Wikipedia talk:File copyright tags/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

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)

If they give permission to use it if the source is cited, there's no need for the last sentence. It's not fair use. Permission ahs been specifically given. Superm401 | Talk 22:15, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

First, has permission actually been given? Can someone find the law stating that? Second, permission for Wikipedia is not enough - it must be able to be used in for-profit works. --SPUI (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I've reworded {{Church}}, {{Vatican}}, and {{ItalyTourismCopyright}} (among others) to indicate that there's some ambiguity as to whether these images really are usable. I've also rearranged some of the tags but haven't fixed everything you mentoned above. JYolkowski // talk 14:27, 17 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)

Federal -- probably. State -- depends on the state. Local -- probably not. As for reprints on websites, I'd have to see an example to know what you mean. If you mean, non-governmental officials printing copies of them and claiming copyright -- that's B.S. no matter what the status of those pictures are (if they are in the PD, a private individual can't claim copyright on them; if the copyright is held by the agency that took them, private individuals still can't claim copyright on them). If it's the website of the agency which took them, then it might reflect their actual copyright status. --Fastfission 23:27, 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)

It looks like an attempt to come up with a "verified use" tag. We've been batting a few of these around on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use; it's relatively similar to the {{oldfairusereview}} we are currently playing with. I wouldn't use it quite yet since the system of labeling these is going to change soon. --Fastfission 00:25, 13 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)

Well, it needs to be regarded as a "video clip" since that's what it essentially is. If the article involved criticism or analysis of a video clip -- and the animation was crucial to understanding the criticism or analysis -- then there are ways in which it might be regarded as "fair use" if done right. This is not one of those situations, though, and I don't think it would qualify as fair use. --Fastfission 00:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The only thing lacking is the source. Such an analysis can not be made without it. I think this is equivalent to a screen shot or promotional photo. Also, because it constitutes about 0.1% of the entire program, I think it constitutes fair use. But this is a new issue. I think a new category should be created.--Noitall 00:43, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it's a new issue. I also don't think it's encyclopedic -- it doesn't actually add anything to the description of a "catwalk" and was obviously uploaded by a fellow who just enjoys to watch her breasts move. What I mean by criticism or analysis is simply, if the text is using it as "here's a girl on a catwalk" -- that's not criticism or analysis. If the text is, "this video shows how the bullet is going through JFK's head in twenty different places" -- that's analysis. The use is what's important here. --Fastfission 01:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

For some reason, people want to discuss copyright issues on the catwalk page and article issues on the copyright page. The catwalk issue is done. And this is the copyright page. --Noitall 04:59, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

They are not separate conversations -- if what is claimed is "fair use" then the use is extremely important. There is no media which is inherently fair use or inherently not fair use, there is only usage which separates them. --Fastfission 23:51, 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've been wondering about this for awhile myself. I don't see why we should treat them too differently than any other pages. The use of copyrighted materials in a way which would not qualify as fair use is copyright infringement, whether it is in the user namespace or the article namespace, unless I am mistaken. In the end this seems to come down to, "do we allow copyright violations in the user namespace" which seems like a "no" to me. But I'll try and find out what the official policy is. --Fastfission 00:01, 14 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)

Hmm, yes, that's an interesting exception. I'll try and find out. My guess is that they aren't allowed -- all images ought to be subject to exactly the same licensing restrictions, whether or not they are in the user namespace or the article namespace. But I'll try to get a definitive answer on this. --Fastfission 02:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

General thought on the mailing list seems to be personal-use-only licensing on user pages is currently outside policy but informally tolerated. --Fastfission 18:14, 17 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)

If you want your photo to be kept here, you should license it under the GFDL. I'm going to go nominate Template:Userpage-image for deletion. dbenbenn | talk 14:06, 10 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)

Some states, I believe, have policies similar to that of the federal government. But some don't, I'm also fairly sure. I'd want to see an authoratative source before accepting any such templates as being legit. It shouldn't be hard to establish if they really are or not -- the burden of proof needs to be in establishing that such works are in the public domain (assuming that they are copyrighted should be the default position, since it is both most likely AND the one of the two options with negative consequences!). --Fastfission 23:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

According to the State of New Jersey's website's legal page [1], the state alows viewing, copying and distribution of the information on the state website. Note that it doesn't include permission to modify or sell material. It also specificly warns that it doesn't claim that the materials are in the public domain. The relevant paragraph follows:

Section E. Copyright and Trademark Limitations

The State of New Jersey has made the content of these pages available to the public and anyone may view, copy or distribute State information found here without obligation to the State, unless otherwise state on particular material or information to which a restriction on free use may apply. However, the State makes no warranty that materials contained herein are free of Copyright or Trademark claims or other restrictions or limitations on free use or display. Making a copy of such material may be subject to the copyright of trademark laws.

