the tag crowds out the needed tag PD-1923. But if the consensus is otherwise I will restore the PD-1923 tag now. Rjensen 19:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perscription medications

If I wanted to upload an image of a perscription medication (just the pill not the bottle), what, if any, copyright tag should I put on it?--*Kat* 11:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that you'd want to use something like {{logo}}. I doubt you can copyright a pill design, but you can probably trademark it. --Fastfission 13:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google Book Search

By chance I found a diagram on Google Book Search which can save me traveling to the local county archives for the 'out of copyright' book in which it sits. Has anyone addressed this issue. I think its fair to use it leaving the Google logo at the bottom (i.e., not photo-edit it out) but others might think there are other issues that need to be considered that I haven't thought of. Whilst Google is not charging for this service I think its in the spirit of open access to use their service when something useful turns up that is: both out of copyright and that can be used on WP. Especially in the light of the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp ruling. But considering its 'Google' I think it might help ( for when others ask the same question) to have a policy decision. Any thoughts? --Aspro 17:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It the work is out of copyright then you can use it for any purpose you wish in jurisdictions where it is public domain, even Google acknowledges this (they do not claim copyright on PD books). They request, if I recall, that you leave their watermark on just so that the project can keep justifying itself ("The Google “watermark” you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. "), which isn't an entirely odious or unjustified request, though it has no legal backing. --Fastfission 21:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with that. Thanks for a speedy reply.--Aspro 13:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2D vs 3D

Could somebody help me to attribute proper tags on the following images:

1. Km01-bull-vs-mammoth.jpg — a 30 year old photo of an ancient petroglyph (I cannot say for sure, if something like this considered 3D or 2D)
2. Km04-animals.jpg — a 30 year old drawing of similar petroglyphs
3. Km02-bull-grotto.jpg — a 30 year old photo of similar petroglyphs taken from a particular angle for best lighting
4. KmT1-1.jpg — a piece of Km04-animals.jpg which a scientist claims to be an hieroglyph.
5. KmT1-2.jpg — a Sumerian pictogram probably available from a variety of sources

All these images can be seen at the same time at http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Каменная_могила (an article from Russian Wiki which I am translating into English to include into English wiki).

I understand that all these images could be used under "Fair use" template because the petroglyphs in question have significantly deteriorated over last 30 years, but I’d like to understand, if I could use "PD-art" or some other PD template. Thank you. Evgeny 19:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• My feeling is that #2, #3, and #5 have very weak claims to copyright. Though there is no doubt a little creativity in them, in principle they purport to be essentially uncreative by their very claims to accuracy, a key point in Bridgeman v. Corel and a good rhetorical point as well. #1 probably has the strongest copyright claim, as it is clear that some arrangement of the lighting was necessary to make the petroglyph be visible. #4 seems like a pretty uncreative photograph to me. In any case, since the photographs are essentially dead-on photographs of essentially two-dimensional things (they are relatively flat, and the photographs treat them as if they were flat), I would say that this is pretty close to whatever line there might be between the 3D and the 2D. Personally I'd lean towards public domain though I'd want to outline exactly why on the image page. --Fastfission 21:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• So, here is what I am going to do:

1. “PD-art” or “fair use” at my discretion (I also lean toward PD)
2. “PD-art”
3. “PD-art”
4. “PD-ineligible”
5. “PD-ineligible”

Any other opinions? Evgeny 17:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think PD-ineligible is valid here. #4 should have the same license as #2, since it's just a portion of it. #5 could either be PD-art or PD-old. howcheng {chat} 23:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PC Wallpapers

can you make a tag for pc wallpapers? I uploaded three Images to wikipedia with no tags. all of three images are PC wallpapers. I am Amrykid ,Elite wikistudent and I approve this message. 22:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• are PC wallpapers public domain?

I am Amrykid ,Elite wikistudent and I approve this message. 22:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

PC wallpapers are not in the public domain unless the site where you downloaded them from specifically says they are. The proper copyright tag for these would be {{fairusein}} with a proper fair use rationale, but they really should only be used if you are discussing the wallpaper image itself for some reason. howcheng {chat} 23:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Making sense of all this

Surely there is a better way of doing this? You select an image and choose from a scrappy list of options a tag that is close to what you want. You then load your image. Immediately WP tells you that you shouldn't have done this and that your image will be deleted. A warning beforehand might have been better, before you clicked on the upload button.

Instead of being given another simple list of options, you now have to read vast amounts of verbiage about software copyright and cereal packets, when all you wanted a list of the most common allowable image tags. Eventually you find a tag that meets your requirements, but there are no instructions on how to prevent your now legal image from being deleted. For all I know, in creating the first disallowable tag, the image already gone on a blacklist.

Curiously there seems to be allowable and simple tags that do not appear on the original list. I wanted to load a copyright image that could be used for any pupose provided that the copyright holder was credited. The owner had given me specific written permission. This must be a common occurrence, but you would never guess it from the vast array of exotic options.

Would it be possible to construct a simple decision tree. eg "Do you have specific permission?", if yes.... After passing the basic hurdles, then just indent the most common tags in a hierarchical list. Pareto would indicate that about ten tags would cover the majority of requirements. I suspect that simplifying and clarifying the process would be a highly worthwhile investment of someone's time because it would save more of their time and that of many other users in a very short period. JMcC 13:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, these 'trap' tags are a somewhat weird way of educating people (and I say that as someone who regularly delete images with those tags). But one of the problem with making it too easy is that if you tell people: "Okay, select one of those allowed tags and your image won't be deleted" then we run a high risk that they don't actually read any of the information they need to know. It's no good telling people: "Okay, if you tag it with {{GFDL}} then it won't be deleted." The tagging is secondary. The actual problem is that the copyright holder must release the picture under the licence in question. Very often the uploader isn't the copyright holder and can't just select any old tag. In your case do you really have written permission from the author saying "anyone can use this image for any purpose"? (Not saying that's impossible but that's not the typical thing people give you when you ask for permission.) Haukur 13:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do have specific permission to use the copyrighted image for any purpose provided they are credited, but why isn't this an option in a simple list of tags when I upload? Just imagine clicking on Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the first time. How would I find the tag for my simple and common requirement? Something is needed at the top of the page that would give an idea of the basic and most common options. There will doubtless be more complex situations for those with images of cereal boxes or the Finnish military, but at present it is extremely daunting. Perhaps this article needs to be split up giving separate articles for those who want to load, say,logos or US federal images, which are probably a relatively small proportion of the images loaded. JMcC 13:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do have specific permission to use the copyrighted image for any purpose provided they are credited, but why isn't this an option in a simple list of tags when I upload? Then your image should be deleted. It's not enough that you can use it as you please - it's necessary that anyone can do so. Haukur 15:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence that your requirement is really that common. We have rather a lot of logos and works of the US federal goverment.Geni 15:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You find an image and you ask permission to put it on Wikipedia. They say fine but we would like the credit for the image. It seems to me to be a probable requirement, though you may be right that it is not often used because of the Byzantine nature of this page. I am not saying there are not a lot of logos or US federal images, but this page could be made much more manageable/useable if the decision tree, took specific groups of users off to a different page once they decided the image was a logo or a US federal image. JMcC 15:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You find an image and you ask permission to put it on Wikipedia. They say fine but we would like the credit for the image. That's not enough. We have a policy to delete such images. Haukur 15:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

