Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use...

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The request for copyright assistance page co-ordinates the various issues and requests related to copyright queries about content on Wikipedia.
Preinclusion Help Can I use...  |  Could we get...  |  Can I donate... Postinclusion Problem Solving Missing copyright information  |  Violation check  |  Suspected copyright violations General Copyright Advice and Discussion General help/discussion  |  Policy discussion  |  Copyright holder assistance  |  Asking permission  |  History pages

This page is part of a series about Copyright on Wikipedia.  v • d • e

Policy and information Wikipedia copyright information Reusing Wikipedia content Public domain · Fair use GFDL license text Copyright information index Processes Copyright assistance overview Copyright violations Copyright problems General help Copyright examinations Requesting permission from 3rd parties Example request letters Items with copy-issues Images missing information Suspected copyright violations

/Archive 1

Contents 1 Stylidium adnatum, etc. 2 2006 Rose Bowl Game Logo 3 Creative Commons Attribution-only text 4 Screenshots from the Wikipedia???? 5 List of suspected Soviet spies from a book 6 Copywrited "see also" link? 7 Campaign buttons 8 Images from the Nord Stream website 9 Old Ordnance Survey maps 10 Owned paintings 11 Multiple book covers in a single article 12 Photo from PETA article 13 Time Life cover 14 Mug shots 15 Armenica.org 16 19th century postal history 17 Pre-1978 political posters 18 My own photo of a logo? 19 Map outlines ? 20 linguistic map of the caucasus 21 Flickr picture 22 Image from 1894 advertisement 23 Sri Lanka Army book 24 Question about pretty old photos taken in the U.S. 25 Narnia Map 26 Charles Machine Works, Inc. 27 Virtual Fossil Museum 28 Track layout map 29 Free use required that... 30 Flight plans 31 Translations of Chinese documents 32 Google Maps trace 33 Photo of a letter I purchased. 34 Question about images of musicians, specifically for Bruce Hornsby 35 Owned picture of legislator; uncertain license, any ideas? 36 Photo of someone who died 68 years ago, author unknown 37 Highway markers 38 Photo of YR Chao 39 Question 40 eBay images of pre-1923 postcards 41 Is this acceptable permission?

[edit] Stylidium adnatum, etc.

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

This photo on the site with the following copyright information:

Use of images for non-commercial web sites is allowed on condition that credit is given to the Australian National Botanic Gardens and these words are hot-linked to our home page. Any commercial use or publication of these resources without permission of the custodians is strictly prohibited.

Could I use that image under fair use or "with permission" since I'm pretty sure Wikipedia is a non-commerical web site. And if so, where should credit be given? Just on the image's description page? Could it be uploaded to the commons? Thanks in advance for the help! Rkitko 07:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. We don't allow "with permission" or "no commercial use" images except where we would allow fair use of the image. Since we A) already have a free image on the article B) the plant is not extinct or otherwise impossible to take a photo of - the image doesn't fit our WP:FU criteria. It might be easier to find a WP user in Western Australia and ask them nicely to take a photo of the plant in question. Megapixie 08:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, drat. Thanks. I'm having a heck of a time finding FU or GFDL photos of live plants, which was a suggestion to improve the GA genus article (Stylidium). All I can find are the old lithographs which are certainly public domain if old enough. Thanks for the suggestion on finding a user in WA, though the idea of flying there to photograph the plants myself is more appealing :) I'll check into it. So this would also certainly rule out using any FloraBase images, then, eh? Their fair use guidelines nearly gave me a headache just glancing at them. Best, Rkitko 09:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops, nevermind. Didn't see stipulation #1040: "The information will not be used in a web site." Thanks again for the help! Glad I asked first. Rkitko 10:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 Rose Bowl Game Logo

I would like to use this image on the 2006 Rose Bowl article. I believe fair use is acceptable for this since it is a logo, historical, cannot be recreated, the article directly applies to it since it is directly and solely about the 2006 Rose Bowl for which the logo image is for and about. It is also found on the Official Website of the Rose Bowl which therefore concludes how they wish their logo to be represented. I figured I'd ask first though I do think this is (or should be, but that doesn't mean much anymore) acceptable given my past with fair use images. Any support or opposition and comments is encouraged. Thank you. --MECU≈talk 20:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that kind of use is going to get too many arguments. As long as you are using the logo for identification purposes, that should be fine. You're planning to use it similar to the way the Texas logo is used in the infobox of 2006 Texas Longhorn football team or the CFB logo is used at the top of Peach Bowl, right? In both cases, it identifies the subject with a familiar logo as it would be doing in your case. BigDT 21:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Creative Commons Attribution-only text

I'm wondering if I can use text from the Creative Commons website on Wikipedia. Their site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License. Is that compatible with the GFDL? The CC discussion implies they can be (with one caveat), but I'm unclear whether:

• that is official Wikipedia policy
• how to iplement the requirement for an 'invariant' section?

