Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use.../Archive 2

src: divinityoriginalsin2.wiki.fextralife.com

Video Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use.../Archive 2

JosÃÆ' © Manuel Barroso

Picture JosÃÆ'Â © Manuel Barroso, from the political party website. The image is here: [1]. Enterance to photo gallery [2] states "All text and images in the Picture Gallery are free to use, but the source recognition, EPP-ED Group, will be appreciated." - no replies asking for an email form asking for clarification about this. - J Logan ^t : 20:56, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use.../Archive 2

Alexander Eugen Conrady

I have found one plausible photograph of this intellectual who died in 1944 in an article published by his daughter and son-in-law in 1966, in the scientific journal Applied Optics, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 176, which is now available online for free:

http://ao.osa.org/DirectPDFAccess/616EC5FA-BDB9-137E-C4D388CA8C9DB9D8_14044.pdf?da=1&id=14044&seq=0&CFID=49726628&CFTOKEN=98319483

I do not have access to other photos and have no clear way of contacting his family, since his daughter died in 2003. May I extract his photo as a parent and use it? If so, I am confused about how to credit photos. thanks. Apoachroroger.

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Der Schneeman's Movie

Hey, Der Schneeman is a German animated film created in the Second World War. That's rare. Can I use screenshot of [[3]] for the article I edit? I can not find anything like a promotional poster. SIGURD42 15:57, August 5, 2007 (UTC)

Think about it and find the answer now.... I think. So no problem! SIGURD42 17:26, August 6, 2007 (UTC)

src: www.mcclatchy-wires.com

Johnny Gill

Johnny Gill This image is used on the album cover (Let's Get the Mood Right, Motown, 1996) and is taken from the classic motown page at Johnny Gill. Thank you for your response. MissKriss 15:23, August 4, 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Terence Todman

Terence Todman]. Images appear to be photos of press releases and there is no copyright information on the website.-- Ccson 02:35, August 1, 2007 (UTC)

src: pillarsofeternity2.wiki.fextralife.com

Historical Painting

The boatman or Gemidzii from Thesaloniki. I want to choose this article. Can not find anything else://Kanibalos 20:10, July 17, 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Stylidium adnatum, etc.

Greetings! "Can I use..." image from the following page for the above article?

This photo is on the site with the following copyright information:

The use of images for non-commercial websites is allowed provided that credit is given to the Australian National Botanical Gardens and these words are closely related to our home page. Any commercial use or publication of this resource without the permission of the guard is strictly prohibited.

Can I use the image under fair use or "with permission" because I am very sure Wikipedia is a non-commercial website. And if so, where credit should be given? Only on the image description page? Could it be uploaded to public property? Thanks in advance for the help! Rkitko 07:33, December 2, 2006 (UTC)

I do not think so. We do not allow images "by permission" or "no commercial use" unless we permit fair use of images. Because we A) already have free images in article B) plants are not extinct or are unlikely to take photos - images do not fit the WP: WE criteria us. It might be easier to find a WP user in Western Australia and ask them well to take a photo of the factory in question. Megapixie 08:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, drat. thanks. I'm having trouble finding photos of live plants FU or GFDL, which is a suggestion for improving the genus article GA ( Stylidium ). What I can find is the old lithograph which is certainly the public domain if it is old enough. Thanks for suggesting to find users in WA, although the idea of ​​flying there to photograph the plants yourself is more interesting :) I'll check it out. So this will of course also override the use of FloraBase images, huh? Their fair use guidelines nearly made me dizzy just glancing at them. Best, Rkitko 09:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops, it's okay. Do not see provision # 1040: " Information will not be used on website. " Thanks again for the help! Glad I asked first. Rkitko 10: 01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

src: darksouls.wiki.fextralife.com

Layla Hamilton from the Kaleido Star

Greetings! I want to know: "Can I use..." this image from the following page for the above article?

This photo

Thank you for your help! Goldenphoenix2007 05:03, July 17, 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Rose Bowl 2006 Game Logo

I want to use this image in Rose Bowl 2006 article. I believe fair use is acceptable because this is a logo, historically, it can not be re-created, the article goes directly to it because it is directly and solely about the 2006 Rose Bowl logo image for and around. It is also found on the Official Website of the Rose Bowl which therefore deduces how they want their logo represented. I thought I would ask beforehand though I think this (or should be, but that does not mean much more) is welcome remembering my past with a fair use picture. Any support or discrepancies and comments are encouraged. thanks. - MECU ? talk 20:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that such use will get too many arguments. As long as you use the logo for identification purposes, it should be fine. You plan to use it similar to the way the Texas logo used in infobox 2006 Texas Longhorn football team or CFB logo is used at the top of the Peach Bowl, right? In either case, it identifies a subject with a familiar logo as would be done in your case. BigDT 21:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks good to me. The live logo represents the event being discussed in the article, and there is no free alternative to the logo. Johntex \ ^talk 21:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

src: ragesoss.com

Creative Commons Attribution-only text

I'm wondering if I can use text from the Creative Commons website on Wikipedia. Their sites are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License. Is it compatible with GFDL? The CC discussion implies that they can (with one warning), but I am not clear whether:

• it is the official Wikipedia policy
• how to add terms for the 'invariant' section?

