Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Article on other languages:

• ויקיפדיה:זכויות_יוצרים/שאלות_ותשובות
• Википедия:Форум/Авторское_право
• Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen
• ويكيبيديا:أسئلة_حقوق_ملفات_الوسائط/مقدمة
• Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen
• Wikipédia:Legifer
• ויקיפדיה:זכויות_יוצרים/שאלות_ותשובות
• Википедија:Прашања_за_авторски_права
• വിക്കിപീഡിയ:പകര്‍പ്പവകാശത്തെ_പറ്റിയുള്ള_ചോദ്യങ്ങള്‍
• Wikipedia:Soalan_hakcipta_media/Header
• Википедия:Форум/Авторское_право
• Wikipedia:媒体版权问题

	del.icio.us
	Digg
	Furl
	Reddit
	Rojo
	Add to OnlyWire

If you have a question about a specific image, please be sure to link to it like this: [[:Image:Example.jpg]]. Thanks!

How to add a copyright tag to an existing image

1. On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts Image:), click Edit this page.
2. From the page Wikipedia:Image copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag. For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators".
3. Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{GFDL-self}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page.
4. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}})
5. Hit Save page.
6. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below.

How to ask a question

1. To ask a new question hit the "Click here to ask your question" link below.
2. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end.
3. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page.
4. Don't include your email address, for your own privacy. We will respond here and cannot respond by email.

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

Image permission problem with Image:Palin nowhere.jpg

I was informed that there is a problem with the copyright on this, but as noted on that image page, an email has already been sent to you referring to Bob Weinstein's copyright ownership, and his full release of it under the listed license. Where is the problem? Duuude007 (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Best I can tell the relivant OTRS ticket number is 2008091810048421 and the problem is the lack of an explict CC release.Geni 02:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I've asked a couple OTRS people to check that ticket and drop a message here. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I am an OTRS person I was describeing the ticket.Geni 15:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Duuude007, for what I can see the discussion stalled before we received a clear Creative Commons license from the copyright holder. If you wish I can try to email him? -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem with that. Mayor Weinstein did say that he had already explicitly sent an email himself (because of that email reply to me referring to the need of explicit consent) from the kpu.net address. Did you receive that one? Please keep in mind that there are multiple images that this copyright applies to, as it was cropped for alternate article uses. There is also: Image:Nowhere 99901 (Crop2).jpg and Image:Palin Nowhere 99901.jpg in the commons, and because of this problem, they are also apparently being flagged for deletion. Please help assure that they also do not get deleted, while his copyright is being reconfirmed, thank you. Duuude007 (talk) 06:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Duuude, Did Mayor Weinstein’s email license the images under a specific license, or did it grant general permission for use on Wikipedia? From what Geni and lucasbfr say, OTRS received an email, but it did not grant a specific CC license. (BTW, I don’t think multiple images are a problem as long as he licenses Image:Palin Nowhere 99901.jpg. The other images are derivative from that, right?) —teb728 t c 08:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I find no email from him (I checked with the email address you forwarded, and his name) on our records. I've sent him an email. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Check the OTRS number given above.Geni 14:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

we recived an email yes. We did not get a solid CC release.Geni 14:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I know, Duuude007 was talking about Mr Weinstein's email. As you can see I've sent an email using this OTRS ticket. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that there is also a fair use justification for this image. While it would be ideal to get a clear CC license, I believe the fair use justification allows the image to be retained even if that is not forthcoming.--agr (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Except for the fact that the image fails NFCC1 (as it's replaceable by text) and NFCC8 (as its removal would not be detrimental to readers' undertanding of the topic; it's used for illustration only). Stifle (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This has already been contested and disproven. Many people have conceded that it does not convey the same message without the image. Duuude007 (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

We've gotten a clear statement of permission at OTRS. This discussion is moot.--chaser - t 06:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Lee Da Hae and East of Eden pictures

Hi. If I get the pictures from other forums, how can I put them in their repective pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nisha 05 31 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Most pictures on Wikipedia have to be licensed with permission that says that anyone can use them for anything. Many pictures on other forums do not have such a license, and we can't use them.