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

Nope, I'm afraid not. All text MUST be GFDL licensed (with a minor loophole for fair use quotes). Images are different because they are seperate works we just embed in a page, but we can't blend CC and GFDL text togeter. --Sherool (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Odd, the CC people just told me that [CC::BY content can be relicensed under the GFDL, since the GFDL ensures that Attributions are no less protected than they are under CC::BY. I realize that isn't true of all CC licenses, but it sounds like it is true of this one.Drernie 18:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Screenshots from the Wikipedia????

I would like to include a screenshot from the Wikipedia in an article I am writing. Can I do this under the copyright guidelines or do I need additional permission? Mcc6676 19:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)mcc6676

Is this image being used in a Wikipedia article? If so, tag the image with {{Wikipedia-screenshot}}. Make sure, unless there is a fair use reason for doing so, that your screenshot does not include any non-free images. (In other words, you can't take a screenshot of a 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 Wikipedia content for the answer to that question. In short, there is no need to ask for permission, but you either need to release your work under the GFDL or have a fair use justification for doing so. I hope this answer helps. BigDT 19:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The screenshot is a Wikipedia screenshot and it is for an article I wrote about wikis for a library journal. I believe that fair use would apply in this case, but I want to make sure. I read the Wikipedia Copyright FAQs and the Reuse articles, but I wasn't 100% sure. Thanks for your input!Mcc6676 19:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)mcc6676

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

I think so too! Thanks a bunch! 129.49.250.165 20:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)mcc6676

[edit] List of suspected Soviet spies from a book

Among other issues, there may be a copyright violation in the WP category and subcategories discussed here. Comments from knowledgeable people would be appreciated. KarlBunker 14:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It would depend on how they generated the list. Facts are non-creative and thus not copyrightable. So if a book compiled a list of, say, every college football player who caught at least 10 passes each year, that may be an interesting fact, but it's still not copyrightable. On the other hand, if they are listing their 100 favorite college football players, we cannot use that. I don't know the subject matter or not, so I don't know if the lists you asked about are exhaustive lists of publically available information or if they are lists of people the author felt was important or otherwise creative. Regardless of copyright issues, I suggest delete - they are unencyclopedic categories. BigDT 15:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copywrited "see also" link?

This webpage was linked to as a "see also" link in an article ... I think the website may violate copywrite, and thus not be useable as a link, but I am not sure. Could someone please check? Thanks Blueboar 19:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking says that we should not link to websites that we know to be copyright violations. The material can be copyrighted, but cannot be a copyright violation. In other words, you can link to cnn.com (even though everything on cnn.com is obviously copyrighted), but you cannot link to some guy's geocities page where he copies and pastes a cnn.com article. That said, I looked at the link you gave and it looks like it is a promo page for the book in question. If the page was created by the author or publishing company and includes text for the purpose of selling the book, then that's not a copyright violation. Also, it is possible (although there is no way to know without doing research) that the copyright on that book has expired. If, however, the book is still under copyright and the author/publisher did not authorize that website, the link to it should be removed. BigDT 20:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a promo... it is actually the text of an entire book transcribed onto the website. Note that the book in question is one cited often by various conspiracy theorists. Now, in the context of the article where this is linked, it would be appropriate to include the text of the book, as long as doing so does not violate copywrite. I raise this issue now only because it is common for conspiracy theory enthusiasts to disregard copywrite, and to include copywrited material on their "fan" sites. My guess is that the book is either out of print or rare, and so a fan has put the text on-line so that it can be available to other consipracy fans. The hosting page does not look to be a publishing company, and the publishing date of the book is 1958. I do not know if the book was even originally copywrited, if the copywrite has expired, or what (thats why I asked about it here)... Please take a second look, and see if this can be determined. Blueboar 14:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Campaign buttons