Thank you for your help! Drernie 18:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not think so. All texts MUST be GFDL licensed (with small slits for fair use quotes). Images are different because they are separate work we just planted in one page, but we can not mix CC and GFDL text togeter. --Sherool (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Strangely, CC people just told me that [CC :: BY content can be licensed under the GFDL, because the GFDL ensures that Attribution is no less protected than under CC: :BY. I realize that is not true for all CC licenses, but it sounds like this is true. Dernia 18:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure we can, with loose CC licenses like attribution. GFDL maintains attribution. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:45, February 23, 2007 (UTC)

NO. There is a striking discrepancy between CC-BY and the GNU Free Documentation License. See the discussion on Wikisource-l. --We a n Yerri c k (talk | handle) 21:50, April 19, 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Screenshot of Wikipedia ????

I want to include a screenshot of Wikipedia in the article I wrote. Can I do it under copyright guidance or do I need additional permissions? Mcc6676 19:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC) mcc6676

Is this image used in Wikipedia articles? If so, tag the image with {{Wikipedia-screenshot}}. Make sure, unless there is a reasonable use reason to do so, that your screenshot does not include non-free images. (In other words, you can not take a screenshot of the Microsoft logo and turn it into a free image.) If you are talking about using a Wikipedia screenshot on your own website or publication, please see Wikipedia: Reusing the Wikipedia content to answer that question. In short, you do not need to ask permission, but you also need to release your work under the GFDL or have justified fair use to do so. I hope this answer helps. BigDT 19:08, December 8, 2006 (UTC)

Screenshots are screenshots of Wikipedia and for articles I wrote about wiki for library journals. I believe that fair use will apply in this case, but I want to make sure. I read the Wikipedia Copyright FAQ and Reuse article, but I'm not 100% sure. Thanks for your feedback! Mcc6676 19:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC) mcc6676

In this case, I would say that fair use would apply. BigDT 19:14, December 8, 2006 (UTC)

I also think so! Thank you very much! 129.49.250.165 20:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC) mcc6676

src: i.ytimg.com

The suspected Soviet spy list of a book

Among other issues, there may be copyright violations in the WP categories and sub-categories discussed here. Comments from knowledgeable people will be appreciated. KarlBunker 14:06, December 9, 2006 (UTC)

That will depend on how they generate the list. Facts are not creative and have no copyright. So if a book compiles a list, say, every college football player who gets caught at least 10 baits every year, that's probably an interesting fact, but it still does not have copyright. On the other hand, if they register 100 of their favorite college football players, we can not use them. I do not know the subject matter or not, so I do not know if the list you are asking is a full list of publicly available information or whether the list of people that the author feels is important or creative. Regardless of copyright issues, I suggest delete - they are a category of inconsistency. BigDT 15:20, December 9, 2006 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Copy the "see also" link?

This webpage is linked as a "see also" link in an article... I think the website may violate copywrite, and therefore can not be used as a link, but I'm not sure. Can someone check? Thanks Blueboar 19:55, December 11, 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia: External links # Restrictions on linking say we should not link to websites that we know are copyright infringement. Material may be copyrighted, but may not be a copyright infringement. In other words, you can link to cnn.com (even if everything on cnn.com is clearly copyright), but you can not link to a geocities page of a man where he copied and pasted a cnn.com article. That said, I saw the link you provided and it looks like it's the promo page for the book in question. If the page is created by the author or publisher company and includes text for the purpose of selling the book, then it is not a copyright infringement. Also, maybe (though there is no way to know without doing research) that the copyright on the book has expired. However, if the book is still copyrighted and the author/publisher does not authorize the website, the link to the site must be deleted. BigDT 20:11, December 11, 2006 (UTC)

This is not a promo... is actually the text of the entire book that is transcribed to the website. Notice that the book is one that is often cited by various conspiracy theories. Now, in the context of the article in which it is related, it would be appropriate to include the text of the book, as long as it does not violate the copywrite. I am raising this issue now simply because it is common for conspiracy theorists to ignore copywrite, and to include copyed material on their "fan" sites. My guess is that the book is out of print or rare, so fans are installing text on-line so it can be available to other conscience fans. The hosting page does not appear as a publishing company, and the date of publication of the book is 1958. I do not know if the book is genuine or not, if copywrite has expired, or what (that's why I'm asking it here)... Please look again, and see if this can be determined. Blueboar 14:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

src: jech.bmj.com

Campaign button

Can I use the campaign key photos of a failed political campaign. My own photos, that's not part of the question, just slogans on the buttons protected by copyrights by politicians? Is there fair use? thanks. KP Botany 01:50, December 12, 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that they will be legitimately used to illustrate articles about campaigns or sections in candidate articles about campaigns. They are NOT worthy to illustrate the candidates themselves because for that purpose, it is a replaceable image if the candidate is alive. If you upload a button, {{Politicalposter}} is probably the correct tag to use. BigDT 01:57, December 12, 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand your second sentence. Do you mean if they have pictures of candidates on them, as they often do? No, they are just slogans, but they are very unique, and yes, the candidates are still alive, and they will be used solely to describe the article's section on candidates discussing the campaign. KP Botany 01:59, December 12, 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I mean... buttons with candidate drawings... covering just about any basis.Ã,;) As long as you use them to discuss the campaign itself, I would think that using the campaign button would be appropriate. BigDT 02:05, December 12, 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being careful, I realized that. And fast. KP Botany 15:08, December 12, 2006 (UTC)