More specifically, if you are asking about Image:Lee Da Hae during her CF filming.jpg, it looks like it doesn’t have an appropriate license; so we probably can’t use it. If you are asking about Image:East of Eden poster.jpg, you could add a {{non-free poster}} tag and a non-free use rationale. Then you could add it for identification to East of Eden (TV series). Is that what you wanted to know? —teb728 t c 21:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Photograph of product

Maybe it's just too late at night, but I'm having trouble figuring out how to tag the picture I just took of a tin of Bag Balm. Is it GFDL/CC-BY-SA because I took it myself, or does it need to be a fair use claim, since the copyright to the artwork resides with the manufacturer? Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair use on multiple articles

Oh dear! The wikipolice (in the form of User:FairuseBot) have noticed that I have used Image:Swisstopo Bluemlisalp 50.png on the page Cartographic relief depiction without going though the necessary procedural hoops.

I think the use is within the spirit of the fair use policies, because the image illustrates the point being made in the article that some Swiss maps indicate the type of ground by the colours of the contour lines. To illustrate this requires a sample of such a map. But I do not understand what I need to do on the image page.

The image was uploaded two years ago, and has been used in three other articles without complaint. There is a {{Non-free fair use in}} for one of these articles (Cartography of Switzerland), and another for the Swisstopo article which does not in fact use the image. I could add yet another {{Non-free fair use in}} but I cannot see the point, because it just repeats the copyright status and then says in shouty bold text I must include a "detailed non-free use rationale".

What should I do? JonH (talk) 12:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have removed it from all usages but Cartography of Switzerland, because elsewhere it violated wikipedia's nonfree media policy. In all of those places, a free map could have been used to make the same point. In Cartography of Switzerland it is still kind of borderline. (Do people really need to see a portion of this particular map to understand the cartography of Switzerland? Maybe, maybe not.) Go to Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline to figure out how to write a fair use rationale. (This is something you have to fill in, and is not the copyright "non-free fair use in" tag.) The idea of this is for you to justify why it is included in the article, and why it meets wikipedia's nonfree media policies. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've resolved the problem for you (though you will have to find a new image for Cartographic relief depiction - try commons.wikimedia.org or ask for someone to make you one at WP:GL). Since I removed the image from the article in question, you don't need to write a rationale for it anymore. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

You took out the {{Non-free fair use in}}. Doesn't it need that in addition to the use rationale? —teb728 t c 22:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

First, some context: if you look at my contributions you will see that I have been editing Wikipedia off-and-on for over three years, and my edit summaries and talk page comments have always been reasoned and rational. But today, having ventured into the area of non-free images for the first time, I FIND MYSELF USING SHOUTY CAPITALS SO THAT YOU KNOW HOW ANGRY I AM. THIS DOES NOT SURPRISE ME – WHEN READING DISCUSSIONS HERE OVER THE YEARS, I HAVE SEEN ZEALOTS TAKING DELIGHT IN CREATING CONFUSING INSTRUCTIONS SO THAT USERS MAKE MISTAKES, GET ANGRY, AND THEN LEAVE THE PROJECT.

WHEN I SAW WHAT YOU HAD DONE, I SPENT THE NEXT 10 MINUTES PACING UP AND DOWN, SHAKING MY FISTS IN ANGER. I THOUGHT MY QUESTION MADE CLEAR THAT IN Cartographic relief depiction THE IMAGE IS ILLUSTRATING THE FACT THAT MAPS PRODUCED IN SWITZERLAND USE PARTICULAR COLOURS. YOUR SUGGESTION OF CONTACTING WP:GL IS STUPID – THEY COULD PRODUCE A MAP WITH PURPLE AND GREEN SPOTS, BUT THAT ISN'T WHAT SWISSTOPO USE; THEY COULD MAKE A MAP THAT LOOKS LIKE A SWISSTOPO MAP, BUT ONLY BY SLAVISHLY COPYING THE SWISSTOPO STYLE (AND IT PROBABLY WOULDN'T LOOK SO GOOD). WHAT IS NEEDED IS A SAMPLE OF A CURRENT SWISSTOPO MAP, LIKE THE ONE THAT YOU REMOVED, AND THE NON-FREE CONTENT GUIDELINE ENCOURAGES THE REUSE OF AN IMAGE FROM ANOTHER ARTICLE INSTEAD OF USING ANOTHER NON-FREE IMAGE.