Note that the last line in the page does include a copyright statement:

Copyright © State of New Jersey, 1996-2005

I think this means that this template is invalid and needs to go away. AFAIK, the only US State with a public domain policy is California. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I've listed it for deletion. --Carnildo 21:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

There are 28 images using this tag. All of them appear to be pictures of New Jersey elected officials, and all of them were uploaded by User:MAS117. What should be done about them? --Carnildo 21:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

That's a very inconsistent copyright. I'd list all the templates at IFD then list the template and associated category for deletion. Superm401 | Talk 13:44, 29 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)

I would say promo photo, becuase it is not "a work of a U.S. Marine Corps marine or employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties."--michael180 16:31, 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)

AFAIK politicians are unlikely to sue anyone for using a basic headshot of them since they'd look bad. It's publicity material, used by the commercial press, and politicians should expect and accept criticism as part of the democratic process. That is, unless it's seriously libellous, but the complaint then should be able the libel not the use of the photograph. So you can always hide behind fair use, but so can everyone so it's effectively free. Dunc|☺ 14:03, 3 October 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 don't think that is right. If it a screenshot (and as you say it does look like one) then it would be copyrighted by the producer. I would put it on WP:PUI. Evil Monkey∴Hello 11:02, 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)

Just tag them all with web-screenshot. Superm401 | Talk 22:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

mmm... I'd lean towards {{film-screenshot}}, since they are technically a single frame from a longer "movie", whereas a web screenshot to me generally implies a static page. That is, I'd consider "Flash movies" to be analogous to other movies, even if they have some degrees of interaction (though at some level they could become a "game", I imagine). "Software" is probably wrong in all cases. But anyway, it doesn't matter much, I don't think, most of these distinctions are for categorization only. "Web screenshot" is only necessary, I believe, if it is clear what kind of browser one is using. --Fastfission 15:15, 29 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)

You could check back with the photographer, but I think he clearly intended (though probably not consciously) to transfer the copyright to you. As a safe bet, just put {{fairuse}}, with an explanation. The photographer is clearly not going to sue you for displaying your own paid-for family pictures. He's unlikely to sue Wikipedia for hosting them too. Ideally, if it's convenient, just ask quickly, "I've got the copyright on the pics you took, right?" He probably won't object. As a final thought, this might qualify as a work-for-hire in which case all copyright indisputably belongs to you. Superm401 | Talk 14:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Read the contract. Odds are, there's a line in it saying that the copyright stays with the photographer. Professional photographers generally make their money off of things like enlargements, reprints, and touch-ups. --Carnildo 18:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Even so, it's legitimate to display them on your user page. Superm401 | Talk 20:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

If you do tag it fairuse, make sure you explain the details of it. In general fair use tags are not allowed on user pages, though in this sort of circumstances I could see it as being ignored. --Fastfission 15:21, 29 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)

The photograph would still be copyrighted. Exactly who would own the copyright might depend on the exact circumstances, but it would probably be held by the person who set up the camera or owned the camera. JYolkowski // talk 17:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

About the only way to get a non-copyrighted photo is if there was no creative effort involved in making the picture. I think frames from security cameras meet the criteria, and there may be other examples. In that case, if the image is published, it's in the public domain, and should be tagged {{PD}}, with a detailed explanation of why it is thought to be in the public domain. I've only seen one example of this sort of situation. --Carnildo 06:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

You still had to buy the camera, put it in the right place and make sure it was on at the right time. There's enough creativity for copyright purposes. Superm401 | Talk 03:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking along the lines of the security camera shot in Columbine High School Massacre. --Carnildo 05:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure the school owns the copyright, but there's a strong fair use claim. Superm401 | Talk 01:30, 9 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)

Probably {{logo}}. --Fastfission 15:19, 29 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:

Documents provided from the web server were sponsored by a contractor of the U.S. Government under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725. Accordingly, the U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free license to publish or reproduce these documents, or to allow others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes. These documents may be freely distributed and used for non-commercial, scientific and educational purposes. "

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)

ORNL is one of the few labs which is known to not claim copyright, so it's not a problem, I believe (at least, it was when I last checked on these things, but it might have changed -- looking at it now, I'm not so sure why I thought that, but I think I had a reason). You can see Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE for more information on this and what tags to use. If they aren't categorized as "work of the federal government" (as much contractor work isn't) then it needs to be able to qualify as fair use, because we don't use "with permission" or "for educational use only" tags. --Fastfission 22:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

In the USA, copyright exists upon creation, so what does "not claim copyright" mean? The above disclaimer text seems to make the image have restrictions. (SEWilco 20:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC))

I haven't had time to check on the specifics of the ORNL issue, but under U.S. copyright law, works of the federal goverment do not generate copyright (they are in the public domain). National labs are administered by the Department of Energy, a federal department, and so one might logically think that what they create are "works of the federal government" -- and in some of the cases, this is true, but in others, the contracts for the administering of the labs change the status of the work done at the labs. It's somewhat tricky. What it boils down to is that some labs claim to have their own copyright policies (some very restrictive, some not very restrictive but too restrictive for WP), while some say that their work is in the public domain. It's not always easy though to tell which is which. --Fastfission 23:05, 8 October 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)

