Maps, Directions, and Place Reviews
Tag classification
A number of copyright tags seem to be misclassified:
- Tags with a "no commercial use" clause that are in the "free licenses" section
- {{CACTVSGIF}}
- {{User Friendly}}
- {{AlbertaCopyright}}
- {{CanadaCopyright}}
- {{NovaScotiaCopyright}}
- {{OntarioCopyright}}
- Tags with a "no modification" clause that are in the "free licenses" section
- {{GermanGov}}
- {{NZCrownCopyright}} with an additional "can't use in a misleading context" clause.
- {{CrownCopyright}} with an additional "can't use in a misleading context" clause.
- {{LearningandSkillsCouncilCopyright}} as above.
- {{NationalAuditOfficeCopyright}} as above.
- {{NHSCopyright}} as above.
- Tags that are explicitly or implicitly "fair use" in the "free licenses" section
- {{ItalyTourismCopyright}}
- {{HIGov}}
- {{IAGov}}
- {{ILGov}}
- Tags that are in the "fair use" section that shouldn't be
- {{Fairuseunknownsource}}: as far as I know, you can't claim fair use without knowing the source.
- Tags that are not categorized as either "Public domain", "Free use", "Fair use", or "Don't use"
- {{Catholic}}: this appears to be a "public domain" tag.
- {{Church}}: this appears to be a "fair use" tag.
- {{Vatican}}: this appears to be a "fair use" tag.
--Carnildo 20:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I somehow doubt the claims in HIGov, IAGov and ILGov. Anyone know for sure? --SPUI (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
mug shots
Are US mug shots (federal, state, local) normally deemed to be in the public domain. If so, is a reprint of them on a web site, claiming copyright, still public domain? What's the best tag to use for them? I figure the US federal ones fall under the normal PD status of works produced by an employee acting in an official capacity (which we have appropriate tags for). But, state and local law enforcement is maybe different. --rob 22:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Template:FreeNon-free fair use in
The copyright flag is used on several images, but is not stated on the copyright tags listing. Clarification about its validity would be nice.{{freefairusein}} --None-of-the-Above 10:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Animated GIF and fair use question
I hope this is the place to ask. On the catwalk article there was an image Image:Tbcatw.gif which is of a model walking down a catwalk for Victoria Secret, and it's animated. I tried removing it from the article since I doubt it's use is allowed. There is no origin of the image given, or copyright tag, so I assume it's copyrighted. My question is, how should the image be tagged? And can it be used as fair use?. I thought such an image could *sometimes* be fair use, in articles about the model, the event, or even the clothing; but not for such a general purpose as discussing catwalks. This has been reverted multiple times, and I would like some indpendent opinions. Also, let me know if there's a better place to address this issue. Whether the image is good or bad, is unimportant to me, but I'm just interested in the legal issue here. --rob 00:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Images for use only on user pages or talk pages
Lots of people have images for use only on their user pages, not in WP articles, or for use in talk pages perhaps to illustrate questions or discussions. What's the appropriate way to tag these items? {{Copyrighted}} but add a clear statement that the image is for use only on your user page? Elf | Talk 21:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I had in mind more things like "here's a picture of me", "here's a picture of my dog", "here's a diagram of what I'm talking about", usually mostly taken by or drawn by the user or someone the user knows, but maybe they don't want them used anywhere else. Elf | Talk 00:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
My userpage image (which was pretty clearly taken by me and marked as permission) was just deleted as a "permission only for use on Wikipedia"-image *somewhat grumpy*. So I have now re-uploaded it and created Template:Userpage-image. Thue | talk 21:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
New Jersey state PD?