I AM SORRY THAT THE EDITORS OF Cartography of Switzerland HAVE LOST THEIR IMAGE GALLERY, BECAUSE I STIRRED THINGS UP INSTEAD OF QUIETLY ADDING A RATIONALE TO THE IMAGE. I DON'T CARE WHAT F***ING SECTION WP:NFCC3a SAYS (and people who know me know that I hardly ever use swear words), THE THREE IMAGES IN THE GALLERY ARE OF THREE DIFFERENT MAP SERIES, AND IT IS QUITE REASONABLE FOR THAT ARTICLE TO SHOW WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE.

I DIDN'T REALLY NEED ANY HELP WRITING THE RATIONALES, WHAT PUZZLED ME WAS THE COPYRIGHT TAGS. AFTER I POSTED MY QUESTION, I REALISED THAT THE ORIGINAL UPLOADER HAD PROBABLY MADE A MISTAKE WHEN THEY USED TWO TAGS, AND THIS HAD CONFUSED ME. I THINK THE CORRECT SOLUTION MAY BE TO JUST HAVE ONE {{Non-free fair use in}} TAG (TO JUSTIFY UPLOADING THE IMAGE) AND A {{Non-free image rationale}} FOR EACH USE. BUT I CANNOT SEE WHY IT IS NECESSARY TO SPECIFY ONE ARTICLE IN THE TAG, WHEN THIS DOESN'T APPLY TO {{Non-free 2D art}}, ETC.

I HAVE DECIDED TO REVERT YOUR CHANGES AND MAKE MY OWN STAB AT THE RATIONALES; WE CAN CONTINUE FROM THERE. I'M NOT SURE WHAT A NON-FREE CONTENT REVIEW WILL MAKE OF MY ATTEMPT TO INVOKE WP:BIAS IN A RATIONALE.

PERHAPS I WOULD NOT BE SO ANGRY IF YOU HAD ANSWERED MY QUESTION (What should I do?), CONVINCED ME OF YOUR ARGUMENT, AND LET ME REMOVE THE USES OF THE IMAGES. JonH (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but may I suggest that if you want to deal with U.S. bias, you can find an older map that has fallen out of copyright, or find a country that releases their maps under a free license (Canada does, but that's still Western Hemisphere). —NE2 04:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Several points:

• Thanks to NE2 for your calm reply.

• I now accept the changes to Cartography and Map. Easter Island is a nice example.

• I have written a reply at Talk:Cartographic relief depiction, and asked the original uploader (User:Dbachmann) if he can help.

• I am a bit disappointed not to get a reply here to my question about the use of {{Non-free fair use in}}, because in fact the solution is simple. The template allows for the use of up to 6 arguments, but this is not mentioned in the documentation. I will try to fix the documentation.

JonH (talk) 00:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:RMS Olympic.jpg for deletion

The Image:RMS Olympic.jpg was confused with Image:Olympic 1911.jpg. Since Image:Olympic 1911.jpg is in the Public Domain of the United States, so I request for deletion of Image:RMS Olympic.jpg. Because these two images are the same one. But I can't find the button that say delete. Aquitania (talk) 05:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You have to be an administrator to delete pages. I've gone ahead and deleted this one for you, since it's duplicated by a free image. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Creating a GDFL image based on a Copyrights reserved book

Hi, I would like to create IPA chart images for Konkani language article.

I wish to modify this image [1] which is licensed under GDFL so I guess there is no copyright problem in this case(please correct me if I am wrong).