IANAL, but I would guess that if a corporate body does not legally exist, then copyright cannot be assigned to it or held by it, so copyright would remain with the creating artist. (That said, political posters and the like are often a good base for fair-use claims) Shimgray | talk | 21:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but the creation of the object is for obvious reasons kept anonymous. Does then Fair use apply for photos, etc.? --Soman 22:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

First of all, felonious persons and corporations have the same copyright protection as those who obey law. Also, works are copyrighted whether or not the creator chooses to remain anonymous. A fair use claim may be possible, but this issue is unrelated to that of the work's anonymity. Superm401 | Talk 22:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Many jurisdictions treat anonymous individuals as gaining a different term of copyright (since of course you can't use life+whatever), but broadly speaking, yes, they have the same protections. As for illegal organisations... it's an open question. In a legal sense, does an outlawed corporation still exist, since it is a legal construct? If not it can't hold properties and copyrights... I say assume created by an anonymous personal author in that jurisdiction. Shimgray | talk | 23:11, 5 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)

This has now been deleted - but it briefly went through a stage of being a quite dubious claim of it being a "public record" under the Delaware FOIA - which is arguable - and thus public domain - which is, at least to my semi-trained eye, unlikely, though I can see where the misunderstanding comes about. Glancing at the current list, we also have {{PD-NCGov}}, which makes much the same claim.

The public records and public information compiled by the agencies of North Carolina government or its subdivisions are the property of the people. Therefore, it is the policy of this State that the people may obtain copies of their public records and public information free or at minimal cost unless otherwise specifically provided by law.

This really doesn't, to me, say "public domain"; it says "you have the right to get a copy of this material and we can't make you pay for it". Thoughts, anyone? Shimgray | talk | 23:40, 8 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)

It's deprecated for images and other forms of audiovisual media on Wikipedia because it is confusing when used for that type of work. I think Wikipedians as a whole still consider it useful for software, but that does not concern this page. Superm401 | Talk 03:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Still, why is it deprecated? If I would want to upload a image which is a part of distribution of some program which is under GPL or LGPL (and there are such images), how should I tag it? Granted, people should not be encouraged to tag their own images with (L)GPL instead of GFDL, but if some image from external source already is under GPL or LGPL, it must be tagged as such. Nikola 10:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

It's deprecated so people don't tag their own images with it. It's on the list because we accept external images with that tag. Superm401 | Talk 01:02, 30 November 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)

{{Nonfreedelete}}, I'd guess. Pity, after all that work... Shimgray | talk | 01:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

That wasn't very helpful, sorry. Hmm. {{CopyrightedNotForProfitUseProvidedThat}} might work, but we wouldn't be complying with the conditions! And we can't really claim fair use... it does look like it'll have to go. Drat. Shimgray | talk | 02:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to my world. Image sleuthing is hard: trying to tag as many images as possible while doing it before the evil speedy deletionists get there. --Bash 19:56, 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?

No. NPR and PBS are private non-profit corporations. They recieve a large amount of funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, another private non-profit, which in turn recieves grants from the federal government. --Carnildo 04:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

In addition to agreeing with the above answer, it's worth remembering that some media outlets, like the Stars and Stripes, are apart of the government, and their content is also explicitly protected by copyright. --rob 05:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

Yes. Go ahead. Superm401 | Talk 20:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Done. Wcquidditch | Talk 21:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Creating new tags

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)

Good idea, that's been a real pet peeve of mine of late. It seems that, in the time it takes me to delete a useless or misleading tag or rewrite an overly vague one, someone's created another dubious tag. I think that we should discourage the creation of new tags unless they've been discussed here (I'm okay with new fair use tags that have been discussed on WP:FU or WP:WPFU too). JYolkowski // talk 01:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Just to drive the point home, I just discovered fifteen undocumented "fair use" tags, which was a little frustrating for various reasons. I'm adding a message about this right now. JYolkowski // talk 16:20, 29 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:

1. Movie 1, Silver Screen Media, 1963
2. Movie 2, Pyramid Pictures, 1987
3. 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)

Or, would the images have to be combined with the text as such? "Doe has starred in a number of films, such as Movie #1 in 1963, from Silver Screen Media {and have the image formatted to the side}." Olessi 04:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Either of the final two options would be acceptable. Superm401 | Talk 01:33, 19 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)

Unfortunately, Jimbo has decreed that "non-commercial only" images are off-limits on Wikipedia, and that those uploaded after May 19, 2005 may be immediately speedy deleted. So, no, you can upload these images to neither en-Wikipedia nor the commons: both require free licenses. Here on the English Wikipedia, we also allow "fair use" images, however, "fair use" applies only in the U.S: re-users of our content must re-evaluate each and every "fair use" case for themselves; which (so I think) in practice means that most can't or just won't use such images. Foreign re-users of Wikipedia content typically cannot use "fair use" images because the laws applicable in their countries just don't have a "fair use" provision liberal enough in their copyright laws. This is one of the reasons why the German Wikipedia doesn't allow "fair use" images at all. BTW, note that Jimbo's decree also outlaws "by permission" images unless said permission amounts to a free license, i.e. basically only demands attribution.