src: darksouls3.wiki.fextralife.com

Images from the Nord Stream website

For the article "Nord Stream" and for some bio articles I would like to use some pictures from the Nord Stream AG photo gallery. All these images are protected by following a copyright notice: "The content and design of the website are subject to copyright.Pages and content may only be duplicated by previous agreements from Nord Stream AG, unless duplication is of unnecessary nature, in accordance with the law." How to understand part of "except for duplication is a trait that does not require approval, in accordance with the provisions of the law"? Does that mean that to use in the previous Wikipedia agreement is necessary or not? Thank you in advance. Beagel 18:04, December 13, 2006 (UTC)

This means they acknowledge that their desire for how you use photos does not outdo the law. In particular, the law allows the fair use of materials. Please see Wikipedia: Fair use. Every situation is different, but in general the use of photos needs to be supported by a good reason why it is important for a particular article. For example, if they create a device that has historical significance, that device's photo might be used to describe the device in question. One of the guidelines is to use some of the images needed to illustrate the point. While we do not want many inappropriate links in the article, it may also be acceptable to add external links at the bottom of the article to these photos, as they are directly related to the company. Johntex \ ^talk 20:27, December 15, 2006 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Map of the Old Ordnance Survey

[4] hosted an old Ordnance Survey map published until 1940. Per [5] is now a Public Domain. But this site uses Google Map API to display images and also has Creative Commons BY-NC-2.0 splashed by the author. Since the map itself is a PD, can I ignore the CC license because it is a license applied to freely available information and go with a screenshot to map the map to upload? Foxhill 05:44, December 14, 2006 (UTC)

Note. It is possible to use the transparency option to remove the Google Map overlay from the site, and then with some smart editing to get rid of the rest of the blah being introduced for example [6] Foxhill 05:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This is actually a bit of a problem Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. will suggest that if material is in the US then it will be a public domain (because the work done in map scanning is non-creative, and thus not entitled to copyright) but even if the Bridgeman case commented that the same thing should be applied in England, nobody is testing it in court. If it's me - I might play it safe and try and get a genuine copy of the map, scan it and then mark them as UK-PD. Anyone have thoughts? Megapixie 08:37, December 14, 2006 (UTC)

I may have an original copy. What field are you looking for? Copyright is complicated because there is a change from the original in terms of pruning to get the map to fit together and customize it with a modern network grid or at least that's what old-maps.co.uk claims when I contact them. Geni 20: 33, December 15, 2006 (UTC)

As the site owner mentioned in the first post, I feel I should try to defend myself a bit. Scan has not (yet) been released to PD because getting the collection to its current state so far has cost me more than double the cost of my computer in money and more in terms of time. Having come so far I have objected to the idea of ​​others who are potentially making money simply reselling free data to gullible people, then copyright, which like megapixel words has not been tested in the UK. I have considered a ransom style "free map", but felt it would be more likely to work when the set was completed (probably mid 2007). If foxhill browses the site a bit more, they'll find an offer to negotiate supplying the original scan on the "about" page. Andrew Rowbottom 16:09, December 31, 2006 (GMT)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Own paintings

After a painting was purchased, who owns the copyright? Is it owner or painter? I have a friend who has a painting by Piran Bishop, and the owner is happy to be photographed and used non-commercially under the CC license, but neither of us is sure whether he or the painter holds the copyright. Any thoughts what? (Sorry - I believe this is a very basic question, but I'm stuck!) Squeezeweasel 17:04, December 14, 2006 (UTC)

Artists own the copyright. Think of it as a DVD movie - having a DVD does not transfer the copyright. The painting is potentially used under WP: Claim fair use. Megapixie 22:55, December 14, 2006 (UTC)

Multiple book covers in one article

Back when I was a kid, I put a lot of cover art on a single article. For example, the "Release details" section of the article for Blue Moon (novel) includes an English edition and a harsh covering of the novel, alongside the first edition of the infobox.

It appears to be within the scope contemplated by Template: Bookcover, which only states that book covers are needed to "illustrate" certain books, but I want to re-examine them. What do people think about whether we can use many book cover images in a single article? Thank you, TheronJ 21:29, December 14, 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a boundary line. Both covers represent different editions and you stick with just a cover, which is nice. However, there is not much context in the article for what distinguishes the two editions. Think you can find some information on what other things are different about the edition other than the cover? Any particular reason why they changed the cover? Is there any other information to report about two editions - such as sales figures? I would feel better about two pictures if there is more rambling. Johntex \ ^talk 20:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Photos from PETA articles

I've created a Picture list: a PETA garbage incident that turns animal shoots off at IFD and wants a copyright-focused pair of eyes to check on. The image comes from an anti-PETA website that does not give an indication of who the actual copyright holder is. It is estimated, though unknown, that the source is likely to be a media news photo. I would appreciate if some other people who monitor this page will see the IFD and help build consensus on whether this image is acceptable under our fair use policy. thanks. BigDT 18:10, December 15, 2006 (UTC)