However my main concern is whether I will be violating the copyrights of the book on which my images will be based. It has a copyright:All rights reserved notice. I dont think that the phonetics of a language are covered under copyrights, are they?. The images will be created by me and not scanned from the book. Nor will they be direct copies(the Vowel chart will be significantly simpler than the one in the book) and the source book will be properly refernced. At present the charts exist as tables. Please let me know if I will be violating copyrights.--Deepak D'Souza 06:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Should be no problem. You are just going to use the information from that book, not its copyrighted form of expression. Information as such is not copyrighted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for clarifying my doubts. -Deepak D'Souza 12:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The origin of the word "pipe"

the same word pipa in english,in spanishh,in hungarian .I'm asking what is the origin of the word "PIPA"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.145.137 (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You're in the wrong place. Try the Reference desk. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 20:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

image from North Korean website

I'd like to add an image of Spirulina nutitional supplements to the article of the same name, and I've found a pretty good one ona page from the North Korean government website, see [2]. Can we freely use images from North Korea? I'm not sure of the relationship with regards to copyright between the US and North Korea. I notice they are not in the list of countries with copyright tags and I think the US doesn't have diplomatic relations with them. Basically, would anything the North Koreans publish not be under copyright in the US, and free to use as we see fit on Wikipedia? Oaktree b (talk) 02:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Circular 38a of the U.S. Copyright Office lists the copyright relations of North Korea with the U.S. as "Unclear". Wikipedia:Copyrights#Comments on copyright laws by country recommends (citing this e-mail by Jimbo) that, for countries with no copyright relations with the U.S., Wikipedia should nonetheless aim to respect the copyrights of their inhabitants. I believe the same principle should apply, even more strongly, for countries for which the relations are merely uncertain. So, yes, legally we might be free to use anything published in North Korea, and certainly in practice it's extremely unlikely that anyone from North Korea would sue us, but even so, Jimbo's advice appears to be that we should still treat such works as if they were copyrighted even in the U.S. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 03:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

North korean copyright law is fairly clear except when it comes to figureing out the copyright on their websites.Geni 14:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyright license for Image:Charles Ray Hatcher.jpg

The license tag used for this image identifies the copyright holder as the uploader, which doesn't jive because it is a mugshot. Let me know if this is the case, and I'll find a source and add the appropriate tag. 05:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Calliopejen1 for fixing this. 03:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Non-free image use - Image:FernandoPoeJr.jpg

Hello. Ive uploaded an image (Image:FernandoPoeJr.jpg) which I would like to use in the article Fernando Poe, Jr.. However, I was told that it has unclear copyright status. It is a non-free image. I hope some can help in solving the problem.

Thank you

Mk32 (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's nonfree content policies (see WP:NONFREE and WP:NFCC) require that the copyright holder of any nonfree image be attributed. Since this image is from photobucket, we do not know who the copyright holder is. Without this information, the photo cannot be used on wikipedia. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Proper Licencing for a Licencing letter

Hi, I have recieved a personal letter from the Councel of Europe with permission to use certain materials of the Councel in Wikipedia (Ukrainian project). What licence status shall I state for this letter to upload it as a scan file (image)? Сергей Олегович (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the fact that the letter is not free, the permission is not enough. Wikipedia needs to be redistributable; permission for Wikipedia only is not sufficient for that. --NE2 16:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:What's the use of going through with the Election.JPG

I was going to upload a better version of this, but realized it may be unfree. It's from 1948, by someone who died in 1949. There's a better versionPDF on the National Archives website, which doesn't appear to make any claims as to copyright status of materials. The only thing that approaches this is the following:

Most of these cartoons appeared on the front page of Washington newspapers from 1898 through 1948. They are part of a collection of nearly 2,400 pen-and-ink drawings by Berryman. In 1992, in honor of former Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, the Charles Engelhard Foundation purchased the drawings and donated them to the U.S. Senate.

But this doesn't mean that the copyrights were "donated". Further, the PDF with the better version also includes, on page two, a copyrighted image with no indication that it's copyrighted. [3] says that it may be copyrighted; I'm going to tag it as no license pending someone making a more accurate determination. --NE2 16:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyright infringrmrnt when I wrote the original copy, huh?