I suggest you ask them to license their images under the GFDL or one of the acceptable Creative Commons Licenses. I have been quite successful to get people to license their images under the GFDL by pointing out that this license:

• requires proper attribution,
• allows anyone to re-use the image for any purpose, even commercial ones, as long as the author(s) is/are credited and a copy of the text of GFDL is distributed with the image,
• and to do so with derived works from that image (different crop or edited otherwise), again, with crediting all authors and distributing the GFDL text;
• and that in my experience, the requirement to distribute the text of the GFDL with any redistributed image in practice is enough to prevent or at least discourage most serious commercial exploitations of the image.

However, I have not dealt with game publishers but mostly academic people, so YMMV. HTH, Lupo 19:01, 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)

No. People will inevitably misinterpret such tags as implying that all Reuters images are fair use, which is certainly not true. Superm401 | Talk 19:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

We just deleted Template:Reuters and Template:AssociatedPress because it is quite dubious whether photos from these sources could qualify as fair use, so let's not recreate them. JYolkowski // talk 22:59, 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)

{{PD-NCGov}} seems to have the same problem; it interprets the local Public Records Law as meaning those records are public domain. Didn't we just have this debate with regard to Delaware or New Jersey or somewhere? Shimgray | talk | 13:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Except that the North Carolina statute says "The public records and public information compiled by the agencies of North Carolina government or its subdivisions are the property of the people." (emphasis mine) This is different from the other state statues. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Mmmm... I'm unconvinced. There's often a lot of broad fanciful language used in FoI statutes; I'd be inclined to read it in a metaphorical sense rather than one specifically referring to copyright. Note that NC slaps a "Copyright © State of North Carolina" notice on most of the state.nc.us pages. Shimgray | talk | 20:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The only other piece of data I have on the subject is from Mm35173 (t c), who reports about when he tried to contact NC government agencies to get permission to use the photos. See Template talk:PD-NCGov. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:19, 4 November 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)

{{PD-US}}. The 1923 thing is a consequence of US Copyright Law. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 01:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I've poked around a bit and I'm reasonably satisfied that the book was published in the US that year, meaning it qualifies. (It probably qualifies under life+70 in the UK, as all named authors seem to have died before 1935, but I'm dubious there - it doesn't give the authors of the images, so can't confirm for them specifically) Shimgray | talk | 02:18, 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)

Okay, now I'm bemused. You can use any image tagged with it commercially under the 1.0 license, but not the 2.0 license? Shimgray | talk | 15:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if you look closer, it appears that images tagged with it can be used commercially under the 1.0 and both commercially and non-commercially under the 2.0. That is so confusing, I am this close to TfD'ing this template. Wcquidditch | Talk 15:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

If my understanding of CC licenses is correct, this means that the cc-by-sa-nc is effectively redundant, so the image is in effect only tagged with cc-by-sa-1.0 and cc-by-sa-2.0. But... argh. Shimgray | talk | 15:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, this template is very confusing. It's on TfD, link below... Wcquidditch | Talk 19:05, 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 Ślepowron 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)

Yes. We've just been having this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use#Copyright_in_coats_of_arms.2C_flags.2C_military_insignia_etc.. Lots of good discussion there, please have a look. Copyrights in coats of arms etc. is kind of tricky. An image of a coat of arms etc. is an artist's interpretation and so doesn't fall under the aegis of Bridgeman vs. Corel Corp., so if the image is of recent origin, it is likely copyrighted. That's why I've changed {{coat of arms}} to indicate that the copyright situation on these is pretty tricky. For images of coats of arms that were scanned from pre-1923 works, they should be tagged as {{PD-US}}. For images of coats of arms that were created by the uploader, they should be tagged as {{GFDL}} or whatever licence the uploader wants. For images that were created by the country or province in question, it's probably safe to use these under fair use (use {{symbol}}, which I haven't listed on this page yet, as I wanted to get the wording down first). Coats of arms that don't fall into the above categories are probably copyright violations. Hope this helps, JYolkowski // talk 17:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I wish Emax was around. I don't know at the moment if the images were made by Emax and are simply similar to anon works or were scanned from anon book (and I don't have this book). Assuming the worst case scenario - that Emax scanned those coats directly from anon's book and anon does not release those images under a usable licence - will we have to delete all of these images, or can we claim fair use in coat of arms articles? If we have to delete them, this would basically kill the entire Polish heraldry/List of Polish Coats of Arms project :( , not to mention destroy the largest and best repository of ancient Polish coats of arms on the net :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Making your assumptions, I would think we would have to delete the images. I don't think we can claim fair use, because our usage of the coats of arms would likely have a harmful effect on the sales of his book (fair use factor #4), and our usage is probably derivative and not transformative because we're talking about the coat of arms in general, not his specific illustration of it, and our articles could be seen as being a replacement for the book (factor #1). JYolkowski // talk 19:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I got a reply from the author. He is indeed the author of the graphics (this webpage proves our are a copy). He is willing to grant us a non-commercial use licence, but is afraid to grant a commercial one due to the fear somebody can reprint his work. I know we are not looking favourably towards non-commercial licences, so I'd appreciate all advice and arguments I can use to convince him to grant us a better (which?) licence. From what I understand he is not afraid of the files being distributed online, but would like to prevent them being printed and sold (individually or in a new book). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:34, 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)