If copyright owner gives permission for any use but wants the fact that it is copyright to be stated, I do not see why there should be any objection. This is exactly the situation in the paragraph below in which Haukur gives no helpful advice about the right tag to use. If the copyright holder is happy, what's the problem? I now think I was doing a disservice to the Byzantines. JMcC 17:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

If copyright owner gives permission for any use but wants the fact that it is copyright to be stated, I do not see why there should be any objection. Indeed. But it has to be explicit that it really is any use, including commercial use and creations of modified versions and derived works, and anyone who has to be able to make use of it. Haukur 18:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Another interesting point to emerge is that in the responses below, an e-mail address has been stated to which permissions have to be sent. I have not seen this before and so if it is WP policy, it should be in places such as Wikipedia:Image use policy. It is certainly a step forward from Haukur's policy of whatever permission tag that you use, we will delete it.JMcC 17:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, I fought tooth-and-nail against this policy back in the day but it is what we ended up with. It has its disadvantages and it has its advantages, you're free to fight to have it changed. Haukur 18:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Now I really am confused. If I get permission from the copyright owner by e-mail and this is sent to permission AT wikipedia.org to say that the image can be used by anyone for any purpose provided that the copyright owner is credited, would you/Wikipedia still have any objections? I started this discussion because this is not spelt out clearly and simply. If it takes this long for me to work this out, then I think I have proved my point. Some sort of decision tree is needed to allow useful imagages to be loaded for the satisfaction of all. JMcC 19:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

If the copyright holder explicitly state that everyone is allowed to use it for anyting provided they are atributed then that's fine, use the {{attribution}} tag. However like ~90% of the time people will just get a "sure you can use it in the article/on Wikipedia" reply, wich is not sufficient to be considered a free license (see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission). This subtle but important difference is unfortunately lost on most people so we had to "hide" those kinds of options from the dropdown list because it turned out that that most uploads tagged "free use" where in fact not (free use that is). --Sherool (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Received permission of Photographer..what is correct tag?

I have received permission from a photographer to use an image from his Web site of a musician. The image has a reasonably discreet copyright stamp on it, and he is fine with using it as long as the Web site and he are credited - what is the appropriate category tagging? I cannot locate a public domain image for this musician - thank you. Tvccs 15:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

If the permission is specific to Wikipedia then the correct template is Template:Permission. This will get your image quickly deleted. You can try claiming fair use with Template:Fairusein or Template:PermissionAndFairUse but whatever you do a non-free photograph of a living person is likely to be deleted sooner or later. Haukur 15:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Provided that the copyright owner states clearly in writing that he/she is happy for the image to be used by anybody for any use provided that the copyright ownership is acknowledged, then I suggest attaching the following tag {{Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}}. This allows you to put in a proviso such so that the copyright holder is acknowledged whenever the image is used. eg {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|copyright holder's name and or website is credited as the copyright owner}}. Insert the copyright holder's name to replace the words above JMcC 17:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Make sure that the email goes to permissions AT wikimedia.org -- then use {{attribution}} if the copyright holder is actually fine with the idea of the image being used commercially and being modified. If the copyright holder demands that the watermark not be removed, however, the image is not freely licensed, and needs to be deleted. Jkelly 17:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smallville (TV series)

I uploaded a new image for the Smallville page, but I can't find an appropriate tag in the drop box. The image is a promotional image, release by The CW, but I didn't see anything for "promotional" image. It's being used because it contains an updated capture of the entire cast. Someone please point me in the right direction. Bignole 03:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just too a chance there was a "promotional" tag, and low and behold there was. Bignole 03:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mascots

If an organisation doesn't really have a definitive logo, instead promoting brand recognistion through cartoon mascots, can I use fair use for a picture of the mascots? If so, should I tag it with {{logo}}, one of the promotional tags, or just fairusein? Confusing Manifestation 04:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conflicting Licenses and Summaries

There are a couple of images that I have seen here which have the GFDL licensing tags, but also have in their summaries something like "Share for any not-for-profit purpose, you must give me credit as the photographer" or "It may be used for educational purposes with attribution." This seems to conflict with the licensing terms which allow for for-profit, commercial reuses, if I understand it correctly. What action should be take? It could be ignored, as if there was any conflict the GFDL would trump the summary comments? Or should they be put up for deletion? Or should the summary comments simply be removed, which I would feel uneasy doing.

-Seidenstud 20:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Assume the worst. Ask for clarification and if none arrives remove the tag. Haukur 20:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, if the text says "non-commercial use" or indicate other non-free restrictions and is tagged as GFDL or some other free license then there is a problem. Asume good faith on the part of the uploader naturaly, but when they present conflicting or even mutualy exclusive licensing info on theyr images this does not extend to asuming they intended only the most liberal of the two to apply, most likely if they took the trouble of typing out "for non-commercial use only" in the summary they rely don't want theyr works used commercialy. We can't just ignore that because they then stuck a GFDL template on there as well, chances are they have no idea what the GFDL license imply (I have a feeling most people don't). Ask them to clearify, and if you get no reply in a few days take it to possebly unfree images or just slap {{no license}} on them (along with some explanatory text so it's not mistaken for vandalism) or list then on Images for deletion (if it looks self made, and the uploader is not around then the exhaustive PUI process is often a waste of time since only the uploader can actualy clearify the situation). --Sherool (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible new free use linking template

I saw a number of images where the uploader seems to have taken the link to Wikipedia template, and hacked it to request a link to the source site. I think a version of the template, where the URL is an external source, could be helpful. I created a sample here. What are your opinions? -- kenb215 06:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I see that {{CopyrightedFreeUse-Link}} has since been updated to allow this. Thanks. -- kenb215 talk 02:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright tag found "in the wild"

I found this template {{PD-GI}} while fixing up Category:Image copyright tags. What do you think should be done with it? -- kenb215 06:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Also found:

• {{PD-DE-Photo}}

(arrg, edit conflict) -- kenb215 07:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

See if the claim can be verified, and if not, list it for deletion. --Carnildo 06:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

{{PD-DE-Photo}} appears to be the confusion between "photograph" and "photographic work" cropping up again, and should be deleted, as almost everything we use on Wikipedia is a "photographic work". --Carnildo 07:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Speedied. We've been through this before, see Template talk:PD-Germany. There was one image using it (Image:Johnrabe.jpg), which is {{subst:nsd}}. Lupo 16:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this a source?