I put up article on my book Catamount a North Country Thriller. I used the description that is on my website www.rick-davidson.com and on my publisher's website www.beechriverbooks.com. This is not a copyright infringement. I wrote the description and own the rights to it. How do I resolve this? Even though I am logged in, I am not allowed to respond to the Discospinster as the page is protected. I guess I can rewrite the description but that seems sort of foolish since I wrote the article in the first place. If you go to either of the above mentioned sites, you will see that I am the author of the book. That is the reason I linked to those sites.

Filmrd (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC) Rick Davidson November 3, 2008

The fact that you hold the copyright to the text in question does not allow you to post the content on to wikipedia, as all wikipedia content is licensed such that it can be freely modified and redistributed (See the text below the edit box when you perform an edit "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the terms of the GFDL'". As such you would need release the text on your website under a Wikipedia friendly license like the GFDL. This would consequently allow everyone else to use that content for other purposes as well. Mfield (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Mfield: Actually, I don't think you're correct on that. If a person is the owner of copyright, types that copyrighted work into the Wikipedia editing window and hits "Save page", they are explicitly releasing that work under the GDFL and thus the content instantly becomes "licensed such that it can be freely modified and redistributed". If you're the owner of a copyrighted work then you have the power to license it however you like, which includes giving up most (all all) of your rights to it. Assuming that Filmrd is aware of this, understands it, and agrees with it, there's no problem here. -- Hux (talk) 06:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Filmrd is admitting that they are adding information to an article about their selves on Wikipedia, but they are not be allowed to claim "authorship" on the article. What this means is that another Editor could come along and simply read the text on Wikipedia and then read the exact same text on the "official" website. (As seems to be what happened and why this discussion is happening) That editor is not going to know about this conversation and, unless the website clearly stated that all material could be reproduced verbatim by anyone, for any purpose, it would be tagged as a possible {{copyvio}}. In that sense Mfield is correct. The other issue coming into play with this is it appears to be a Conflict of interest as the Editor is admitting here they are also the subject (of one of their works is the subject) of the article. ("I put up article on my book...") Conflict of interest issues aside, "Do not include copies of primary sources" is one of the principal guidlines for any article: Avoid including entire texts of treaties, press releases, speeches or lengthy quotations, etc. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Gustav VI Adolf of Sweden and English footballers.jpg

It says in the description the image page, that the copyright has expired, because of the rule of the life span of the author plus 70 years. However, the person credited as author is George Grantham Baine, who, according to the en wiki, died in 1944. Thus, 70 years after his death is 2014 and that rule cannot be the reason for the image being in the public domain. If the reason is that the picture was taken more than 90 years ago, it should say so in the description. Could somebody please look into it? /Ludde23 ^{Talk Contrib} 11:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• The image is located on Wikimedia Commons so this issue should be raised over there. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You can follow the Library of Congress path to the George Grantham Bain Collection that were deposited with Library of Congress and for which there are no known copyright restrictions, which is why the image in question has the licence it has. ww2censor (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ludde23 is correct that PD-old is not the appropriate license tag. I've changed it to the Bain-specific one, which points to the Library's information on the collection. --dave pape (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

contributorship agreements

I am wondering if Wikipedia has any kind of content provider agreements with your contributors, whether it be a policy statement on the webpage somewhere or a click agreement in order to post their content on Wikipedia. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.111.254.11 (talk) 18:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by a "contributorship agreement"? Whenever you edit a Wikipedia page, you agree to release your contributions under the terms of the GFDL, which is basically the "click agreement" you subscribe to when you make any edit. ~ ^t|c 18:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, I think I mis-identified what I'm looking for. I am wondering about content provider agreements. I have read the GNU agreement and it appears to refer to end users of the content on Wikipedia as opposed to an agreement with a person/entity providing content for the website. For example, how it talks about how the licensee referred to in the agreement as "you" can "copy, modify or distribute the work in any way..." (First paragraph un section 1)What I am inquiring is what sort of agreement governs the submission of content (aka the work) to begin with. I hope that makes sense...

As far as I'm aware, the only agreement governing the submission of work is that statement below the edit box that says "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the terms of the GFDL". It's only one sentence but it's all that really needs to be said, and agreed to, before someone submits. The rules that govern redistribution by the end-user are, inherently, the same rules that the content provider must agree to when submitting that work. Wikipedia doesn't reserve any rights for itself on the content submitted. ~ ^t|c 20:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Why was my DVD cover deleted?