I would say it is not appropriate. If we do not know the source, then we do not know if we violate anyone's interest to show it. For all we know, images can come from a competing encyclopedia. I think this should be removed unless (at least) more information can be found about the source. Johntex \ ^talk 18:25, December 15, 2006 (UTC)

Life Time Limit

I believe using this Time Life Cover on Bob Willoughby's article under fair use is acceptable because it is a magazine cover, the ability to replace is impossible because the cover image will show identical information and copyright may still belong to Time Magazine, the article directly talks about this cover and is an important component for this article, that is, This is the first time a movie studio has hired a dedicated photographer or unit to specifically take photos for sale to magazines. is also Bob's great breakthrough (according to the article). Uploaded images may not appear on Judy Garland's articles page. Any comments? - MECU ? talk 19:57, December 15, 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your interpretation. There is a strong connection between the cover and Bob Willoughby's career. This is directly discussed in Bob Willoughby's article. Therefore, the cover can be included there next to the text. On the other hand, nobody makes the case that the cover is important to the life or career of Judy Garland, so it will not be used there as a fair use right now. Johntex \ ^talk 20:07, December 15, 2006 (UTC)

Mug Shot

Are mug photos by US police and sheriff's institutions considered public domain? They were created as a means of public identification of suspects and criminals, and are often released widely. For example Image: PatrickTribett.jpg, which enjoys de facto public domain status on the Internet in general, was released publicly by the Belmont County (Ohio) Sheriff Office.

I think this is more of a policy question for me than one about special use. Under what circumstances are mug shots (life, and individuals no longer alive) accessible? Under what circumstances (other than explicit copyright) is not it? Does it depend on the copyright policy at the government level that produces the image (does the image of the FBI mug are allowed as a product of the US Federal government? What about the local governments that have released their intellectual property rights to their work?) Or the mug shot is assumed to be a public domain based on explicit purpose of "genre"? thanks. honan 22:09, December 15, 2006 (UTC) riel

As a fair question - please see this issue of fair use as well as the public domain. In the example, the image is a widely distributed Internet meme. In the article in the meme itself or the website where the meme came from or holds firmly, does fair use apply if the public domain is not? Or fair use can be more widely considered, again based on the purpose of "genre". Thanks again. riel honan 07:40, December 16, 2006 (UTC)

• With photo mugs, there is some discussion about them. One of them is in Commons: Talking template: PD-US-mugshot and most have been duplicated on the talk Template: Mugshot. The bottom line is that unless it is a mugshot created by the FBI or another agent of the US government, it may be copyrighted and so we can not use it unless there is a fair use reason. With internet memes, they are not public domain. There is no de facto public domain. Unlike trademarks, not enforcing your copyright does not cause you to lose it. BigDT 17:55, December 16, 2006 (UTC)

I know there is no 'de facto' public domain as a legal concept. But in use on websites that are not vulnerable to copyright issues, it's more or less there as a practical concept (fair use is not applicable, but rarely happens that anyone will pursue action against a goofball website because it uses certain images). But with a mugie internet meme, fair use will not apply to include images along with a discussion of memes (and their use on certain websites).

As a practical matter - is there a reference source - or interest to create it - for a government-by-government copyright policy? So can our editors be more sensitive when choosing what to include instead of relying solely on the concept that Federal government products are the only government-created work that is acceptable to include?

In addition, I am sure that many questions I will have in the future (on various subjects) have been discussed in some form in wikipedia talk. Unfortunately I have not found an easy way to find them (short read a very long list, or fad browsing through potentially related pages). Any suggestions on how to find wikipedia that speaks "knowledge base" before posting a question already discussed? honan 19:05, December 16, 2006 (UTC)

The US federal government is about the only thing that puts all of its stuff into the public domain.Geni 20:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Armenica.org

User: Nareklm interested in using content from Armenica.org. The page about them explains that their licenses are generally free, except for one warning:

Material taken from Armenica.org should not be modified or modified without the permission of Armenica.org

This seems obviously incompatible with the GFDL.

All the pictures have a watermark in the corner, and I wonder if the clause without modification is only meant to protect it. Nareklm sends an email to the website to clarify whether the clause without their modification is intended only to ensure attribution. They replied:

Keywords: Feel free to use any map (image) during Armenica.org mentioned in the text. This is what we have done with the image, and what the GFDL needs. So is this enough to start using Armenica.org content on Wikipedia? --Interiot 08:33, December 17, 2006 (UTC)

No second email did not answer correctly.Geni 09:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

19th century postal history

I am aware that the design of US stamps before the 1970s has been explicitly released into the public domain, other than that (usually) the work of the US government and, in the case of 19th century material, is long enough to have a copyright that has expired in the case. However, does the same thing apply to images from the history of the post? In particular, can columbian-245-piece.jpg (Figure 2) of this page be used for the article on the Columbian Issue? The Philatelic Foundation certainly holds the copyright of the article text, but is there any copyright that applies to the picture? The package was delivered on February 19, 1897; copyright (if applicable at all to the outside of envelopes or parcels sent by public mail) should have expired, unless the derived electronic images are covered separately. A better opinion in this aspect of copyright law would be helpful. Thank you! Serpent's Choice 12:08, December 17, 2006 (UTC)