I tagged Image:James-river-bridge.jpg as not having a source before realizing that the postcard itself says "picture taken by U.S.A. Air Corps". Is this enough of a source to mark it as PD-art? Also, should the text be cropped out, since the text was added by the producer of the postcard and is thus not public domain? (Though, to cite the source, the text would have to be in the image description anyway.) --NE2 06:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please respond before it gets deleted? --NE2 19:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it qualify as a source (I'm asuming the U.S.A. Air Corps is some federal agency?), I added it to the image page itself. Not sure if we should remove the text from the iamge itself or not though... --Sherool (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's the United States Army Air Corps. I think I will crop the image so it looks better in James River Bridge. Thank you for having a look. --NE2 20:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, good, I'd suggest adding a link to the old revision of the image once you have uploaded the crop too, just to cover all the basics in case someone comes along at a later date and wonder how we arived at the source info. --Sherool (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deprecating "PD-release" with "PD-author"

I have just imported Template:PD-author from Wikimedia Commons and propose to replace "PD-release" with this template. There are several advantages of PD-author. First, the creator of the work is clearly named; and second, it includes, as with PD-self, the alternative text of "use for any purpose" if public domain is not possible. Peter O. (Talk) 12:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Why not just update PD-release to be the same thing so that nobody has to go and replace all the existing PD-release tags? Just have some default text for when the author parameter is not specified. howcheng {chat} 16:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I was considering that as well. Peter O. (Talk) 16:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PBS-Character and PBS-Logo

Any good reason not to create a fair use template for PBS pictures containing logos and characters shown on PBS? --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 18:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Because such a tag would be redundant with {{TV-screenshot}}? There's nothing uniquely fair-use about screenshots of PBS shows, so there's no need for a special tag. --Carnildo 19:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Demoting" {{wikipedia-screenshot}} to a mere "source" template.

I don't think we should use {{wikipedia-screenshot}} as a bonafied license template. There are just too many factors involved to be covered by one template. Instead I suggest turning it into something that says that it's a screenshot of a Wikipedia webpage, text licensed as GFDL and all that, but that it must be used on conjunction with at least one other copyright tag depending on what other elements beyond the text is actualy present in the screenshot, possebly also ask that any images that might be embeded in the screenshot is properly identified (they might require attribution for legal use (IANAL and all that though). A quick look at the images in Category:Screenshots of Wikipedia reveals several "problems", here are some typical examples:

• Image:Krill-FA-MP.png, screensot of the Wikipedia front page, however it also contains the far use cover of a Harry Botter book in the "In the news" section, yet this is not acknowledged anywhere on the page.
• Image:Analogs article.jpg, screenshot of an article, prominently featuring the band's logo, the FireFox logo (wich is not free licensed), and several unfree icons (Windows start, Word, Google etc).

Now I do realise that these are all uploaded in good faith and that the tag have a log tradition and so forth, but personaly I don't think simply quietly ignoring these issues are the "Right Thing" to do so how about something like this:

Step 1: Change the wording of the template as mentioned above (suggestions welcome), and obviously remove it from MediaWiki:Licenses. Have a bot go though the category, and generate a list of users who have uploaded at least one such images that doesn't already have an additional copyright tag, and then notify each of these users (possebly also via e-mail if they have this option set up, though I'm unsure how hard that would be to get aproved for a bot to do) once that these images now require additional copyright info, and ask them to please go over these images (include a list in the notice). I guess this is not the most urgent issue so give a generous time limit for this to be fixed. A month maybe, before initiating step 2.

Stemp 2: Once the month or whatever is up we could have a bot list any unfixed old images (uploaded before the template was changed) on IFD (maybe 50 or so a day), and we should then start treating new uploads (after the tag was changed) as {{no license}} material.

Any thoughts? Or does this fall into the "something to worry about when all other license issues have been dealth with" (wich basicaly means never) category? Alternate remedies --Sherool (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image originally published by a commission

Hey, I uploaded a pic describing HK MTR interchanges originally published as part of a commission-reviewed study for alternate transportation solutions to Vancouver. I found it on Skyscraper city. However, it does not allow me to use the tag for non-profit and educational and has listed the image for speedy deletion. >>However, can i use the {{PD-ineligible}} tag since it is part of the HK transit system and every1 there knows it as common knowledge? Or should i use the "gave me permission to use on wikipedia" tag? A quick reply would be appreciated. Herenthere 21:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No, PD-ineligible means that if anyone were to draw the image, it would appear the same. It's applicable to stuff like chemical structures, common symbols, etc (see Category:Public domain images ineligible for copyright for examples). A "Wikipedia-only" permission is not good enough (and certainly don't use it if you don't actually have permission). Images have to be licensed so that anyone can use them for any purpose, including commercial usage. Regarding this image, it does appear that you could draw it pretty easily yourself. howcheng {chat} 22:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Image Herenthere 22:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: This image can be easily re-created with any computer software, such as Paint. Therefore it is ineliglible to be 'copyrighted'. That's not what I meant at all. For example, a treble clef (this one is licensed PD-self instead of PD-ineligible) -- if you told anyone to draw a treble clef, they would come up with this. That's why this is PD-ineligible. No creativity is required. In the case of your image, there's still some creativity required (not much, but still a little bit: the colors of the lines, which way the lines point, etc) -- therefore it can be copyrighted. However, you could draw a similar version yourself and release it to the public domain. Do you see the distinction? howcheng {chat} 23:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this image and tag a better fit? But now I created a more general name for it and I would like to delete the original. Should I list it under speedy deletion (redundant)? And if I did list it there how would I list it? As "Edit" or discussion? Thx again!

Nice job with the image. I deleted the original for you, but for reference, you can tag those with {{db-author}} to request deletion. howcheng {chat} 16:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Howcheng! You're a great administrator. Thanks for all your help.