Template:NJGov has appeared claiming that they are PD. I'm not convinced - but IANAL etc. Secretlondon 22:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
How to tag Marine "Courtesy photo"
The photo Image:Nick Lachey Jessica Simpson USO 210405.jpg was taken from a Marine web site [2], which is normally a perfect spot to get PD images. It was, logically, tagged as {{PD-USGov-Military-Marines}}. However, I suspect it's actually copyrighted by ABC, but the wording in the article is unclear. Instead of identifying the photographer, it says "Photo by: Courtesy photo" (I interpret that to mean courtesy of ABC). If there was a clear copyright statement, I would just change the tag to "promophoto". There's justification as a promotional photo since it says "This Image has been cleared for release". But, I honestly don't know if it has a copyright. It's a worthwhile image, that I almost uploaded myself, before I realized it was already here. I would like opinions on this. I do realize that obviously some images on "mil" web sites are copyrighted, so it's not automatic PD status. I didn't list this as a "copyright problem" since I doubt there's a problem in its usage, but copyright status should be defined in the tag. --rob 08:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Official portraits of US governors
Any idea of whether these are in the public domain by default or not? Usually they are commissioned by the state, yes? But I suppose it depends on the laws of the particular state as to whether they are in the public domain? Any ideas? --Fastfission 00:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Original image source URL recorded, but changed
If an image is uploaded, and a source is put in as a url to the page it's on, and a url to the image; what happens if there is site re-organization and the URLs don't work anymore? If the image can't be found easily on the site, does that mean the image is now of "unknown" source. Or, is it still "known", because the company it came from is known. This isn't a specific question to an image, but just a general one about images derived from web pages. It applies to fair use, as well as PD images. This seems to be a bigger potential issue for PD images, in a way, since proof that an image is 100% legal, could suddenly disappear, at any time, without notice. --rob 18:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Question about CopyrightedFreeUse (Greek or any help requested)
This is a question about the tag for Image:Kalomira Sexy.JPG (used in Kalomira Sarantis )which is currently "CopyrightedFreeUse". It looks like a screen shot. The comment in the description says "This picture comes from www.kalomirasarantis.com It is free for use". I don't think they have the freedom to grant that.
Now, that site is in Greek and I can't read it. However, I don't *think* it's the official site for Kalomira Sarantis (note: the article originally did say that it was official). Also, even it is authorized by her, she may not have permission to grant others the right to use something from the TV show she was in. I beleive this is just a standard TV screen shot, requiring a standard tag and fair-use justification (which is any easy justification). However, I don't speak Greek, and I don't know Greek copyright law, so I didn't change it. --rob 10:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I speak Greek but I haven't studied, yet, the greek copyright law. I can't verify whether this photo is copyrighted-free_use. The site www.kalomirasarantis.com is a fan-site (unofficial). The photo, most likely, is a screenshot from the reality show Fame Story. It could probably have the tag Musicpromo-screenshot. MATIA 11:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Flash cartoon screenshots
Should screenshots from episodes of flash cartoon series that are intended to be viewed on the web (like Homestar Runner or Space Tree) be tagged with {{film-screenshot}} or {{web-screenshot}}? What about ones with a limited degree of interaction, where even {{game-screenshot}} or {{software-screenshot}} might be approprate? --Aquillion 21:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Family pictures
Just on the basis of making my user page, I'm wondering what tag to use for family pictures: it seems that PD would not work since it was taken by a photographer. Does anyone know what tag to use? --Akira123323 14:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Pardon the intrusion, but what would happen if nobody took the picture; i.e. the camera did - as in when you press the time-delay button. What tag would you put there? --Kilo-Lima 16:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Sports Jersey diagram
Hi, what would be the proper license tag for a hockey jersey diagram (ie drawing, not photo). It would have the logo of the corresponding team incorporated into it, so "logo" would be my guess. Basically its an extention of the logo?. See: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Team_pages_format#NHL_Uniforms Thanks ccwaters 16:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
How to tag image made by government contractor /noncommercial-use
The image is Image:Fatmouse.jpg and is currently tagged as "PD-USGov"
It provides a source at http://www.csm.ornl.gov/SC99/fatmouse.jpg. So, I visited http://www.csm.ornl.gov, which has a disclaimer link, which goes to http://www.ornl.gov/ornlhome/disclaimers.shtml. It says:
I find this very vague. First, it talks of documents only, not images. It talks of "non-commercial" which suggests use of the "noncommercial" tag. However, it also says it "may be freely distributed". I don't know what tag it should be, I don't think it can be "PD-USGov" which is for public-domain images, which by definition have no license. --rob 18:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Material of illegal organizations
How does one deal with image material whose theoretical copyright holder has no legal stature? For example graphical material produced by underground resistance organizations (I have some graphic material from communist organizations in Spain before democratization began in 1977). --Soman 10:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Canadian Flags
I emailed the city halls of Dawson Creek, British Columbia and (emailed/phoned) Chetwynd, British Columbia for images of their flags to use on Wikipedia. Dawson Creek emailed me an image of their flag. Chetwynd emailed me an image of their coat-of-arms (which I converted into their flag with a blank Canadian pale). Both times I asked them for copyright info but neither gave me any. What is the correct tag for these? Is there a better tag than the American PD-flag tag, if this is the correct tag, for Canadian use? --maclean25 02:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Delaware PD?