Scans will likely fall under the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. ruled. Assume that mail is sent in the US, I think the picture may be ok.Geni 13:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sent from the US (Bangor, ME), but I'm sure the goal is in Germany. Piece has been back in the US for some time, but (and scans are almost certainly coming from America). Are there any complications? Serpent's Choice 13:25, December 17, 2006 (UTC)

it may depend on how US law differs from British law. It really depends on the weather post it is considered to be publishing in the US or Germany. I am of the opinion that it is counted as publishing in the US and for that item is the public domain. Geni 13:32, December 17, 2006 (UTC)

I think the only possible copyright in the scanned scan will be on the stamp or stamp. However, I also see many philatelic publications affirming copyright over such material, so we must proceed gently to prevent them from misunderstanding. Stan 15:42, December 17, 2006 (UTC)

Pre-1978 political posters

Will I be correct in understanding that, in general, pre-1978 political posters not carrying copyright notices will be in the public domain?

If someone can answer it, I would appreciate if you ping my user talk page, because this page is somewhat difficult to trace. - Jmabel | Talk 00:58, December 20, 2006 (UTC)

In the US, yes (until 1989), unless the derivative works from something protected by copyright. --NE2 19:19, January 23, 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. So what tags to use (and can someone ping me again if/when this is answered)? - Jmabel | Talk 05:32, January 24, 2007 (UTC)

View via Wikipedia: Image rights tag/Public domain I would say go with {{PD-as}}. - An gr 06:54, January 24, 2007 (UTC)

I can definitely use it, but it's probably a fairly common case that we have to make certain templates. - Jmabel | Talk 17:45, January 24, 2007 (UTC)

My own photo from a logo?

I have a photo that I took myself from a logo I want to add to the article for Penn State Blue Band - I'm not sure about the policy in this case: because I took it myself and will license it under the GFDL/CC, the photo itself is fine- what to use, but if the photo was basically entirely composed of the organization's logo, does it still need fair use reasons? - PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 21:34, December 22, 2006 (UTC)

You can use them as fair use images, but only original authors can create derivative works from their products. Because all photos are copyrighted images, fair use of tags and reasons should be written. BigDT 22:08, December 22, 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I've uploaded a picture in Picture: PSUMBB_logo.png - if you can give it one more time to make sure it will meet reasonable terms of use, I'll appreciate it! - PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 22:28, December 22, 2006 (UTC)

Map explanation?

I want to improve the quality of maps available for New Zealand, but all I need is accurate coastlines from different areas. If I find a detailed online map, what the situation is if I take a screen grab, then empty all the actual information on the map just leaving the shoreline as the base for my new map. Is this counted as a derivative work? Malathos 18:09, December 23, 2006 (UTC)

Still a derivative work. See some NASA satellite photography - earth seen etc. You may be able to find some decent satellite photos of the area you're looking for. Megapixie 01:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

caucasian linguistic map

I'm not sure if I can use this linguistic map of the Caucasus.

Articles on current Caucasus languages ​​use this map as an illustration. Despite providing an overview of the linguistic situation in the region, it is far from accurate and leaves much detail, showing only 28 of the more than 51 languages ​​spoken there. The map I linked on the first line, from HUNMAGYAR.ORG, would be a remarkable improvement, if not here that their ethnographic map came from National Geographic, which is not part of the American government and generally prohibits the redistribution of its work (here). However, some other HUNMAGYAR.ORG etnolinguistic maps, such as these are also featured on Wikipedia (here), where they are associated with the US government, which makes them free to use. So, somewhere along the line, something does not increase. Can I reuse the map? Or alternatively, can I use it to claim fair use (like HUNMAGYAR.ORG itself) because this is a very important illustration for an article on Caucasian languages? Sephia karta 23:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Flickr image

There's an image I want to use from Flickr [7] but I'm not sure of the copyright status it has. I do not use Flickr so I do not know where to look. Is this image under the appropriate license for Wikipedia? There are other images also [8] is this more appropriate? James086 ^{Talk | Contribs} 11:32, January 14, 2007 (UTC)

The first seems to have no permission at all so it can not be used. The second is under the use of non-commercial licenses only and thus is not considered free enough for wikipedia.Geni 00:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Curse, I have to ask permission again. thanks. James086 Talk 02:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC )

Images of 1894 ads

There is a picture on page 7 of this PDF that I want to use in the police box. The information provided in the article is that of an 1894 ad for the National Phone Company, which ceased to exist in 1911. Is the image in the public domain? And (although I realize that this is not enough within the scope of this help section), assuming that it can be used here, how exactly do I delete an image from a PDF? (I'm using a Mac.) Thank you! --Josiah Rowe (speaking o contribs) 07:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is because this is an anonymous work published more than 100 years ago. Enter {{PD-old}} on it. To get an image from a PDF, try creating a screen shot. - An gr 09:52, January 17, 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! (And I know that Preview can crop the image from PDF.) - Josiah Rowe (talk o contribs) 10:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sri Lanka Army Book