Can I use photographs of campaign buttons from a failed political campaign. My own photographs, that's not any part of the question, just are the slogans on the buttons copyrighted by the politician? Any fair use? Thanks. KP Botany 01:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that they would be legitimate to use to illustrate an article about the campaign or a section in the candidate's article about the campaign. They would NOT be appropriate to illustrate the candidate himself or herself because for that purpose, it's a replaceable image if the candidate is still alive. If you upload a button, {{Politicalposter}} is probably the correct tag to use. BigDT 01:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your second sentence. Do you mean if they have an image of the candidate on them, as they often do? No, they're just slogans, but they're pretty darn unique, and yes, candidate is still alive, and they would be used solely to illustrate the section of the article on the candidate that discusses the campaign. KP Botany 01:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was referring to ... buttons with an image of the candidate ... just covering all bases. ;) As long as you are using them to discuss the campaign itself, I would think that using campaign buttons would be appropriate. BigDT 02:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Images from the Nord Stream website

For the article "Nord Stream" and for some bio articles I would like to use some images from the Nord Stream AG image gallery. All this images are protected by following copyright notice: "The content and design of the Web site is subject to copyright. Pages and contents may only be duplicated with the prior agreement of Nord Stream AG, unless the duplication is of a nature which does not need consent, in accordance with legal stipulations." How to understand this part of "unless the duplication is of a nature which does not need consent, in accordance with legal stipulations"? Does that mean that for using in Wikipedia the prior agreement is needed or not? Thank you in advance. Beagel 18:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It means they acknowledge that their wishes about how you use the photos do not trump the law. Specifically, the law allows for fair use of material. Please see Wikipedia:Fair use. Every situation is different, but in general the use of the photo needs to be supported by a good reason why it is important to the particular article. For example, if they made a device that was of historical significance, a photo of that device would probably be usable to illustrate the device in question. One of the guidelines is to use as few images as are needed to illustrate the point. Although we don't want lots of indiscrimiate links in articles, it would also probably be acceptable to add in an external link at the bottom of the article to these photos, since they are directly related to the company. Johntex\^talk 20:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old Ordnance Survey maps

[1] hosts old Ordnance Survey maps published up to 1940. As per [2] these are now Public Domain. However the site uses both the Google Map API to display the images and also has the Creative Commons BY-NC-2.0 splashed all over it by the author. Since the maps themselves are PD, can I ignore the CC licence as it's a licence applied to freely available information and go screenshot happy ripping maps for upload? Foxhill 05:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Note. It is possible using the transparency option to remove the Google Map overlay from the site, and then with some clever editing to get rid of the rest of the blah it introduces e.g [3] Foxhill 05:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It's actually a bit of a poser Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. would suggest that if the material were in the US then it would be public domain (since the work done in scanning the maps is non-creative, and thus doesn't merit copyright) however although the Bridgeman case comments that the same should apply in the UK, nobody has tested it in a court of law. If it was me - I'd probably play safe and try and aquire original copies of the maps, scan and then tag them as UK-PD. Anyone else have any thoughts ? Megapixie 08:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I may have original copies. What areas are you looking for? The copyright is complicated because there are changes from the original in terms of croping to get the maps to fit together and fitting them to modern grid refernces or at least that is what old-maps.co.uk claimed when I contacted them.Geni 20:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

As the owner of the site mentioned in the first post, I feel I should attempt to defend myself a little bit. The scans have not (yet) been released into the PD because getting the collection to the current state has so far cost me more than twice the cost of my computer in money and much more in terms of time. Having got this far I object to the idea of others potentially making money just reselling free data to the gullible, hence the copyright, which as megapixie says has not yet been tested in the UK. I have considered a "free the maps" style ransom, but feel it would be more likely to work when the set is complete (probably mid 2007). If foxhill looks around the site a little bit more, they would come across an offer to negotiate supplying the original scans on the "about" page. Andrew Rowbottom 16:09, 31 December 2006 (GMT)

[edit] Owned paintings

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

The artist retains copyright. Just think of the painting as a DVD of a movie - owning the DVD doesn't transfer copyright. The painting could potentially be used under a WP:Fair use claim however. Megapixie 22:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple book covers in a single article

Back when I was just a wee lad, I put multiple book cover images on single articles. For example, the "Release details" section of the article for Blue Moon (novel) includes images of the UK edition and hardcover second edition of that novel, in addition to the first edition image in the infobox.