Create a temporary page. Fill it with images like so: [[Image:Another coat of arms.jpg|150px]]. Right-click on each image as displayed, and save it, giving you a 150px resized image. To give you an idea what I mean - if you save the image displayed on Działosza Coat of Arms just now, you get a 140px version of it... does this make sense? It still means you need to save and reupload, but less hassle than the screenshot approach... Shimgray | talk | 02:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Good trick - tnx. I am still hoping for arguments to convince the author to leave us the current pics, though :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Whatever way it works, I just want to say, good job. Having a bunch of free images, even if they're small, is probably a lot better than having a bunch of unfree images at any size. Who knows, maybe it will encourage people to create new, better images. JYolkowski // talk 13:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

True. The author allowed me to chose any licence for him, and any description I think would be appopriate (as long as it gives attribution). Do you think GFDL and the description at Image:Herb Abdank.jpg is ok? Or would you suggest any changes? I would like to upload rest of the smaller but legal files over this weekend, and I hope not to have to do this again :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. Might be best to dual license it GFDL and {{cc-by-2.0}}. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 02:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I like that. If he's giving us latitude to choose the licence, I think such a dual license makes sense. JYolkowski // talk 03:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Do we have any special tag for dual license? Can you update the image? I will then copy the text to others when I work on them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

And we can keep the existing pictures in the current size - author understands it's a lot of work to overwrite them, so only asks for future images to be uploaded in reduced size. :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:23, 11 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,

• Electron arrangements of Main Group Elements.
• Densities of elements.
• Melting and boiling points of selected elements.
• Names, symbols and relative atomic masses of selected elements.
• Flame colours.
• Formulae of selected ions containing more than one kind of atom.
• Solubilities of selected compounds in water.
• Melting and boiling points of selected inorganic elements.
• Melting and boiling points of selected organic elements.
• Electrochemical series (reduction reactions).
• Periodic table of the elements showing symbol and date of discovery.

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)
• 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)

I'm still not sure whether the material is valid under a free licence. The "supports SQA qualifications" bit is obviously not free, but what still isn't clear to me is whether the SQA allows the material to be reproduced under any other conditions that might be free or not. JYolkowski // talk 13:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Below is a the first page that appears in the booklet that I would like to upload images. The copyright information can be seen at the bottom. --Kilo-Lima 15:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

File:Science-SQA.png

• 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)

---

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)

A few quick rules of thumb for works published in the US:

1. All works published before 1923 are in the public domain.
2. Works published before 1977 without a copyright notice are in the public domain.
3. Unpublished works where the author is not known, that were created before 1885, are in the public domain.
4. Works published after 1922 with a copyright notice are usually copyrighted.
5. Works published after 1963 with a copyright notice are always copyrighted
6. Everything created after March 1, 1989 is copyrighted, and will remain copyrighted for the forseeable future.

In practical terms, I'd say the photos in the family album are public domain, and can be uploaded without problems. The architectural drawings are also probably public domain, unless they've got a copyright statement. The photo book images are tricky: when was the book published? --Carnildo 21:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, firstly, I'm not from the US but the Netherlands, as are the books, so does the above still apply? (I understand that copyrights are complicated by themselves and it gets even worse on the Internet, which is international, so can one country's rules apply?)

The photo book is from 1984. But I thought that one would be the easiest because there isn't a single copyright statement in the whole book. It's called 'Heerlen, van dorp tot stad' and the ISBN number is 90 7039 613 0. I suppose that would also be useful information to add to the photo pages.

And I now notice that the architecture book doesn't have any copyright information in it either (neither with the drawings, the photos or in the front or back). I thought that such information was always present (and wouldn't it be obligatory for any copyright to apply?). If this means I can also upload photos from this book that would be great because there are some beautiful photos in it. Unlike in the other book, the photographers are mentioned, or rather, one: J. Cohnen (et al). The book is called 'Schunck's Glaspaleis', it's from 1996 and the ISBN number is 90-73367-10-7. DirkvdM 14:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

For the family photos, if they are made before 1923, you can freely upload them. Tag them with {{PD}} if you scanned them, otherwise tag them with {{PD-art}}. If they are made afterwards, they are probably under copyright of whoever took them, so it depends.