Born and I have been talking about a bunch of photos they uploaded from <50 YEARS - 1949-1999 , a book published by the Sri Lankan army (eg 1, 2). Apparently this book does not have individual photo credits, and only the statements. "The contents of this book are the sole property of the Sri Lankan Army and any duplication is responsible for prosecution Content reproduction is possible provided the source is given its acknowledgment." By coincidence, this is almost identical to the statement on the military front web page (although many subpages just say "all rights reserved"). I am concerned about using these photos under {{Attribution}} due to the uncertainty of ownership of individual photos, and therefore a relaxed and somewhat contradictory copyright statement. Any thoughts what? ÃÆ' - Meegs 21:33, January 18, 2007 (UTC)

You do not want to use attribution templates because the author did not release them for commercial reuse. You will want to use the fairuse template, which is {{Fair use that is not free in}} and make sure you use it in accordance with the WP: FU; they are very tight.-- Jeff 11:36, January 25, 2007 (UTC)

Questions about old photos taken in the US.

I got a 1964 book from the library on Long Island Rail Road, and had some photos from early 1865 that would be a great addition to the article. Majority credited "one's collection" rather than the actual copyright holder. Some are credited to the library. How old is a photo in the book to be convinced as a public domain? What are credited to libraries can be accepted as fair use (assuming they are irreplaceable, for reasons, etc.) Although they do not have a registered copyright holder? Thank you for your answer. --NE2 19:14, January 23, 2007 (UTC)

Pre-1923 photos taken and published in the US are public domains. Images held by libraries, etc. are still public domains (see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.). In general where the original photo writer died over 70 years ago the photo was a public domain. Checkout {{PD-US}}. Megapixie 03:58, January 24, 2007 (UTC)

That is the problem - should not photos be published before 1923? All I know about these photos is that they were published in a 1965 book. --NE2 18:19, January 24, 2007 (UTC)

Are there any credits, acknowledgments, or attachments in the book that allow you to do more research? You need to know more about the images to clarify their copyright status. There are unanswered questions that are required to answer questions about the copyright status of your photos. Namely, the author, the date of the author's death, the date of original publication. This page at cornell.edu can be a useful reference to answer your questions once you know more about the image.-- Jeff 11:32, January 25, 2007 (UTC)

I do not know anything about them; the author of the book does not care to provide that information. --NE2 10:45, January 26, 2007 (UTC)

You may want to check with a librarian. He or She may have resources or knowledge that can help you answer questions.-- Jeff 15:59, January 26, 2007 (UTC)

If I were in the area of ​​NYC that might be possible. Anyhow, I do not think the drawbacks of the past will affect that in FAC, so I give up on this. --NE2 16:17, January 26, 2007 (UTC)

Narnia Map

Greetings. I REALLY tried to think about it myself, but reading all the definitions and following links made me a little dizzy! So, can I use this image on my user page, where I just show I'm a Narnian fan and wish I could really go there? Thank you! - Anietor 19:45, January 30, 2007 (UTC)

No sorry, you can not. This is a fair use image and you can not use it on your user page. Garion96 (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello! I am new to Wikipedia, and want to make sure I do this right. I am currently working to add the history of our company and have three images I want to use. One shows two people in front of the [blacksmith] shop (they're dead); one showing the president of our company [10] with the unit he found and the third showing our company logo [11]. All images are owned by our company. Can someone see and tell me what to do in order to use it? Thank you very much! Ajcross2455 15:03, February 1, 2007 (UTC)

Hi, did your company release the photos under the free content license? Like GFDL or Creative Commons? See here for various licenses. Otherwise, the images should be used with reasonable use and may be removed as they may fail under our fair use criteria. Garion96 (talk) 15:41, February 1, 2007 (UTC)

Virtual Fossil Museum

Can I use images from The Virtual Fossil Museum with credit? Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Under the terms of the license, no. It seems they are open to receiving questions though. You may want to email them and ask them to release photos under a more Wiki-friendly license such as CC-BY-SA 2.5.-- Jeff 04:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Good luck, after collecting what's most useful. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Track layout map

I have a track layout map for the station I want to use on Wikipedia. Assuming that the map is still protected by copyright, I certainly will not be able to upload it to Wikipedia or Commons. But, can I create my own version, use the original to reference and upload it without infringing copyright? It will not be a direct reproduction, of course, but basically I will pass on information taken from the original in my own way. -> Ollie (speaking o contribs) 03:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It is allowed, because information can not be copyrighted. --NE2 03:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Good news, and thanks for the quick reply! -> Ollie (talk o contribs) 03:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Free use requires that...