Template:PD-DEGov states "This image is a work of a State of Delaware employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties, and is consequently in the public domain.". I guess this is another confusion with federal vs state governemt copyrights... Secretlondon 06:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
LGPL, Why "deprecated"?
Why does it say that GNU Lesser General Public License is deprecated? --Kruosio 20:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
CC licences not covered
I don't see any explanation of why certain CC licences aren't covered here - I guess they're not considered sufficiently 'free' if they don't allow derivative works or commercial usage, but it might be nice to make that explicit? --Oolong 13:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Help me tag Image:Haroldmacmillan.jpg
I've pinpointed a source at this BBC site. The problem is this little sentence at the bottom here:
The BBC grants permission to use these images ONLY as wallpaper.
Oh boy...what tag falls under this category? --Bash 01:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
PBS and NPR
Isn't PBS and NPR considered to be part of the U.S. Government, making images from them PD?
User Friendly free use?
I don't think the tag {{User Friendly}} should be listed as a "free use any purpose copyright" anymore. It was recently found to be under a non-commercial only license, which is of course no longer accepted on Wikipedia. So, should this tag be relisted as a depreciated image? Wcquidditch | Talk 11:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Can we put a note on the ICT page which discourages users from creating new tags unless they have discussed them with others on this page first? There seem to be a proliferation of tags, some of which end up being quite spurious and ignorant of copyright law. Or is this too anti-Wiki? --Fastfission 00:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Fair use for DVDs and magazines
I have a question regarding the fair usage of DVD and magazine covers. The article for the adult model Ava Vincent had three DVD covers and one magazine cover in gallery format- see this version. The links to these images have been removed citing fair use issues. The original uploaded images were not low-res, but I am willing to reduce the image quality to a low-res thumbnail image to avoid potential piracy.
Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags states: "Covers of various media - note all of these require a reduced-quality image, insufficient for quality reproduction or bootlegging purposes, and also that they illustrate articles about the media item itself, not a tangentially related subject."
What exactly is meant by a tangentially related subject in this case? Does this mean that we can only upload DVD covers if we actually have an article about the DVD in question? I imagine that most articles about specific adult movies would be little more than stubs. It can be very difficult to find non-nude images of models that can be uploaded under the copyright standards. If low-res covers are acceptable, they would be a good source for presenting the models in question, and IMO would be fair use. Olessi 02:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Galleries of fair use images are not allowed in articles because the use of the images has to be related to the article content itself. You could put them in the article, if they were being legitimately used to illustrate the text (i.e. "So and so starred in this movie in 1994, and was featured on the cover," etc.). If you take a look at the {{DVDcover}} template tag, it describes what kind of uses are considered "fair" on Wikipedia. --Fastfission 03:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Would something like this be acceptable then?
Notable movies starring Jane Doe:
- Movie 1, Silver Screen Media, 1963
- Movie 2, Pyramid Pictures, 1987
- Movie 3, Eagle Entertainment, 1999
and then below that list have a gallery displaying the covers for each film? Olessi 04:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Best licence / non-commercial ?
I got permission from a historical game publisher to use hundreds of their images on Wiki, but with attribution and not for commercial purposes? Can I upload them to en-Wikipedia? If so, under what license? What arguments could I use to ask them to allow commercial use (which is a requirement for Commons), and what license can I recommend to them? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Seeking confirmation on Crown Copyright
Sorry if this is the wrong place to direct this question, but am I correct that this image of Sembawang Naval Base, taken in 1945, would fall under Template:PD-BritishGov (Crown copyright)? I'm not sure if I'm reading the photo credit right but I think it's been taken by a member of the IX MONAB stationed there, which would seem to qualify... just wanting to make sure before I upload, if anyone can advise I'd appreciate it. -- MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip -- 06:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Good deed, or unintentional vandalism?