I uploaded DVD cover art that I designed, did all the artwork, used still frames from the movie I made and I own all the copyrights. Why was it deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Of Dreams and Glory (talk • contribs) 18:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It appears that you uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons, which is a separate project (though it's run by the same organization as Wikipedia, and Wikipedia uses a lot of content from the Commons). I'm not an administrator there, so I can't answer your question; you might try contacting the deleting administrator here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

how to upload photos that are not copyrighted and may be freely used for non-profit educational use

I found a website that was not copyrighted that I want to use some photos from on my Wiki article. The photos and other images there clearly state than they may be used for non-profit educational use. WHY DO THEY KEEP GETTING DELETED?

I need to know what to post, list or whatever so they stay in place. This is for a class project and I'm getting really frustrated to find that everytime I log onto my page someone has edited it. I understand that I do not own the page, but there must be some happy medium that could be reached.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by OpossumOpete (talk • contribs) 00:19, 6 November 2008

Wikipedia does not accept permission for non-profit educational use. In order to be useable here the photos must be licensed for reuse by anyone for anything including commercial use and modification. See WP:COPYREQ for the permission Wikipedia requires and how to handle it. Image:PDGcomic.jpg was deleted because you did not indicate a license that allows reuse by anyone for anything. Image:PDGartrodankles.jpg is scheduled for deletion because it is licensed only for non-commercial use. —teb728 t c 01:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want to create a draft article, you could put it in User:OpossumOpete/Artiocetus. That page doesn't belong to you either, but people probably won't mess with it as long you don't try to add a non-commercial use image. —teb728 t c 02:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Plot Elm, Westonbirt, UK, before 1913.jpg.

I uploaded this image copied from Trees of Great Britain & Ireland because the photographer, Augustine Henry, has been dead for over 70 years, which was formerly a criterion for fair use. Is this no longer the case? Ptelea (talk) 08:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The confusion here is one of terminology: "fair use" is the doctrine invoked to use an image notwithstanding the fact that it's copyrighted and unlicensed. What you're alluding to is "public domain", which means that nobody owns any rights over the photograph in question (and which is far preferable for Wikipedia's purpose). If you change the tag on the photo to either {{PD-UK}} or {{PD-Ireland}} (depending on the appropriate jurisdiction), you should be fine. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I & India doesnt have the keyboard of key " Rs. "

now i identified in our INDIAN keyboard doesnt have a key called " Rs. " but we have $ & £ keys , is it that Indian Software pupils are really not talented???? expecting from our Indians Software & Hardware Heros to be done this as soon as possible...i know that we are not using our Indian brand...but even though it is my suggestions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.54.169.137 (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you're in the wrong place; this page is for questions regarding copyright issues as they relate to using content on Wikipedia. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Can I use an image of a picture painted c.1911

Hi, I'm fairly new to wikipedia and have been trying to get the hang of things. I want to use an image from the National Gallery of Art website of a picture painted around 1911. Can I just save the image from the website and upload it as per Wikipedia:Public_domain_image_resources#Visual_arts? Thanks. ] 12:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. As a two dimensional reproduction of a two dimensional work, the photograph has no copyrightable element, and the painting itself is in the public domain in the United States. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That's great news. Thank you. ] 17:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there's one more wrinkle... For it to be public domain, the painting must have been published, not just painted before 1923. In general, we're a little lax about this requirement, but if for some reason you know that this painting was lost and later found (after 1923) or something like that, it shouldn't be uploaded. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. The paintings in this case were listed in an exhibition catalogue of 1919, so I imagine that would be OK. ] 18:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Book covers

I have recently created the article Tomás Graves and would like to illustrate it with a scanned image of the book cover of Tuning Up at Dawn. Obviously, the illustration and cover itself are copyright, but would this be allowed as 'fair use'? Emeraude (talk) 12:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, no. The cover would be suitable for upload to an article about the book but, barring unusual circumstances, not one about the author. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought the rules might mean. Many thanks for the clarification. Emeraude (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)