[edit] Proposed tag for terrorist, etc. images

There was recently a spat on the Village Pump (here) about the copyright status of images produced by organizations such as Al-Qaeda. After a bit of research, I think the following would be a reasonable statement of their copyright status in the U.S. They should be treated as fair use images on Wikipedia, as the proposed tag makes clear. Physchim62 (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The copyright in this image is believed to be held by a person, organization or state subject to U.S. sanctions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA, 50 U.S.C. Chapter 35). As such, it is believed that the corresponding U.S. copyright is "blocked property". The image is used on English-language Wikipedia (hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation) as "information or an informational material" under the provisions of 50 U.S.C. § 1702(b)(3), and under the fair use provisions of U.S. copyright law. In particular, it is not possible to create or use an alternative image in the context of the article. Reuse of this image in other circumstances may require a license under the IEEPA or under corresponding legislation outside the United States.

I have created the tag at {{IEEPA sanctions}}, but not placed it on any images as yet. Physchim62 (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, but this only applies to the limited list of groups that are proscribed by the IEEPA. There are other organizations that we are likely to get images from, those on the U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. What would be the status of those images? Normal fair use? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The list is "limited", yes, but still over 2Mb! It covers drug traffikers and dodgy politicians as well as terrorists (as defined by the US). I would be surprised if there are great differences between the State Department list and the Office of Foreign Assets Control list. However, if the copyright is not blocked by sanctions then normal fair use rules apply under the doctrine of "respect all copyrights" (the "all" referring to countries, rather than people!). In fact, normal fair use rules apply anyway, as the Foundation doesn't pay terrorist organizations any more than it pays anyone else for the use of their copyrighted work ;) Physchim62 (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The Department of State factsheet states that organizations on their list are covered by IEEPA sanctions: "Legal Ramifications of Designation: 3. Any U.S. financial institution that becomes aware that it has possession of or control over funds in which a designated FTO or its agent has an interest must retain possession of or control over the funds and report the funds to the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department of the Treasury." For a list of current sanctions, see here (direct from the CFR). Physchim62 (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] legal help -- do we need GFDL or other free license info for images on pages that are titled "free download"??

Does anyone know of any precedents for skipping the whole GFDL or other free license process if an image is explicitly provided for public download, on a page that is explicitly marked as such? I will be eternally grateful for detailed and hopefully authoritative responses.

Just FYI, the page is here:

• Desktop pictures download

.. but the image I want is not on that page yet. I'm gonna ask them to put it there. Actually, an altered version of it is on that page; the desired (unaltered) version is on a separate page.

Thanks a million thank you-s --Ling.Nut 03:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No. permission to download it does not cut it, we need permission to distribute and modify--Clawed 04:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

thanks! --Ling.Nut 11:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question re. image copyright

Re. this picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Metaphase-flourescent.JPG can someone help me identify which tag should be used. The image appears to be sourced from a center sponsored by the state of NY and its department of health. Cheers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ShaiM (talk • contribs) 14:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC).

Arg, as User:Natalinasmpf is an adminstrator, I'd expect him/her to know better -- nothing can be "implicit" public domain. Although I don't see any copyright notices on the site or on http://www.ny.gov/ either, WP:ICT has no PD-NYGov template. Hmm, this is going to take some more research. I sent an email to the webmaster of the NY office of the attorney general, so hopefully they will be able to clarify this for us. howcheng {chat} 16:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for going the extra step! Hope something pans out. ShaiM 05:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Laws of the State of New York are here; I can see nothing which would let us use these images, only a few no-modification licenses. Physchim62 (talk) 13:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If you google "site:state.ny.us copyright you can see that many different NY state agencies have totally different copyright policies. There is no reason to assume it is PD unless that is stated somewhere explicitly.--Fastfission 00:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Less free licenses vs. fair use

Am I correct that an image for which permission has been granted for non-commercial use cannot be used on Wikipedia? What is the reason for allowing fair use images but disallowing images that are more free than the fair use ones? Case in point, these images are historically important and would be important for the relevant article; permission has been granted for "non-profit" use; can they not be used but wrestling publicity photos can? (Also, would {{HistoricPhoto}} apply?) —Centrx→talk • 06:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Basicaly such images are wholly incompatable with the terms of the GDFL license, while aparently a well made fair use claim (wich to be honest most of our unfree images does not have) will theoreticaly allow people to reuse the article as is with image and all even for commercial purposes (within the US anyway). See some debate on the issue at meta:Do fair use images violate the GFDL?. So while we will take a free licensed image over a fair use one any day the fair use provisions of US copyright law aparently grand more freedoms than a "special use" permission from the copyright holder does. As for the 9/11 photos one can scertainly argue that it's is a non-repeatable historic event in a fair use claim on those images. We should not stop looking for free replacements though, there where probably quite a few photos taken that day and some of the copyright holders might be willing to use a free license if we can just find them. --Sherool (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You can still use a "non-commercial" licensed image as fair use if it fits the criteria, and you should cite the license in the Image Description File when you upload (as it may be useful to reusers). However, there is no exemption from general fair use criteria. Physchim62 (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but some fair use may be more restrictive than the license given by the creator. "Other use of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement." Suppose, for example, that the copyright owner grants license for anyone to use an image as though it were fair use, but it is still not actually fair use. What about with borderline cases that do not technically fall under fair use, but we have in addition a grant of permission. —Centrx→talk • 00:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

a well made fair use claim ... will theoreticaly allow people to reuse the article as is with image and all even for commercial purposes No it will not. The well made fair use claims which we have heavily rely on the fact that Wikipedia is a non-commercial enterprise. Lots of licences which we reject as insufficiently free are far more suitable for reusers than fair use images. Take images which can be published by anyone but not modified. Most reusers would not have any problems with those. But then, of course, most reuse of Wikipedia is by scrapers with Google ads and of no benefit to society. Haukur 04:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry To Be A Bother

Whats the PD for an image made by the AP?Mitchazenia V5.0 17:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothing made by the Associated Press is in any different copyright category than anything else which is copyrighted. There is no "PD" for the "AP". --Fastfission 23:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Book illustration as possible new template

Currently, we have a template for book covers, but not for book illustrations. This is causing a bit of a discussion over at WP:PUI. I created a possible template in my user space that could work ([2]). If you think it is viable, it can simply be moved from there to Template:Book illustration. Some current places where it could be used are:

• Image:Ootp36.jpg
• Image:Dumbledore versus Lord Voldemort.jpg (same image as above)
• Image:Ootp25.jpg
• Image:Ootp37.jpg
• Image:Hbp08.jpg
• Image:Horace slughorn.jpg

The ones I found so far all seem to be from Harry Potter books. -- kenb215 talk 03:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

seems to be a case for {{fairusein}}. As it stands, we are in potential breach of copyright law, and definite breach of WikiGuidelines, as we do not name the illustrator, nor the owner of U.S. copyright (which is easy enough to find out). Physchim62 (talk) 13:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is much of a compelling "fair use" claim for any of those images. None of them are really essential and a strong argument could be made that they compete with the original art. They are not being used in a critical way at all. --Fastfission 23:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] courtroom sketch