Allo, was tempted to go through the list of Fair use images and try to sort out through them to make the list a little shorter - but had two questions that I thought I should 'clarify' before I set to work. First off, on images of various Nazi officials - would it be fair to tag them with GermanGov, even though we can likely never be 100% certain? and secondly, should we have Reuters or FairUseReuters (simply as an example) type tags that further sort the images by their source, rather than just "Fair Use"? Sherurcij 18:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Soccer-Europe images
The {{SocEur}} tag for images from http://soccer-europe.com/ says that "the images can be used for any purpose, as long as credit is given". But the copyright statement on the website is much more restrictive: "© 1998-2005 soccer-europe.com. The contents of this site may not be used without written permission of the webmaster". Did we get permission, or is the tag wrong? --Carnildo 22:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Apparently, the edit summary from the creator said that there is permission to use it this way, but just to be on the safe side, I've taken the matter to TfD anyway. Wcquidditch | Talk 15:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Limited Use Tag
It would be helpful to get feedback from this community at the TFD of the {{Limited Use}} tag. Dragons flight 20:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
PD-CAGov
I'm concerned about this template - which states that works produced by the State of California are in the Public Domain. I have not been able to identify any such statute; and have found various statutes to the contrary(some of which I mention in the link above). We need to review this tag, and decide what should be done with it. Please publisize this notice wherever you think it should be known. JesseW, the juggling janitor 17:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Fonts and copyrights
I've noticed a number of examples of typefaces being listed as PD or PD-inelligible. I presume this is because font typefaces are uncopyrightable in the U.S. Some are licensed under the GFDL (i.e. Image:Times new roman.png). I'm not sure this is correct either -- if the typeface itself is not copyrightable, I'm not sure such an image has enough creativity to be considered as having generated any copyright (the text is certainly not unique enough to on its own). Font faces are, however, copyrighted in most other countries. Perhaps we need a new template for this? The current status of U.S. copyright law as it applies to fonts is summarized here, if someone wants to take a stab at formulating a tag. The goal would be something like {{PD-US}} but more specific in regards to font faces. Anyway, it is something to chew over. --Fastfission 18:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
PD-old
I've just scanned an image from a 1912 book - quite definitely public domain. So, I go to tag it. We have {{PD-old}}. However, this explicitly limits itself to cases where the author died before 1905. Do we have any form of tag for "is PD through being published before 1923"? I'd assumed PD-old was such a tag, but apparently not... Shimgray | talk | 00:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
{{Cc-by-sa-any}} allowed?
I notice the tag {{Cc-by-sa-any}} (which is not listed on the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags page but is on the template messages page for the image description pages) includes a a "non-commercial use only" license as part of the image multi-licensing. So, does this mean that the tag is depreciated and should be flagged with the "If uploaded after May 19, it will be deleted soon" message? Wcquidditch | Talk 15:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:SocEur
Template:SocEur has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:SocEur. Thank you. --Wcquidditch | Talk 16:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:Cc-by-sa-any
Template:Cc-by-sa-any has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Cc-by-sa-any. Thank you. --Wcquidditch | Talk 16:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Coats of arms
Can somebody claim copyright of a coat of arms from several hundred years ago, and thus forbid the use on Wikipedia? It is the case with some Polish Coat of Arms, where I have just encountered an anon claiming he published the pictures in a book and they were 'stolen' by Wikipedia (I am trying to contact him by email for more info). If you need a specific example, one of the images he claimed is Image:Herb Slepowron.jpg. The uploader of the pics, User:Emax, who has been inactive for almost a year now, uploaded the pictures under fair use and they are (with few exceptions) used in the articles about specific coats of arms (like ?lepowron Coat of Arms). Can the images be used on Wiki, and if so, under what tag - {{coat of arms}} or {{fairuse}}? Some of the images are also used in the biographies of people who wore a given coat of arms. I'd appreciate advise on this matter. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Small update: negotiations are going well - we have permission to use all images as long as proper recognition is given and they are resized down to 150px. Any idea how to easily resize the images? My best solution is to take create a wiki preview, take a printscreen, convert to jpg via paint, then upload - this sound like a lot of work for around 100 images :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Proposition of a new template
I have suggested a proposition of a new template that I will probably call {{Template:SQA}}. It is for work published by the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA), and states that "The information in this publication may be reproduced to support SQA qualifications. If it is reproduced for any other purpose, then SQA should be clearly acknowledged as the source in the reproduction".