That seems to be within the scope contemplated by Template:Bookcover, which states only that a book cover be needed to "illustrate" a particular book, but I wanted to double-check. What do people think about whether we can use multiple book cover images in a single article? Thanks, TheronJ 21:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is border-line. The two covers illustrate different editions and you're sticking with just the cover , which is good. However, there is not much context in the article for what distinquishes the two editions. Think you could find some informaiton about whether anything else is different about the editions besides the cover? Any particular reason they changed the cover? Is there any other information to report about the two editions - for example sales figures? I'd feel better about the two images if there was more verbiage. Johntex\^talk 20:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo from PETA article

I have listed Image:PETA dumpster incident dead animal retrieval.jpg on IFD and would like for another pair or two of copyright-concerned eyes to take a look at it. The image is from an anti-PETA website that gives no indication of who the actual copyright holder is. It is speculated, though not known, that the source is likely a news media photo. I would appreciate it if some of the others who monitor this page would take a look at the IFD and help to build a consensus on whether this image is acceptable under our fair use policy. Thank you. BigDT 18:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say it does not comply. If we don't know the source, then we don't know if we are violating anyone's interest in showing it. For all we know, the image could have come from a competing encyclopedia. I think this one should be deleted unless (at a minimum) more information can be found about the source. Johntex\^talk 18:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time Life cover

I believe using this Time Life Cover on the article Bob Willoughby under fair use is acceptable because it is a magazine cover, replaceability isn't possible since a picture of the cover would show the identical information and copyright may still belong to Time Magazine, the article directly talks about this cover and is a critical component to this article, ie, This was the first time a motion picture studio hired a special or unit photographer to specifically take photographs for sale to magazines. whereas it is also Bob's big break (according to the article). The uploaded image should not appear on Judy Garland's article page. Any comments? --MECU≈talk 19:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your interpretation. There is a strong tie-in between the cover and Bob Willoughby's career. This is directly discussed in the Bob Willoughby article. Therefore, the cover can be included there alongside the text. On the other hand, no one has made a case that the cover was important to the life or career of Judy Garland, so it would not be usable there as fair-use at this time. Johntex\^talk 20:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mug shots

Are mug shots by U.S. police and sheriff agencies considered public domain? They are created as a means of public identification of suspects and criminals, and are often widely released. For instance Image:PatrickTribett.jpg, which enjoys de facto public domain status on the Internet at large, was released to the public by the Belmont County (Ohio) Sheriff's Office.

I guess this is more a policy question to me than one regarding a specific usage. In what situations are mug shots (of living, and of no-longer-living individuals) permissable? In what situations (aside from explicit copyright) are they not? Does it depend on the copyright policy at the level of government that produced the image (are FBI mug shots permissible as a product of the U.S. Federal government? How about local governments that have released their intellectual property rights to their work"?) Or are mug shots to be assumed as public domain based on the explicit purpose of the "genre"? Thanks. Erielhonan 22:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

As a corollary question - please look at this issue viz fair use as well as public domain. In the example, the image is a widely distributed Internet meme. In an article on the meme itself or the websites at which the meme originated or took a strong hold, does fair use apply if public domain does not? Or could fair use be more widely considered, again based on the purpose of the "genre". Thanks again. Erielhonan 07:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• With mug shots, there have been a number of discussions of them. One is at Commons:Template talk:PD-US-mugshot and has largely been duplicated at Template talk: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't use it unless there is a fair use rationale. With internet memes, they are not public domain. There is no de facto public domain. Unlike trademarks, not enforcing your copyrights doesn't cause you to lose them. BigDT 17:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I know there's no 'de facto' public domain as a legal concept. But in usage on websites that aren't as vulnerable to copyright issues it does more or less exist as a practical concept (fair use doesn't apply, yet its rare that anyone would pursues action against goofball web site for using certain images). But with an Internet meme mugshot, wouldn't fair use apply to including an image along with a discussion of the meme (and its usage on certain websites).