Is the license in this image "free enough" to be used on Wikipedia users and talk pages? I want to get the copyright resolved before I support it as a possible WikiProject award. --Josiah Rowe (speaking o contribs) 21:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the status of the TARDIS image. It may be copyrighted, which means the barnstar is not free enough; but maybe you can create a barnstar using Commons: Image: Earls Court Police Box.jpg instead. - An gr 22:32, February 8, 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Geni's has made one here, which is OK if a bit rough and ready. This is another proposal that should be more aesthetic. Apparently the image creator of the police squad used in Figure: DoctorWho-Barnstar2.png says that he "allows the use of his image for free as long as his name and the link to his website is expressed as credit". (See here.) I'm not sure what license will fall, really. --Josiah Rowe (speaking o contribs) 22:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I want to clarify this situation a bit. Rob Semenoff, the creator of the image we wanted to use, stated on his FAQ page that the use of his image is allowed, as long as 'You provide my name and link to my homepage'. I have given them both on the drawing page itself, so from this I assume we are allowed to use this image where we like. Am I correct with my understanding of this? Smomo 13:49, February 14, 2007 (UTC)

porblem is that it is a website permission only and does not include derivatives.Geni 15:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Does that apply to barnstar? Surely barnstars will not be used by downstream users, especially downstream users in other media. Or is it a blanket rule that the image used in barnstars should be GFDL or free equivalent? --Josiah Rowe (speaking o contribs) 15:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a non-free quilt rule (called "fair use") images can be used only in the article space (though it often appears on the front page that violates this rule)). - An gr> 15:48, February 19, 2007 (UTC)

But this is not a fair use - it's used with permission. Now, I know that only-Wikipedia permissions are not good enough, but as stated on the creator's page, permission to use them anywhere, with names and links. It's not the same as fair use, where the copyright owner's statement is irrelevant or ignored. --Josiah Rowe (talk o contribs) 16:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

'Use by permission' has been abandoned. Since May 19, 2005, new images uploaded with a limited use license will be deleted quickly, and images uploaded before it can be deleted. I think using such images anywhere but in the article space is against the spirit, if not the letters, of the Wikipedia rules. - Donald Albury 13:24, February 20, 2007 (UTC)

It's okay - the creators have released images under CC 2.5. (See here.) So I thought we were cool. Thanks for your patience, everything. --Josiah Rowe (speaking o contribs) 01:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, he opted for a 'non-commercial' license, which is still unacceptable on Wikipedia. - Donald Albury 21:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeesh! I did not notice that. Well, apparently the creators have now sent a Smomo email (talkÃ, Ã, Â · contribs) with the following: [12]

I hope it is free enough for our purposes. If the image tag is wrong, will someone change it with the appropriate one? thanks. --Josiah Rowe (speaking o contribs) 16:35, February 23, 2007 (UTC)

Flight plan

Does the US make up the 7233-4 available from here and can be seen here covered by US Government Works? The form is the US version of the ICAO flight plan. thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:59, February 14, 2007 (UTC)

Chinese document translation

Hello, I'm not very clear about China's copyright law status. Is the translation of a Chinese document likely to be a copyright infringement? Is it important if it is a transient, computable translation (eg Altavista), or a handdone translation published on the website? Thanks for the help, Armedblowfish (talk | letter) 14:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Translations are derivative works, so in addition to being subject to genuine copyright restrictions, the translation has its own copyright. (This is why Bible translations have copyright even the original text of the Bible does not.) I do not know what the machine copyright status translates to. - An gr> 14:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thus, under U.S. copyright laws, translations or other derivative works made without the author's permission will become copyvio. But is not Chinese copyright law applicable in this case? Is there a good way to determine if something is protected by Chinese or US copyright laws, or is it safe to think of it as Chinese copyright law if it comes from a Chinese news source? And what is China's stand on "derivative works"? - Armedblowfish (talk | letter) 14:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Google Maps Tracking

This is a copy-and-pasted from WT: USRD:

I might start installing the Interstate map shortly by default, but I'm wondering if my technique is copyright infringement.

I will scale up the scale I want on Google Maps and take a copy of the screen. Then I'll walk the path in a separate layer above the Google Maps screenshot.

Does this derivative work as copyvio?

Thank you in advance! - talk ) 16:18, February 23, 2007 (UTC)

Yes - it is a derivative work. If you search for the photo it will be a derivative work. If you do rotocoped starwars, it will be a derivative work. Megapixie 00:23, February 24, 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that there is no creativity in displaying exactly where the roads are, as the right maps like Google Maps. (On hand-drawn maps, streets may not fit certain things better, but they do not apply to Google Maps.) In accordance with Feist v. Rural, copying of inimitable elements can not be replicated. Basically, any map created using the same projection and accurate data will become identical. --NE2 00:04, February 26, 2007 (UTC)

Maps are protected by copyright - and have existed since 1790 in the US [13]. Show me a case involving a map case (not a phone book) and that may have some pads. Searches are derivative works in the same way if you search for photos (and are recognized in the same terms as U.S. copyright law). Megapixie 00:50, February 26, 2007 (UTC)

Also see [14] Megapixie 00:56, February 26, 2007 (UTC)

What does copyright protect about the location of roads on earth? --NE2 02:15, February 26, 2007 (UTC)

Nothing. And if you drive on this road with a GPS unit plugged into your laptop - the data you produce is entirely yours. However we can not allow people to upload derivative works derived from copyright maps. If you read the link above, it's actually pretty hot, and we have to err on the side of caution. Megapixie 05:29, February 26, 2007 (UTC)

The only thing moving from the map to search is the location of the path. No one has a copyright about it. None of the arguments I see on the link, such as "every mapmaker's choice, the interpretation of those sources, the wisdom in reconciling inconsistencies... and the skills and judgments in describing information", apply here, since only a set of road choices - Interstate - is being tracked, and at a very detailed level, so a small difference in placement will not make a difference in the final product. As far as I know, what Lpangelrob proposes is to take a map of this scale or smaller and trace the Interstate. Scale in such a way that the errors introduced by the tracking process are much greater than errors in map data. --NE2 06:05, February 26, 2007 (UTC)

By the way, this is all probably debatable, since this map is a fairly large public domain and scale, although there may be some minor issues with patches together with the state. --NE2 06:15, February 26, 2007 (UTC)

Photos of the letters I bought.