The first draft of the template can be seen in the subsidiary of my user-page here. I "made" this template becuase I would like to upload numerous images about chemistry; including,
Thanks, --Kilo-Lima 18:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- What does "support SQA qualifications" mean, exactly? Do we have any concrete idea? If I used these images in a book of my own, which I sold for a profit, would it be considered as such? --Fastfission 02:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- I think template use would rest on the "If it is reproduced for any other purpose, then SQA should be clearly acknowledged as the source in the reproduction" clause. Superm401 | Talk 03:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- By that, they only mean when it is re-produced in Scottish schools, as in lessons where the "data booklet" is needed; such as in exams etc. --Kilo-Lima 12:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- I think template use would rest on the "If it is reproduced for any other purpose, then SQA should be clearly acknowledged as the source in the reproduction" clause. Superm401 | Talk 03:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- Seems to me that Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements has most of this covered with free-use material already. --Carnildo 05:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- Most chemistry raw data is free anyway. I think the tag could be useful for uploading images and text produced by the SQA. However, if the SQA can have it's own tag, so can other similar organisations. I think it would be better to create a "educational publisher" tag and give acknowledgements for the materials in the article. --Ukdragon37 16:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
So, do you think it should become an official template... or what? If you are stuck at anything, then please feel free to contact me at my talk page. --Kilo-Lima 12:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- Most chemistry raw data is free anyway. I think the tag could be useful for uploading images and text produced by the SQA. However, if the SQA can have it's own tag, so can other similar organisations. I think it would be better to create a "educational publisher" tag and give acknowledgements for the materials in the article. --Ukdragon37 16:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- Some educational publishers allow reproduction only for educational use, which is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Hence, I don't think that general tag is a good idea. However, the SQA pretty clearly implies reproduction with full attribution is acceptable. Superm401 | Talk 18:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- Though I must say -- the SQA lets you! --Kilo-Lima 21:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- Some educational publishers allow reproduction only for educational use, which is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Hence, I don't think that general tag is a good idea. However, the SQA pretty clearly implies reproduction with full attribution is acceptable. Superm401 | Talk 18:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I can see where this is going (dead-end), but it seems that it will be very unlikely that it will be created. (Well... I was hoping it would become official). Becuase of this, does anyone have any recommendations on what tags I should use. The image above uses the {{Fairuse}} tag. Should it be the same? --Kilo-Lima 21:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
family album
I want to upload some images, but as there seems to be a 'clampdown' on uploading copyrighted images (I certainly wouldn't want to be blocked :) ). I decided to have a look at the rules. Oh boy. I'm quite interested in photography, but even I am not going to wade through all this. So maybe you could help me out with some specific photos I want to upload, in this case for the Schunck and Glaspaleis articles.
Most of these photos are from the family album and most of those are very old (late 19th, early 20th century). I suppose the 19th century photos must have been made by a professional because there weren't any 'personal cameras' then. But after that (considering that the family was well off) they may have been made by a family member, but I haven't a clue who. Does any of this fall under fair use? The Fairold tag description isn't very specific about how old the photos should be.
Some other photos are from a photo book. This book was made for the 110 year existence of the company Schunck but I suppose that doesn't help any. But I can't find any copyright messages in the book. None at all. Does that mean it's all free from copyright?
And then there is another book with technical (and two artistic) drawings by the architect of the Glaspaleis, Frits Peutz. Considering the architectural importance of the building I thought they could be of interrest to readers. The drawings are from 1934 at the latest and Peutz died in 1974.