As a practical matter - is there any reference source - or interest in creating one - for copyright policies on a government-by-government basis? So we editors can be more sensitive when choosing what to include, rather than relying solely on the concept that products of the Federal gov't are the only government-created work that's acceptable for inclusion?

Also, I am sure that many of the questions I will have in the future (on a variety of subjects) have been addressed in some form in wikipedia talk. Unfortunately I haven't found an easy way to locate them (short of reading very long lists, or idly surfing through potentially-related pages). Any suggestions on how to search the wikipedia talk "knowledge base" before posting questions that already have been discussed? Erielhonan 19:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Armenica.org

User:Nareklm is interested in using content from Armenica.org. Their about page explains that their license is generally free, except for one caveat:

Material taken from Armenica.org must not be altered or modified without permission from Armenica.org

This seems to be obviously incompatible with the GFDL.

All its images have a watermark in the corner, and I wondered if the no-modify clause was only meant to protect that. Nareklm emailed the website to clarify whether their no-modify clause was meant only to ensure attribution. They replied:

Key words: Feel free to use any map (image) as long as Armenica.org is mentioned in the text. This is what we already do with images, and what the GFDL requires. So is this sufficient to begin using Armenica.org content on Wikipedia? --Interiot 08:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No the second email doesn't really answer the question.Geni 09:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 19th century postal history

I am aware that US postage stamp designs prior to the 1970s have been explicitly released to the public domain, besides being (usually) the work of the US government and, in the case of 19th century material, old enough to have expired copyrights in any case. However, does the same apply to images of postal history? Specifically, can columbian-245-piece.jpg (Figure 2) from this page be used for the article on the Columbian Issue? The Philatelic Foundation certainly holds copyright to the text of the article, but is there copyright in force on that image? The package was mailed Feb 19, 1897; copyrights (if any apply at all to the exterior of an envelope or package sent via public mail) should have expired, unless the derivative electronic image is covered separately. An opinion better versed in this aspect of copyright law would help a great deal. Thanks! Serpent's Choice 12:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The scan would likely fall under the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. ruleing. Assumeing the mail was sent within the US I think the image is likely ok.Geni 13:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Mailed from the US (Bangor, ME), but I believe the destination was in Germany. The piece has been back in the US for some time, however (and that scan is almost certainly of American origin). Any complications? Serpent's Choice 13:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

maybe it depends how different US law is from UK law. It really rather depends on weather posting it counts as publishing in the US or germany. I would argue that it counts as publishing in the US and therefor the item is public domain.Geni 13:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the only possibly copyright in a scanned cover would be in the stamps or a cachet. However, I also see many philatelic publications assert copyright on this kind of material, so we should proceed gently in dissuading them of this misperception. Stan 15:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-1978 political posters

Would I be correct in understanding that, in general, a pre-1978 political poster that carries no copyright notice would be in the public domain?

If someone can answer that, I'd appreciate if you ping my user talk page, since this page can be a bit hard to keep track of. - Jmabel | Talk 00:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

In the U.S., yes (until 1989), unless it's a derivative work of something copyrighted. --NE2 19:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. So what tag would one use (and could someone ping me again if/when this gets answered)? - Jmabel | Talk 05:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking through Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Public domain I'd say go with {{PD-because}}. —Angr 06:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I can certainly use that, but it's probably a common enough case that we should create a specific template. - Jmabel | Talk 17:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My own photo of a logo?

I have a photo that I took myself of a logo that I want to add to the article for the Penn State Blue Band - I'm unsure on the policy in this regard: since I took it myself and will be licensing it under GFDL/CC, the photo itself is okay to use, but if the photo is basically entirely comprised of an organization's logo, will it still need fair use rationale? -- PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 21:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You can use it as a fair use image, but only the original author can create a derivative work of their product. As the entire photo is this copyrighted image, a fair use tag and rationale should be written. BigDT 22:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I've uploaded the image at Image:PSUMBB_logo.png - if you can just give it a once-over to make sure that it would satisfy fair use requirements, I'd appreciate it! -- PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 22:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map outlines ?

I'd like to improve the quality of the maps available for New Zealand, but all I really need is accurate coastal outlines of various areas. If I find a detailed map online, what is the situation if I take a screen grab, then blank all the actual information on the map just leaving the coastline as the basis for my new map. Does this count as a derived work ? Malathos 18:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Still a derived work. Checkout some of the NASA satellite photography - visible earth etc. You might be able to find some decent satellite photos of the areas you are looking for. Megapixie 01:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] linguistic map of the caucasus

I am not sure whether I can use this linguistic map of the Caucasus.