Person A writes business letter to person B. Person B dies and person C buys a set of documents from his property that includes the letter. I bought a letter from person C. Can I publish the letter? Do I now own the copyright for it? Can I take a photo and release it under GFDL? SteveBaker 23:34, February 25, 2007 (UTC)

If I were you I would consult a lawyer who specializes in copyright, and do not rely on the advice you get here. - Donald Albury 23:53, February 26, 2007 (UTC)

uhhhh. One can argue that the act of writing a letter to someone effectively gives a letter (and 'copyright' to the recipient.) That is the whole point of the scenario: Does the act of sending a letter effectively transfer the copyright also? I will say yes, and therefore after obtaining a letter from an estate means the current holder must be entitled to 'copyright.But yes.. only a real lawyer can answer such complicated situations with any confidence.-- Jeff 00:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No, legally heirs Person A has copyright. If there is still copyright of course, it depends on how long ago A person died. Garion96 (talk) 00:42, February 27, 2007 (UTC)

Person A is not dead. So, sending a letter to someone is not a delivery of ownership (and copyright?) If I write a letter to someone, I do not have it anymore; I gave it, did not I? - Jeff 00:47, February 27, 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that's what you get from reading too fast. But no, you do not grant your copyright by sending mail. See for example [15] as an example. The "Restricted Use" section. Garion96 (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The current copyright status of the letters will depend largely on where (what country) the letters were written/sent from, and when. The lack of certification from competent legal authorities that copyright has expired or that the item has never been copyrighted, we must return to the widespread interpretation of copyright coverage, that is, in the US, the author dies at least 70 years ago, etc. The ownership of the letter itself is like possession of a book. You bought a copyright-owned book, it's yours, you can do whatever you want, except distribute the copy. - Donald Albury 11:55, February 27, 2007 (UTC)

That's what I'm afraid of. I do not know if someone A is alive or not - but it's a business letter - so copyright will probably belong to the man's employer. The company has been chopped up and bits have been sold, other parts have collapsed and vanished so that if the company retains the copyright after they send the letter then there is little chance of getting permission to use it. The letter is dated 1960 - so we are far from the 70-year rule. The letter was written in England. Oh well - I guess it will be a picture frame on my wall, maybe my son will one day send it to Wikipedia! These IP things * like * sick... argh! Thank you friends. SteveBaker 16:21, March 1, 2007 (UTC)

Pertanyaan tentang gambar musisi, khususnya untuk Bruce Hornsby

I've noticed that a user named BoaTeeth has repeatedly run into trouble uploading images to contribute to Bruce Hornsby's article over the past few weeks. Many images that users try to use are not properly tagged, etc., but ongoing discussions on various images pages, user talk pages etc., show, I think, that good faith has been assumed by all parties..good users trying to upload images to improve articles and with copyright related questions. BoaTeeth made a good point somewhere in the discussion of a large number of pages of musicians, mainly branched off from the Simple Wikipedia band, who tried to use Creative Commons licenses for images (usually taken from Flickr). Given that this issue has taken place, and that the Bruce Hornsby talk page displays a request for the image to be added, I picked it myself to contact the owner and operator of www.Bruuuce.com, the fan website for Bruce Hornsby which features a number of images from musicians (some owns the copyright on the image by the original photographer, the copyright-protected balance by the owner and operator of the website due to the copyright notice on the web page itself). The owner and operator of the website has granted me permission to use any image that the copyright holder deserves (his exact words are "one of the non-copyrighted images for another photographer") in Bruce Hornsby's Wikipedia article. Certainly the inclusion of the drawings in the article, which has undergone a large number of really amazing revisions recently, will serve to improve the quality of articles by describing some of the various time periods/performance circumstances discussed. I am writing now, before trying to upload any images, to clarify how these images should be sourced/tagged. I realize that these images will be in danger of not being eligible for fair use; However, there appears to be no Bruce Hornsby image available for fair use or for use under a Creative Commons license. I've noticed that pages like Billy Joel have used the depth of depth of image quality from Elton John to self-uploaded posters, and Jon Fishman and Trey Anastasio from the Phish band have the same image. many checks and questions. Surely it is best for Wikipedia to have the encyclopedia-esque encyclopedia of these public figures, images and all, especially when high quality images are offered for free use. Could these images from www.Bruuuce.com be uploaded and credited to the owner of the website, providing an opportunity for future readers/users of Wikipedia to contact the source to verify the permission? It seems very embarrassing to have so many articles with drawbacks like that. I am waiting for further advice (either here or at

Source of the article : Wikipedia