Lastly, there is the Schunck logo and slogans and posters. I suppose those at least fall under Fair Use. DirkvdM 19:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
(Resetting indentation) Two points: both of you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Public domain (and help improve it), and as for the best server location: Australia would be a good choice: any image created before 1955 and any work whose author died before 1955 are in the public domain there. AFAIK, the Gutenberg project did exactly that... however, it's not practical for Wikipedia, and since most of our re-users are not down under, we'd severly limit their ability to re-use our image content, for they are bound by the laws of whatever country they're in. Lupo 08:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Polish coat of arms
I am trying to create Template:Polish coats of arms by Tadeusz Gajl, but so far it looks ugly. Any help appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Mugshots again
A user created {{mugshot}}, which claims that "State and local government laws in the United States vary regarding the initial release of booking photos to the public, but once they have been publicly released they are free to reprint for any purpose as publicly accessible records". I do not believe this to be the case. There are 50 states in the US, each with their own set of laws, and many local jurisdictions also have laws on this sort of thing. Barring a search of the thousands of sets of applicable laws, or someone finding a court ruling that establishes precedent for the entire US, I think this template should be deleted. --Carnildo 18:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Afer being unable to find an answer, I sent an inquiry to the US copyright office. This is how they responded:
A mug shot is a public record, not an official work, so I am changing this to a public domain tag.--Fallout boy 01:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The public domain
Calling all people knowledgeable about copyright legislation: I would like input and help on User:Lupo/Public domain. Correct me if I'm wrong, point out missing things, help improve it, tear it apart... This grew out of concerns about Image:Albert Einstein by Yousuf Karsh.jpg (see also there). Basically I think we need some clarifications put into place, especially regarding all those country-specific PD-tags: such images are not automatically also PD-US! And {{PD}}, with its "worldwide" claim, needs to be used carefully, and we should explicitly say under what circumstances it may be used, if at all. Lupo 10:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Cleveland PD Tag?
I was wondering, with the consent of my fellow Wikipedians, could I create a PD tag for images of Cleveland, Ohio taken from the archives of Case Western Reserve University, Western Reserve Historical Society, or Cleveland State University?
It would read like this:
This image of a person or event from the City of Cleveland, Ohio comes from the archives of Case Western Reserve University, Western Reserve Historical Society, or Cleveland State University and is permitted to be used under Section 108D of the United States Copyright Act of 1976. Subject to disclaimers.
What do you think? -- Clevelander 14:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Lithuania PD tag
I have created this template. Please comment before I start implementing it on various coats of arms of cities, municipalities, counties and other symbols.
I have discussed the whole issue with User:DESiegel. But I am bringing it here for more input. I guess by "the protection of which is regulated by other legal acts" they mean that you cannot use them for say your own seal or money. Like for example [7] the law regarding municipality symbols just lists the ways those symbols can be used (sorry, no translation). So a company cannot decide to use municipality coa as their own.
Now this law says that:
So there is a clear difference between using "an image of coa" and "coa." And the last thing I found on coa is this law, article 42. By the way, all these laws are from a law database. I am just afraid that it was not designed to be used by foreigners. I hope that's enough info :) Renata3 02:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Picture of a copyrighted device
Do pictures that I have taken of copyrighted devices count as my work? If I want to take a picture of a :CueCat (whose manufacturer went out of business), do I have to tag it as {{fairuse}}, or can I tag it as {{PD-self}}? -Mysekurity 23:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- "Devices" are covered by trademarks and patents, not copyrights. However there are some instances in which a copyright would apply -- say, if the "device" in question was a television with a television program on it. But the physical shape of a device cannot be copyrighted. --Fastfission 02:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- Some physical objects themselves can be copyrighted; for instance, buildings and sculptures. However, that's not relevant in this case. Tools like this definitely are not copyrightable. You can tag the picture PD-self(or as we now prefer, {{NoRightsReserved}}). Superm401 | Talk 07:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Houston, we have a problem
The template {{patent}} is currently up for deletion. It's apparently someone's misguided attempt at creating an image copyright tag -- nothing unusual there. However, this tag was also included in the 'upload file' dropdown box, and a number of images were tagged with it, most well before the template was actually created. This makes it usable as a test to see how accurately people are using that dropdown to tag images, since the dropdown was the only way to find out about the template.