The article on the languages of the Caucasus currently uses this map as an illustration. While it gives an overview of the linguistic situation in the region, it is far from accurate and leaves out a lot of the details, only showing 28 of the more than 51 languages spoken there. The map that I linked to in the first line, from HUNMAGYAR.ORG, would be a wonderful improvement, were it not that it sais here that their ethnographic maps come from National Geographic, which is not part of the American government and generally prohibits redistribution of its work (here). However, some of HUNMAGYAR.ORG's other ethnolinguistic maps, such as this one are also featured on Wikipedia (here), where they are attributed to the U.S. government, which makes them free to use. So, somewhere along the line, something does not add up. Can I reuse the map? Or alternatively, can I use it claiming fair use (like HUNMAGYAR.ORG itself does) as it is such a vital illustration for an article on the languages of the Caucasus? Sephia karta 23:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flickr picture

There is a picture I would like to use from Flickr [4] but I'm unsure of what copyright status it has. I don't use Flickr so I don't know where to look. Would this image be under an appropriate licence for Wikipedia? There is another picture also [5] would this be more appropriate? James086^{Talk | Contribs} 11:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The first appears to be under no lisence at all thus can't be used. The second is under a non comcercial use only lisence and thus is not considered free enough for wikipedia.Geni 00:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Curses, I will have to ask permission again. Thanks anyway. James086Talk 02:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image from 1894 advertisement

There's an image on page 7 of this PDF that I'd like to use at police box. The information given in the article is that it's from an 1894 advertisement for the National Telephone Company, which ceased to exist in 1911. Is the image in public domain? And (although I realize that this isn't quite in the purview of this help section), assuming that it can be used here, how exactly do I go about removing the image from the PDF? (I'm on a Mac.) Thanks! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is, as it is an anonymous work that was published over 100 years ago. Put {{PD-old}} on it. As for getting the image out of the PDF, try making a screen shot. —Angr 09:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! (And I figured out that Preview can clip the image out of the PDF.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sri Lanka Army book

Lahiru k and I have been talking about a bunch of photographs they've uploaded from 50 YEARS ON – 1949-1999, a book published by the army of Sri Lanka (e.g. 1, 2). Apparently the book has no individual photo credits, and only the statement "The Content of this book is sole property of Sri Lanka Army and any duplication is liable for prosecution. Reproduction of the content is possible provided its source is given its recognition." Incidentally, this is nearly identical to the statement on the army's front web page (though many subpages simply say "all rights reserved"). I'm concerned about using these photos under {{Attribution}} because of uncertainly of the individual photos' ownership, and because of that casual and somewhat contradictory copyright statement. Any thoughts? ×Meegs 21:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You wouldn't want to use the attribution template because the author does not release them for commercial reuse. You'll want to use the fairuse templates, i.e. {{Fairusein}} and be sure you use it in accordance with WP:FU guidelines; they're very stringent.--Jeff 11:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about pretty old photos taken in the U.S.

I got a 1964 book from the library about the Long Island Rail Road, and it has some photos from as early as 1865 that would be nice additions to the article. The majority are credited "collection of someone" rather than to the actual copyright holder. A few are credited to libraries. How old would a photo in the book have to be to be assured of being public domain? Would the ones credited to libraries be acceptable as fair use (assuming they are irreplaceable, with a rationale, etc.) despite not having a copyright holder listed? Thank you for any answers. --NE2 19:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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

That's the problem - didn't the photo have to be published before 1923? All I know about these photos is that they were published in a 1965 book. --NE2 18:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there any credit, acknowledgment or appendix in the book that might allow you to perform more research? You need to know more about the images in order to clarify their copyright status. There are unanswered questions that are needed to answer the question regarding the copyright status of your photographs. Namely, author, author's date of death, date of original publishing. This page on cornell.edu can be a handy reference for answering your question once you know more about the images.--Jeff 11:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I know nothing else about them; the author of the book didn't care to give that information. --NE2 10:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You might want to check with the librarian. He or She might have resources or knowledge that could aid you in answering the question.--Jeff 15:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If I was in the NYC area that might be possible. Anyway, I don't think lack of images of the older days will affect it at FAC, so I give up on this. --NE2 16:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Narnia Map

Greetings. I REALLY tried to figure this out myself, but reading all the definitions and following the links left me a little dizzy! So, can i use this image on my user page, where I'm just indicating I am a Narnia fan and wish I could actually travel there? Thanks!--Anietor 19:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No sorry, you can't. It's a fair use image and you can't use those on your userpage. Garion96 (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Machine Works, Inc.