For the books, lack of copyright statement is irrelevant. If there is ISBN, then it's almost certainly copyrighted. Nikola 17:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm actually getting even more confused now. The 1923 thing would not be a US rule, would it? (given the coincidence with Carnildo's first point.) And of course I scanned the pre-1923 photos; there weren't any digital cameras yet in those days :) . As for the rest I suppose I'll have to guess if they've bee made by a family member (which is nearly impossible in some cases) and then hope that family member won't mind (which is a safe assumption). I suppose fairuse is meant for this. If the rules are so complicated that even you guys don't give the same answer then how can anyone expect the wider audience to follow them? Ah well, I'll just live dangerously and start uploading. :) DirkvdM 20:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The 1923 cutoff is a side-effect of US copyright law: Before 1978, copyright was for 28 years once you registered with the Library of Congress, with the option to renew for another 28. In 1978, it was changed so that, for all works still under copyright, they were copyrighted for 75 years, or 50 years after the death of the author for works by an individual. In 1998, this was extended again to 95 years, or life + 70 for works by an individual. In 1989, coverage was expanded from works that were marked and registered, to all works of creative effort.

The whole thing's rather confusing, but the net result for works in the US is the rules I listed above. Those cover everything except a few unusual cases and the grey area between 1923 and 1963. Copyrighted works published during that period are in the public domain if and only if the the copyright owner didn't renew the copyright after 28 years. If you want to be totally confused, there's a chart that covers just about everything at [3] --Carnildo 22:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not from the US. Nor is the business, the building, the photographer or the publication (all Netherlands). But you say it's a side-effect. Am I to understand that US law has become international law in this case? Or more in general? Oh, and does your statement that the architectural drawings are free of copyright still hold or did Mikola refere to those as well when he talked about the books? I'm sorry about all th questions - and they're only the tip of the iceberg. I'm starting to feel that one needs to have studied law to safely upload images. DirkvdM 15:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia servers are in the US, so it's United States copyright law that matters, and under US copyright law, everything published overseas before 1923 is public domain in the US. For stuff published between 1923 and 1977, it's in the public domain in the US if it's in the public domain in its home country. For more recent works, the Berne convention has resulted in copyright law being pretty much the same throughout the world. --Carnildo 05:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know the location of the servers mattered. But that would mean that Wikipedia is tied to the USA, which would be quite odd, considering it's an international operation. Actually, there are servers in France and the Netherlands too. Does that represent a split in languages? In other words, do I connect to the US everytime I edit? (No wonder it's so slow then :) ) I thought those in Europe were for European users, with the servers across the ocean mirroring each other. Which would also make sense. If Wikipedia would be tied to the USA that would be a bit of a 'design flaw' (or what should I call that). But I suppose that's one of the problems with Internet, that national laws are not designed for such a thing. DirkvdM 08:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The servers in France and the Netherlands (and Southeast Asia) are all simple caching mirrors: they keep copies of commonly-visited pages. When a non-logged-in user views a Wikipedia page, they connect to whatever caching server is closest to them, and the server will relay that to the main servers in Florida if it doesn't have a local copy of the page.

Logged-in users, or any user editing a page, will connect to Florida, where the database servers are. There are two reasons to keep the database servers in Florida: (1) it lets the database servers talk to each other quickly and for free, since they're all on the same local network, and (2) it lets the Wikimedia Foundation claim that Wikipedia is based in Florida, and only Florida, so there's only one set of laws they need to worry about. --Carnildo 07:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Got it (at last :) ). This is so essential to the whole story that it should be mentioned right at the top of the page. I'll do that edit right now. Correct me if I got it wrong. I wonder, though. Does this mean that when US law is not a good choice in certain cases and another country's law gives more freedom we can just place a server there for those images (or whatever)? I suppose that there should be some country somewhere that has very loose rules when it comes to copyrights (India perhaps or some microstate?), so couldn't the servers be moved there? DirkvdM 10:28, 14 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)

I gave it a sharp slashing ... reduced template size, while retaining all the appropriate links, fixed table formatting duplications, and includeonly'd the categories... this works much better now :)  ALKIVAR™ 20:52, 19 December 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)

I thought that was TfD's job? --Wcquidditch | Talk 21:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

And if you need clarification: "TfD's job" means "to discuss thoughts about deletion," which seems to be the point of this. Sorry for vagueness. --Wcquidditch | Talk 21:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The point of raising it here is that there's a chance that someone else knows of such a court ruling or search of the laws as mentioned in my original post. In that case, the person is more likely to be watching this page than they are to be watching TfD. --Carnildo 23:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

If anyone has a problem with the tag they could have contacted me about it. First off, I have determined that at the very least they are usuable under fair use guidelines as they come from public institutions which have no commercial incentive, and if used to illustrate the person. As for the actual copyright status, I have encountered a lot of conflicting information, and have been cataloging my information on the talk page. Among them, I have found that public records should not even be under the scope of federal copyright protection [4][5], rather public dosclosure laws. I have not marked them as public domain images because I cannot find a definitive source for that. As for restrictions on use, public records by definition are freely available to anyone by request, which is also stated uniformly in state laws [6]. --Fallout boy 07:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Afer being unable to find an answer, I sent an inquiry to the US copyright office. This is how they responded:

As a general matter, state and local governments may claim copyright in their works. However, public ordinances, court decisions and similar official legal documents and public records of the state and local governments are generally not considered copyrightable for reasons of public policy.