Of the 76 images formerly tagged with this template, only two were actually images from patent applications. Two others were public domain as works of the US government, four appeared to be PD-self, and one was public domain because of age. Most of the rest are now tagged with either {{nosource}} or {{unknown}}. 97% of the images were tagged incorrectly, and 88% were tagged with the wrong class of license. I hope this error rate is not typical for images tagged via the dropdown menu.
PermissionAndFairUse and Restricted use
Since {{Fairusein}} is favoured over {{PermissionAndFairUse}} and {{Restricted use}}, I think it should be bolded and the other two should have a comment saying 'Being depreciated - please consider using Template:Fairusein.' pfctdayelise 02:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Question regarding CC: by-nc-sa
I'm curious, why don't we allow Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 images? We're non-commercial, so what's the problem. Aren't images licensed under these terms a whole lot better than fair use, which we do allow? Jacoplane 14:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Television Screenshot
I think this would be better for screenshots of television programmes, idents etc rather than {{film-screenshot}}
which is currently how they fall under. This image has been created for the tag, should it be created. Fingers crossed :) Wikiwoohoo 18:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
German government copyright
Not every photograph enters the public domain after 50 years. If it's an photographic work (Lichtbildwerk) - i.e. an "personal intellectual creation" (§ 2 UrhG) -, the copyright expires 70 years after the photographer's death (§ 64 UrhG). So, this is indeed not correct. --kh80 22:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Fanart
If you draw a picture of something that's copyrighted and upload it here, would the credit go to whoever or whatever holds the copyright, would it go to the artist, or would both take credit? Let's say I draw a picture of the Mario Bros. from the video game series of the same name. Nintendo owns the rights to them, so I should credit it to Nintendo. However, I drew the picture, so it can also be credited to myself. Or is fanart not tolerated here, period?
Creative Commons licensing and attribution statements
I've added a request for functionality to be added to the template {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}} which can be found at Template_talk:Cc-by-sa-2.5#Attribution_notes. The discussion of how to provide such author-specified information that is an integral part of the licensing could take place here or on the talk page for the template, whichever you prefer. Courtland 16:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
An idea
This may be dumb, but I had an idea. Many people are probably familiar with click-through automated help of the form
Select 1. My computer doesn't boot --------> A. My computer isn't plugged in 2. My computer constantly freezes |-> B. My computer was struck by lightning 3. Data appears to be corrupt \-> C. I'm using Windows
We could do something similar with copyright tags. Have a series of pages that ask questions and progressive direct the user towards an appropriate license. I imagine having this as an optional guide linked from the Upload page.
Dragons flight 20:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Question: Online Newspaper Photographs
For example, the Post-Gazette Sports Photo Journal. May we use these images in Wiki articles about the players or teams depicted? If so, what tag should we use? --Mareino 15:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you!--Mareino 02:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Google Sattelite/arial-photos
In the case of Image:SWCHS.png (in Sir Winston Churchill High School) the image was tagged as "PD". Now, it looks a lot like a Google Satellite image (or arial photo), and seems to say "(c) 2005 Google" in the upper-right (but I can't make that out clearly, so don't know). So, I ask:
- Can I tag it as "no source" because it doesn't state the source? Or, should I guesse and say the source is Google?
- I put this under WP:PUI, but I wander if it's a speedy candidate.
- What's the standard for "fair use". I feel it could never qualify, because the article isn't about the roof of the building, or the building in general. It's about the school in the building. To me, fair use, would be if the article was about Google's satellite images.
- Side question: In this case, its Canadian. I wander, if this was the U.S., and it first came from the U.S. government (but through Google), if it would still have the same copyright status. As I understand the U.S. government has provided arial photos (or satellite) images for the whole of the U.S., and works of the U.S. government are PD, but I don't know. Again, this is a general question, and not applicable here, because the image is Canadian.
I'm not to concerned with the specific image, but rather how one should tag/handle such satellite/arial images of buildings in general (particularly those from Google, which seems to be the main source). They seem to be more and more popular (they're starting to be used like head-shots in bios, though maybe I'm exaggerating). --Rob 00:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Scans from a book
If a book is still under copyright, is there anyway to scan and upload images from it? The book in question is ISBN 0061053430. Beowulph 19:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Source of the article : Wikipedia
EmoticonEmoticon