Can anyone please tell me in what category (template) would a U.S. courtroom sketch be?..Is it PD? made of course by a court employee..? thanks.--F3rn4nd0 21:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting question. I'm not sure where to begin trying to research it. Jkelly 22:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If it is created as part of the official trial record (something I'm not sure whether it happens in general), then it would be public domain if made in the US. In the US, laws, regulations, and official court records are all public domain on the grounds that the public has a compelling interest in the access and use of materials under which they are to be governed. This is touched on a little bit in WP:PD. However this would probably only apply to sketchs created by court employees for official purposes. Sketches created by third parties are probably covered by normal copyright restrictions. Dragons flight 22:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure most sketches are made by artists under the employ of news agencies, which would not make them public domain at all. --Fastfission 23:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Fastfission is right I found this in an article where one of these artists was talking about it... he said "Once I finish my sketch, the media 'buys' the right to photograph it-that's how I earn my living. " -- Thanks for the help!--F3rn4nd0 18:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PD-Japan

There is a Template:PD-Japan but it is not included. Is this because there is some doubt to it's information? -- Esemono 02:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't understand the choice of dates for the moment... I will investigate as far as I can and get back! There are also problems with possible U.S. copyrights of Japanese photos. Physchim62 (talk) 08:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Physchim62

[edit] Can I upload a by-nc-nd picture?

I just wanted to upload an image with the following summary:

From http://www.sightline.org/maps/maps/cascadia_cs05m. Publication date: 2005. Originally published in: Cascadia Scorecard. Map drawn by Cynthia Thomas for Sightline Institute. Permission per theirFree Use Policy.

This looks like by-nc-nd to me, which CC-BY seems to consider a valid license. However, Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags says "Do not upload images for which one of the tags in this section applies." Is there any other similar tag that I'm unaware of? — Sebastian (talk) 09:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

If commercial use is not freely allowed or the creation of derivative works are restricted the image is considered unfree and can only be used under fair use (if it fulfill all 10 of our fair use criterea). Oh and while theyr license mention attribution and non-commercial use it doesn't actualy spesify a cc-by-nc license, so it would be wrong to claim that it was released under that spesific license even if the basic terms seem simmilar. Aside from the "simple" version all the CC licenses also have a longer "legalese" definition, so if the spesific license is not mentioned you can't just asume that they mean to use those exact terms. --Sherool (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a pity! Why does Wikipedia need commercial use to be freely allowed? I could ask them if they'd agree with some other conditions of the CC licenses, but it feels odd to ask them to allow commercial use when I want it for a free encyclopedia. — Sebastian (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a philosophical position held by the creators of Wikipedia that in order to be truly free the content must be free enough that it could be used in virtually any other forum, including commercially and with derivative versions. Not everyone agrees that requiring that much freedom is a good idea, but it is a part of Wikipedia that is unlikely to change. Dragons flight 20:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

On a more practical note, "noncommercial" is a very vague term. An extreme interpretation would prohibit Wikipedia from soliciting donations; a more reasonable one would still prohibit things like selling Wikipedia on a CD to raise funds. --Carnildo 08:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a "free" encyclopedia in the sense of "freedom" not "gratis". If you are prohibited from possibly making any money off of a derivative work it is not free at all in the first sense. Our free content article explains some of this; awhile back I tried to write up some explanation of this policy at User:Fastfission/Noncommercial -- maybe it will be useful? --Fastfission

[edit] What about CC-BY-ND-2.0?

I've checked Flickr, and found out that the image commons:Image:Asimo hand.jpg is originaly licensed as http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0 and therefore it might be deleted from Commons. Could this image and other images tagged as {{cc-by-nd-2.0}} be uploaded localy?
Best regards, Yuval Y 04:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

ND means it is not free enough for Wikipedia's standards. --Fastfission 04:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Quoting the tag: "For the purposes of Wikipedia, this is a non-free license and must have an accompanying "fair use" tag and criteria". What is your suggestion? Yuval Y 11:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What that means is that the image cannot be used on Wikipedia unless it is independently within the bounds of our Wikipedia:Fair use policy. It means that you should treat it like any copyrighted image. --Fastfission 13:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

In this specific case, this image is a copyvio. It comes from [3] and most likely was supplied by Honda. howcheng {chat} 19:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Just what I needed, to warn the Flickr user about copyvio... I'll see what to do with the one who uploaded the image to commons. Yuval Y 21:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Am I Missing Something?

An artist recently asked me to include a picture of their installation artwork along with their article. How difficult could it be? Well, after spending an hour trying to decipher the laybrinth of tags in this article the answer is... entirely way too difficult. Not even trying to bother dealing with decidely user unfriendly structure my most pressing concern is that of commercial usage.

Why is there no tag that only grants non-commercial usage or Wikipedia only usage? If there is such a tag but I missed it please point it out to me. If not... does Wikipedia really need to be a clipart site? Do artists really need to worry about what products their artwork is selling? Why should artists have to give away their work just so that it can be shown on this site? Clearly the costs are artist articles without examples of their art... so what are the benefits and do they really outweigh the costs? Are there any admins associated with this section that are actually professional artists? Epiphyte 06:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Answer: Yes, you are. The most important tenants of the GNU license which appears at the bottom of every page, is that anyone has the "freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially". Another point is: were this not to be so - what would stop people (artists for instance) from using Wikipedia as their 'free' hosting site (what is this article you refer to?). However, it may be possible to include an image under 'fair use' depending on the circumstances. Hope this helps.--Aspro 13:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is free content. That is, as mentioned above, a core aspect of the project. While it may limit the number of artist's images on articles, the benefits do drastically outweigh the costs. With free content, Wikipedia can be loaded on an iPod without asking the millions of editors, or the foundation. It can be used on the one laptop per child project. It can be used by music programs, such as Amarok, to get information about the artists and display it within the application. If the foundation starts to make terrible mistakes, it can even be used to start a new encyclopedia. The content is free, and so people can be confident in spending days and days working on it. They can know that it will always be free according to the GFDL. These benefits do outweigh the worth of a few images on some articles. Many would agree they outweigh the worth of all images, but thankfully there are many people willing to create free content images. It is something that professional artists have to think about though, and I am not trying to minimize the importance of that decision. It may be that you decide not to include your artwork here. If you have any other questions feel free to ask, or ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. - cohesion 19:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