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)

They should probably be listed under US-specific PD images rather than just general, and does the tag automatically place the images in Category:Mug shots? It probably should. pfctdayelise 03:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Tag has been moved, and it automatically categorizes them in the mugshot category.--Fallout boy 09:16, 14 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)

NO! Don't do that. 17 USC 108(d) is about the right of libraries and archives to make individual copies from their holdings for personal study use by their clients. It does not give you any rights at all to republish the copied work. Lupo 09:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

If the images in question come from an archive or collection of a university library, then are they fit to be used at all on Wikipedia? Are they copyrighted or not? -- Clevelander 12:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where the image comes from. The library/archive typically does not hold the copyright on the items in its holdings. One has to determine on a case-by-case basis whether something is still copyrighted or not. Are the images you were thinking of on-line somewhere? If so, post the links on my talk page and I'll go take a look. If not, there's an explanatory page in the making at User:Lupo/Public domain. Maybe that page can help you to figure out whether the images you wanted to upload are in the public domain. (And I'd like to have feedback on that page, too. Do you find it useful? What could be improved?) Lupo 12:20, 21 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.

According to the Republic of Lithuania Law on Copyright and Related Rights (passed on May 18, 1999 and ammended on March 5, 2003) Chapter II, Section 1, Article 5, case 3: "Copyright shall not apply to official State symbols and insignia (flags, coat-of-arms, anthems, banknote designs, and other State symbols and insignia) the protection of which is regulated by other legal acts." Hence it is assumed that this image has been released into the public domain. However, in some instances the use of this image might be regulated by other laws.

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:

Article 7. Use of an Image of the National Flag of Lithuania

2. An image of the national flag of Lithuania may be used for decorative purposes as an official symbol of the state in such a way that no disrespect would be shown to the national flag of Lithuania or the principles of the use of flags would not be otherwise violated.

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)

Since I have received no comments, I have created {{PD-LithuaniaGov}}, put it on the image tags page and tagged 101 image files all neatly tucked into Category:State symbols of Lithuania. Renata3 18:39, 27 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)

In general, devices cannot be copyrighted. --Carnildo 23:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

This is an interesting question however. A device can't be copyrighted, but a design of a device can. No one can make a bar code reader which looks exactly like a CueCat. How does this relate to photographs of such works? Nikola 21:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The appearance of something is usually protected by either a trademark or a design patent, or by "deceptive marketing" laws. In all cases, the purpose of the law is to protect consumers by preventing people from selling cheap imitations of something. It's not a situation we need to worry about.

In the specific case of the CueCat, assuming there are no enforceable patents on the internal workings, the protection most likely comes from the trademark on the CueCat logo. Since we're not using the CueCat logo to convince people that Wikipedia is a barcode scanner, we're fine. --Carnildo 23:47, 26 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.

--Carnildo 23:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

It's typical. Category:GPL images swelled by thousands during the first few weeks we had the dropdown, since it was the default. There are still probably more fair use (at best) images in the category than GPLed ones. —Cryptic (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

I've moved both PermissionAndFairUse and Restricted use into the Deprecated category, next to Template:Fairuse. — EagleOne\^Talk 23:22, 17 December 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)

I realise that I linked to the 2.0 version, and not the 2.5 version of the license. Which reminds me of something else I wanted to ask. When uploading images, it is only possible to select v.2.5 when uploading CC: Attribution-ShareAlike images. Does that mean that if I find a by-sa 2.0 image (which most CC images on flickr are) it cannot be used either? Thanks, Jacoplane 14:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

cc-nc is not compatible with the GFDL, specifically: "Materials for which commercial redistribution is prohibited generally cannot be used in a GFDL-licensed document, e.g., a Wikipedia article, because the license does not exclude commercial re-use." GFDL doesn't exclude commercial use, so using cc-nc (or any other variation) would be putting an extra condition on it, which we can't do. Maybe one day we will start charging to read WP articles. (Yeah, right.) Or we will sell WP V1.0 on CD to fundraise. Even if we don't, other people who re-use WP content under the GFDL license might. These things are acceptable under GFDL.

As for the versions of the licences, you can only choose v2.5 because it is the latest. The licences are designed to be backwards-compatible, which means they will never be more restrictive than previous versions. So anything licenced under a particular version is guaranteed to be licenced under all future versions. I hope I've got it right there. Long story short, you can use any version cc-by-sa license to upload existing works, new works of your own are best tagged with the latest version. HTH --pfctdayelise 15:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Basucally, if you ever print a version, or put one on CD - this has been done for the German version, and 1.0 on en is getting there - a non-commercial clause may well make it impossible to distribute the material in any practical way. It will certainly make it impossible for the distribution method used in Germany to work (a DVD sold commercially with the firm taking a small profit), and may - I'm not sure - make it impossible to even recoup costs. It'd be an administrative nightmare to try and sell copies for exactly cost... Shimgray | talk | 15:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses! Jacoplane 15:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Television Screenshot

I think this would be better for screenshots of television programmes, idents etc rather than {{film-screenshot}}

This image is a screenshot from a copyrighted film, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by the studio which produced the film, and possibly also by any actors appearing in the screenshot. It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Copyrights for more information.

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)

I have no objection to it. Superm401 | Talk 20:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I have created what the template would look like, changing some of the wording from the Film Screenshot tag along with the colour scheme and image. You can see it here. It would be great if people could leave comments regarding whether they like it or not and what can be made better. You can make changes to it too, but please leave a summary below the tag on the page explaining what you have done. Hope you like it! :) Wikiwoohoo 19:50, 2 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)

Article 6 of the Council Directive 93/98/EEC harmonizing the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights: Protection of photographs - Photographs which are original in the sense that they are the author's own intellectual creation shall be protected in accordance with Article 1. No other criteria shall be applied to determine their eligibility for protection. Member States may provide for the protection of other photographs. By this many photos became photo works, if they express an individual viewpoint or an artistic statement of the photographer. Photo works were already protected since 1985 up to 70 years after the death of the author. --ST ○ 00:18, 4 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?

Probably, what you have created is a derivational work, so... maybe you don't even get the copyright in the first place? (Also, please sign your posts.) pfctdayelise 22:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

Good idea to have something like that at least for the basic cases. However, covering all possibilities would lead to such a complex decision tree that most people would ignore it anyway, except those who really do care about correctly tagging an image, and those typically wouldn't need such a guide anyway. See Wikipedia:Public domain for some cases. There are already flowcharts for determining whether something is in the public domain in the U.S. available on the web. Still, a good idea. Lupo 08:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

No need to be so prejudiced against Windows. --Kilo-Lima 20:15, 16 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)

Hmm, I really thought I wrote this already, but apparently not. The line at the bottom saying Copyright ©1997-2005 PG Publishing Co., Inc. All Rights Reserved. is a pretty good hint. The only way you can use an image like is under Wikipedia:Fair use doctrine. When you upload it, tag it {{Fairusein}} (where Articlename is the article you intend to use it in). Also, only use them if a reasonable free image can't be found. Check commons, see if there's a related WikiProject and ask its members if they have any suitable images, etc, check Flickr, etc. pfctdayelise 03:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, that didn't quite work. When you upload such an image, don't choose anything from the drop-down menu, but in the Summary box add a line saying {{Fairusein|Articlename}} Where Articlename is the article you intend to use the image in.

For this image, you should also add, for example, "found at URL: xxx; Photo by Peter Diana / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; Copyright ©1997-2005 PG Publishing Co., Inc. All Rights Reserved. Date: December 2005". pfctdayelise 03:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, you must provide a detailed fair use rationale on the image description page, addressing all four criteria for the evaluation of "fair use". Fair use is not a carte blache to copy copyrighted images. See also Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use. Lupo 08:45, 13 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)

{{nonfreedelete}}. Google Local doesn't get its satellite images from US government sources, or at least not exclusively. The Google maps watermark is present all over the image (rotate 90° to see it easier, ©2005 Google). I don't think you have much of a fair use claim IMO. Perhaps you can use {{Geolinks-US-buildingscale}} or the Canadian equivalent to provide links instead of embedding an image. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 01:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

With the sole exception of Google map images for use in the article on the Google mapping service, these images should be deleted. They don't qualify under "fair use" because our use of them competes directly with Google's use of them.

There are public-domain arial photos of most of the United States -- it's what the US Geologic Survey uses to make their maps -- but I don't know where to get them. --Carnildo 07:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

NASA World Wind, at a guess. All datasets free to use, IIRC, so screenshot away. Shimgray | talk | 01:27, 18 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)

That would be the Aliens Colonial Marines Technical Manual, wouldn't it? Assume anything in that book is copyrighted, including any images, illustrations, and whatnot. If it was a book on some 17th century painter and you wanted to scan in a reproduction of some artwork he did, that'd be ok, since the original artwork would be long out of copyright (see e.g. {{PD-art}}). But for this Aliens book, that doesn't apply. Lupo 20:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright, just checking to make sure there's no kind of "low-resolution fair-use" clause. Thanks. Beowulph 22:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Now, fair use is a different matter. It is a provision in U.S. copyright law that allows one to use copyrighted stuff without permission or a license for certain limited purposes. Read the article, and Wikipedia:Fair use, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, and maybe also fair dealing (and the talk pages) to learn more about it. But note that "low resolution" alone does not make a fair use rationale, which you must provide for each and every use of any image you should decide to upload and use under the fair use doctrine. Unused "fair use" images are speedy deletion candidates, for if there is no "use", the question of it being "fair" is moot. Lupo 08:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)