All the examples you gave would be covered under a non-commercial use license. I still don't see the benefit to Wikipedia or to most users if people are allowed to sell prints, greetings cards, postcards, etc. of artwork that they find on Wikipedia. Many museums won't even let you take photos of artwork by contemporary artists... I don't see why Wikipedia can't settle for a happy medium that allows for reasonable non-commercial use but still provides artists with protection from people selling their work. Epiphyte 20:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

There's one case you're missing, which is Wikipedia 1.0. It's possible that the cost of distribution of a CD/DVD version could be partially recouped by selling it for a nominal price, in which case all non-commercial images would have to be removed. howcheng {chat} 20:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Repeat: What is this 'article' that (may) requires an image ?--Aspro 22:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is on contemporary eco-installation artist Christian Bernard Singer and here's the link to the image [Paeton2]. As far as I can tell it would be Wikipedia's only image depicting an indoor eco-installation. The Wikipedia 1.0 example doesn't make sense because currently neither Wikipedia or Wikipedia 1.0 have such an image... but with a non-commercial license at least Wikipedia would. For the CD version it wouldn't be that difficult to query the database to remove images tagged with non-commercial. Epiphyte 05:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Having looked at the article I'm wondering if your not under some misapprehension regarding the fundamental ethos of Wikipedia. The current copyright policies took much debate to formulate, I don't see them being reversed. Also, perhaps your too close to the subject matter to be able step back and ask yourself "is this article really encyclopedic". See also: Wikipedia:Spam#How_not_to_be_a_spammer & Wikipedia:Vanity#Close_relationships. Have you considered whether it might be better to put this info on Yellowikis instead? --Aspro 14:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you're not familiar enough with the subject to appreciate the artist's contribution to his field. If you don't think it's notable enough to be encylopedic then by all means find all the admins familiar with the field in question and have them vote on whether the article should be removed. Although, I think it's helpful for people researching "eco-installations" that they be able to find at least one Wikipedia article on an eco-installation artist. It would be even more helpful if a picture was included. But I fully appreciated that my question was hardly going to change Wikipedia's "clip art policy" overnight, if at all. Sorry I missed the debate...it doesn't sound like any artists were involved.Epiphyte 15:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personally owned photographs

I'm sure everyone has gone over this topic before and I bet it is buried in here somewhere but my head is ready to explode. I have uploaded personally owned photographs and cannot seem to find the proper tag for them. I do state that I am the copyright holder in my summary which is the reason I believe some of them have not been deleted, but they are still up for deletion. Now yesterday I uploaded an image of my grandmother as a child with her brothers and sisters (all deceased). It dates from 1919 and it was deleted faster than I am typing this article, ok deleted in a day. Now I am assuming it may have been deleted because it dates before 1923 but I did state in the summary that it is a personally owned photograph. Ultimatly, what is the proper tag for personally owned photographs and what will prevent them from being public domain? They are all being used on my user page, user:IanBlade. Thanks! IanBlade 11:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It makes no difference whether or not you own a print of the photograph or whether the people in the photograph are alive or dead. The actual image depicted in the print belongs to the photographer and it is the photographer that owns the copyright (or his or her heir). If you are the photographer, you can specify certain restrictions. If someone else is the photographer, you have to be able to prove that he or she has granted permissions (you cannot exclude commercial uses). If it was published before 1923, it is in the public domain in the U.S. and there is nothing you can do about it. If it was never published before, other rules apply. Also see Wikipedia:User#Images on user pages and Wikipedia:Public domain#Published vs. unpublished works.

If you have inherited the copyright (as opposed to just a copy of the photograph) from the photographer, you have to explain that in the description page, and possibly be prepared to prove it. One more thing: Photographs should not be saved in GIF format. GIF generally makes for large file sizes on photographs and since GIFs are limited to 256 colours, they don't look very good either. You should always use JPG for photographs to be uploaded here. Canadiana 20:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Also - why do you think a picture of your grandmother is suitable for an encyclopedia? Which article was it for? Secretlondon 19:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

He said it was for his user page. -Seidenstud 04:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tag for PD films, TV series

A number of TV series and films are, for whatever reason, acknowledged to be in the public domain in the US, even though they post-date 1923. Examples include Decoy (TV series), Charade, Royal Wedding and Till the Clouds Roll By (and pretty much any film/TV show you see multiple editions of in the $5 bin at Wal-Mart). I couldn't find any image tag to cover "PD television/film screen captures". Is there a tag? If not, there should be one, I think. 23skidoo 00:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I just looked into this and while it's true that anything published as late as 1989 can be in the bublic domain (if published without a copyright notice), there are a lot of varivariables ales that have to match up. I'm not entierly sure ther average uploader can be "trusted" to know if something was originaly first published with authorisation from the copyright holder within the given time frame without a copyright notice and that no written agreements existed and that no effort to add the missing copyright tags where made within 5 years and so on and so forth. Depending on the date of publishment and weter or not an effort to renew the copyright stuff might either be PD or copyrighted for 95 years, basicaly it's complicated stuff (and I won't pretend to know half of it) and many of our uploaders have trouble understanding what "free use for any purpose" means... Cluefull users can always use {{PD-because|[insert lengthy explanation for why some particular work is in the public domain]}}, I fear any "general" template would probably have to be 3 pages worth of "if so and so or this or that and such but only if then and so on" to cover all the posibilities, and that would still leave people guessing as to what set of criterea apply to any particular image using the tag... --Sherool (talk) 01:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The examples I gave above are relatively cut-and-dried and are also supported by statements made in Wikipedia:Public Domain so I'm pretty confident. In any event "PD because" is the tag I was looking for - thanks! 23skidoo 21:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UK Government licenses are not free

Since most (all?) UK government agencies prohibit derivatives, British Crown Copyright material is not free. See Template talk:CrownCopyright. This seems fairly clear cut, so I am moving them to the Fair Use section of the page, and adding them to the equivalent section at WP:FU. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mapping software screenshot

I want to upload a screenshot of a route that I made using commercial mapping software ( Delorme TopoZone ). Do you think it constitutes fair use? --Itinerant1 07:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Where would you be using this image? --Carnildo 08:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

As an illustration for an article about a bicycle race. --Itinerant1 18:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

My opinion: In an article about the software, it would be fair use. In an article about a bicycle race, it wouldn't be. To put up on Wikipedia, the map has to be completely free to be used in anything, including commercial uses. The Delorme copyright notice doesn't permit this. I think USGS maps might be public domain, so you could make you own with a USGS base map if that's the case. Canadiana 19:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baseball Cards

In which area would a photo of a baseball card be used? I created a page on a player and added the card for his photo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jettero2112 (talk • contribs).

See Wikipedia:Fair use. Among "Counterexamples", examples of things that are not fair use of copyrighted material, is this:

An image of a Barry Bonds baseball card, to illustrate the article on Barry Bonds. A sports card image is a legitimate fair use if it is used only to illustrate the article (or an article section) whose topic is the card itself; see the Billy Ripken article.

P.S. Remember to signed comment with a ~~~~ at the end. Canadiana 03:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] broken system

Can someone JUST PLEASE WRITE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ALL THESE NUMEROUS CC LICENSES HERE?!?

Jernejl 14:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No need to shout, Creative Commons licenses. /wangi 14:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

then at least tell me what do i have to use CC attribution for / what does it mean? Jernejl 07:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The meanings are discussed in the Creative Commons licenses article. Share-alike would also be a good page to read (possibly more specific to Wikipedia). Canadiana 20:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:SerbiaFairUse

TfD came to the consensus that Template:SerbiaFairUse was a rather bad idea and needed to be deleted; however, I need to know what should be done with the images tagged with it. Advice?

They should be tagged with the appropriate fair use tags (NOT this one!), or deleted. Physchim62 (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Word(Art)

Can a title made with WordArt and then saved as a .jpg/.png be uploaded under GFDL? what about if it is trying to emulate the "Steely Dan" of this album (for a WikiProject)? NauticaShades 16:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Templates for release to the public domain

Right now there are three separate templates for when the copyright holder has renouced all rights to a work: {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}, {{PD-release}}, and {{No rights reserved}}. Legally, these templates are all equivalent. Whether it is called "public domain" or "copyrighted" makes no difference. If all rights are renounced, the licensing status is legally equivalent no matter what jurisdiction you're talking about. Since all three of these templates effectively mean the same thing, we should decide on one and delete the other two (after proper substitution of course). I believe {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} and {{No rights reserved}} should be deleted in favor of {{PD-release}}. Here's why:

• {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}:
  1. meaning is confusing since copyrights are renounced, but it still says the work is "copyrighted"
  2. lots of people seem to be confusing "Free Use" with "Fair Use" and applying this template incorrectly to fair use images
  3. template has been officially deprecated since February but is still being used and applied to new images
• {{No rights reserved}}:
  1. meaning is confusing since copyrights are renounced, but it still says the work is "copyrighted"
  2. does not express proper meaning of "public domain", i.e. description makes it sound like "public domain" is a magical legal term that only applies to images for which copyright has expired, when in actuality images for which all rights are renounced are also in the public domain, as "public domain" simply means that no exclusive rights are applicable to the work.

If there is agreement on this, I would like to get the Betacommand bot to perform the substitutions. Kaldari 05:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Yes {{public domain]] does have a very specific legal meaning, and it may technically not be possible to release works into the public domain, but that's just semantics, the point is that all rights have been released and the PD-release tag is much clearer both in name and text plus it doesn't invoke that whole Gratis versus Libre confusion. {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} and {{No rights reserved}} have both a long history of confusion and "good faith abuse". I vaguely remember people opposing changes to these templates in the past because it was legally questionable to change the license template out from under an image without the copyright holders knowledge, but I disagree. The point of all 3 templates are that unlimited, unrestricted use with no strings attached as if there was no copyright is unrevokably allowed. If anyone have cause to complain about the change it would mean that the image was mistagged in the first place and should be deleted or "re-licensed" if appropriate.

Technicaly all we have to do is redirect the templates, the job que would take care updating the category links and such except in cases where people have substed the templates. Having a bot remove the references to the redirected templates may still be desirable though. As a bonus the bot could compile a list of users that have been using this tag and drop them all a note to defuse any confusion about what is happening, and instructions on how to proceed if this was not the kind of usage they intended to allow. --Sherool (talk) 10:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

A quick note. redirecting templates are not a good idea. complete removal is a better Idea. as later trying to find all the re-directed templates is difficult and that a bot is better than the job que. As it makes things a lot clearer and that deleting the template completely, erasing any confusion. regarding Identifying users, my bot cannot do that. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If no one opposes, I would like to propose that we move forward on this. Betacommand, is it possible to link to this discussion in the edit summaries using your bot? If so, that may diffuse some confusion. Kaldari 22:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Can do Ill get started soon. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 05:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again BetacommandBot! Kaldari 23:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking through the images tagged with the {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} template, it looks like at least half are incorrectly tagged! Apparently a lot of people thought it was fair use template. These confusing (and redundant) templates should have been deleted a long time ago. It's going to take a lot of work to clean up the mess even after they are deleted. From now on we should be deligent to make sure that all new licensing templates are clearly worded, unambiguous, and necessary. Kaldari 00:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

In a legal sense there is a very big difference between Public Domaining an image and allowing Free Use of an image but maintaining the Copyright. A vast majority of photographers on Wikipedia do not obtain a model release (something I brought up a few months ago), by forcing the PD, or one of the Copyleft licenses you are extending their liability. Under Copyrighted Free Use in the case of a lawsuit the photographer can revoke the license to use the photo lowering their liability against future suits, but at least with Public Domain it's a complete one one street extending their liability because they have no right to revoke the license. PPGMD 20:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There is debate about whether or not releasing your rights to a work is revokable. When you license something, it is assumed that your license is perpetual unless stated otherwise. Neither {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} nor {{No rights reserved}} specify a time limit. Indeed, {{No rights reserved}} specifically states that the act is being done irrevocably. Regardless, if either of those licenses were revokable, they would not be "free licenses" for the purposes of Wikipedia. Thus either way, they need to be deleted. For all intents and purposes, {{PD-release}} is the closest equivalent we have, and except in the legally questionable exception that you mention (which would violate Wikipedia policies anyway), is practically identical. Kaldari 00:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cuba

If the assertion made at Image:Checuttingcane.jpg is correct—that Cuba did not sign the Berne Convention until 1997, and (implicitly) that older images from Cuba are public domain—then we should have a tag for that. If not, then the image in question is probably not PD. I don't usually work this sort of issue, and I brought it here mainly because it may imply another tag we should have. - Jmabel | Talk 00:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The assertion is strictly correct. However, Cuba's copyright relations with the United States also include:

• Membership of the World Trade Organization since 1995-04-20, and hence U.S. copyright restoration as of 1996-01-01;
• Universal Copyright Convention since 1957-06-18
• Bilateral copyright relations by presidential proclamation of 1903-11-17 (33 Stat. 2324)
  • Sources: List of parties to international copyright treaties and Bilateral copyright agreements of the United States

Cuba has a copyright term of 50 pma; Che Guevara was in Cuba from 1959 to 1965. Hence it is probable that this image is not in the public domain. Physchim62 (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trademark template

Should Template:Trademark belong somewhere on this list of copyright tags? tiZom_(2¢) 20:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess it could be ... but that template isn't really a copyright tag inasmuch as it tells us nothing about whether the image is free or not. It really should be used in conjunction with {{logo}} or another similar tag. BigDT 05:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

{{logo}} suffers because it tends to assume that the logo is protected by copyright as well as trademark.Geni 03:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think my big concern is that people are taking pictures of beer cans, etc. and licensing them as GNU (example). Now I'm no WP:C expert, but doesn't the GNU free doc license just require you to credit the creator (photographer) of the picture? This just doesn't seem right to me...can an image like this really be free? ...seems like it might be a potential legal issue with the company that's depicted in the image. tiZom_(2¢) 05:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't ask me to find the discussion right now, but there is a nice page about that topic on Commons. Basically, if the focus of the picture is the beer can, no, it cannot be considered a free image. If it's a picture of you and ten friends and one of you happens to be holding a diet coke, that's ok. BigDT 06:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that makes perfect sense. So what do we do about pictures like the example I referenced? Are there any tags that would be appropriate for this? should we make a new tag like

Let me know what you think... tiZom_(2¢) 18:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

In this case, the context is important. Although the photographer has copyright to the photograph, the beer company still retains copyright to the label/logo featured in the photograph. Since, in this case, the label is specifically being featured (according to the photo caption on the Budweiser (Anheuser-Busch) article) we would need to claim fair use. If, however, the photo were illustrating an article on bottles and the caption mentioned nothing about the label/logo, we could arguably get away with claiming GFDL is the appropriate license since the label/logo is only incidental in that case. Of course a lawyer would probably tell you this is a weak claim since the label takes up half the photograph. Remember though that intent matters in copyright law, not just the contents of the photograph. Kaldari 00:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That said, doesn't Wikipedia take the "cover our butt" approach with regard to other people's copyrights? For example, I work a lot with the Olympics, and we recently had to remove the Olympic Rings from all of our templates. Now the Olympic Charter says that this image can be used in any manner that "promotes the Olympic Movement," which I'm certain that Wikipedia does. However, Wikipedia says no FU images on templates, just in case it gets misused.

It seems that Wikipedia's stance on the product photo argument would be to treat these as fair use photos, just in case people use them to depict the product that is the focus of the picture. Wikipedia's goal is to create a free encyclopedia, but avoiding litigation supercedes this.

I think this template is an important one, and if nobody objects, I will go ahead and create it. Does anyone have any adjustments to make to it? tiZom_(2¢) 02:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I do object. The issue is that we are making a free encyclopedia. Even if you're "certain" that Wikipedia does "promote the Olympic Movement," (I, for one, cannot be certain, as I do not see it in the spirit of Wikipedia to censor articles that may be critical, or even disparaging to the Olympic Movement), the key to making a free encyclopedia is that the content can then be reused by anyone, regardless of their intentions and how such intentions promote - or fail to promote - the Olympic Movement. Regardless of copyright usage restrictions, non-free images are prohibited from templates (because, as I understand it, fair use fational does not hold, because the vast majority of templates do not discuss subjects). Even with its relatively broad permission stipultion, the Olympic logo is not free. -Seidenstud 03:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

??? Hmmm... I don't think I really got my point across there. The point of that Olympics example is to show that Wikipedia will be as restrictive as possible when it comes to images. This discussion is about users taking photos of trademarked products and releasing the photo into the public domain. The template for which I was asking help was the template earlier in this discussion.

Let's take Snickers wrapped.jpg as an example. From what I gather from Kaldari's comment, it seems that the use of this image would be considered fair use on the Snickers page, but would be considered free if it were describing something incidental to the Snickers name brand, say, the color brown. (An extreme and strange example, I know...but work with me!)

What I'm saying is that Wikipedia chooses to err on the side of caution, and I think this policy should be extended to these types of images as well. The Snickers image is clearly not a free image, but the uploader chose GFDL because there is no license template that fits it. tiZom_(2¢) 04:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. Sorry about that. I guess careful reading is important here, eh? :) -Seidenstud 06:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I object to the creation of the template in its current form. Right now the wording is not entirely clear and in some cases rather ambiguous. Creating a licensing template is a delicate matter that must be done right the first time (both to avoid misuse and to avoid changing things out from under people later). Let's think this through carefully before we proceed as we are opening up a new can of worms here. Kaldari 05:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, stating that the subject of the photo is "a product" is not helpful. For example, a Snickers bar without it's wrapper is not copyrighted. It is the packaging that is copyrighted. Let me come up with some better wording real quick... Kaldari 05:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right about that. Once something is licensed with certain terms, I'd imagine it's hard to change them. I hadn't thought about that. Is there some sort of authority to whom we can present this information? Like some sort of WP legal counselor or something? Hey, doesn't Danny do a lot of Wikimedia legal stuff? tiZom_(2¢) 05:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

For matters such as this we are pretty much on our own, as people like Danny, Jimbo, and Brad Patrick are far too busy with bigger fish. They pretty much trust that we will sort things out in good faith and hopefully not screw everything up in the process (a pretty big responsibility if you ask me). Anyway here is my suggestion for the wording of such a template:

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:Cereal box cover, Template:Boardgamecover, Template:Albumcover, etc., etc. Kaldari 05:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Haha those templates are fairly obscure. And in taking a peek at them, I noticed that they fall within the realm of the WikiProject Fair Use, a project about which I was unaware. I'm going to drop a note over there about this conversation here.

A few questions about the proposed template:

1. Currently it is possible to take, for example, a CD cover, off of a website such as Amazon.com, and claim Fair Use. With this new template, it seems that it would be possible to take a picture from, say, www.snickers.com, and claim Fair Use as well. Does that sound accurate? ...Seems legitimate to me as long as the resolution is small, which brings me to my second point:
2. The photos that people take of their products... will they have to be a fairly small resolution as well?

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)

[edit] Wondering?

What if I got it from a business, the Sacramento Bee? What tag(s) do I write? Matthew Luke Gordon 04:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Images with urls, etc

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)

[edit] A guy who works on the CMS article

Is it okay if I use the Campus Middle School mustang mascot? It's on their website, and all school clothing. Campus Middle School is a public school. I'm not exactly sure if I can use the picture, though. And what would I copyright tag it under?

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

[edit] Images of images, images of record labels

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 gramophone records issued by those companies. Such images typically carry an {{album cover}} tag, e.g. [4], but is that really appropriate for this type of image? If I take a photograph of a record myself, such that the label is visible, what exactly is there to stop me from releasing that photo under GFDL or to the public domain?

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)