Hello! I'm new to Wikipedia, and want to make sure I'm doing this right. I am currently working on adding the history of our company and have three images I'd like to use. One shows two men in front of a [6] blacksmithing shop (they are deceased); one shows our company [7] president with the unit he invented and the third shows our [8] company logo. All images are owned by our company. Can someone please take a look and let me know what I need to do to be able to use them? Thank you so much!Ajcross2455 15:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, does your company releases those photos under a free content license? Like the GFDL or Creative Commons? See here for the different licenses. If not, the pictures would have to be used under Fair use and might get deleted since they might fail our fair use criteria. Garion96 (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Virtual Fossil Museum

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

By the terms of that license, no. It appears they are open to receiving inquiries though. You might want to email them and ask them to release photos under a license that's more Wiki friendly, like CC-BY-SA 2.5.--Jeff 04:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

May well do so, after collating what'd be most useful. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Track layout map

I have a track layout map for a station that I would quite like to use on Wikipedia. Assuming that the map is still protected by copyright, I obviously would not be able to upload it to Wikipedia or Commons. But, could I create my own version of it, using the original for reference and upload that without breaching copyright? It wouldn't be a direct reproduction of course, but I would essentially be conveying the information taken from the original in my own way. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 03:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That would be allowed, since information cannot be copyrighted. --NE2 03:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent news, and thanks for the speedy reply! →Ollie (talk • contribs) 03:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Free use required that...

Is the license on this image "free enough" for use on Wikipedia user and talk pages? I'd like to get the copyrights sorted out before I propsoe it as a possible WikiProject award. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the status of the TARDIS image. It's probably copyrighted, meaning this barnstar isn't free enough; but maybe you could make a barnstar using Commons:Image:Earls Court Police Box.jpg instead. —Angr 22:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Geni's already made one here, which is OK if a bit rough-and-ready. This was another proposal that was supposed to be more aesthetically pleasing. Apparently the creator of the police box image used in Image:DoctorWho-Barnstar2.png has said that he "allows use of his images for free as long as his name and a link to his website is stated as credit". (See here.) I'm not sure what license that would fall under, really. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I would like to clarify this situation a little. Rob Semenoff, the creator of the image we wish to use, states on his FAQ page that use of his images is allowed, as long as 'you provide my name and a link to my homepage'. I have provided both on the image pages themselves, so from this I assume we are allowed to use this image where we like. Am I correct with my understand on this? Smomo 13:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

porblem is that that is website only permission and doesn't cover derivatives.Geni 15:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Does that matter for a barnstar? Surely barnstars aren't going to be used by downstream users, particularly downstream users in other media. Or is it a blanket rule that images used in barnstars must be GFDL or equivalently free? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a blanket rule that unfree (so-called "fair use") images may be used only in article space (though they often appear on the front page in violation of this rule). —Angr 15:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

But this isn't fair use — it's use with permission. Now, I know that Wikipedia-only permission isn't good enough, but as stated on the creator's page it's permission to use anywhere, with name and link. That's not the same as fair use, in which the copyright holder's statements are irrelevant or ignored. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

'Use with permission' is deprecated. Since May 19, 2005 new images uploaded with restricted use licenses will be quickly deleted, and images uploaded before then can be deleted. I think using such images anywhere but in article space is against the spirit, if not the letter, of Wikipedia rules. -- Donald Albury 13:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It's OK — the creator has released the image under CC 2.5. (See here.) So I think we're cool. Thanks for your patience, everyone. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, he chose the 'non-commercial' version of the license, which is still not acceptable on Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury 21:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeesh! I didn't notice that. Well, apparently the creator has now emailed Smomo (talk • contribs) with the following:[9]

“

I, Rob Semenoff, have irrevocably released all rights to this image, allowing it to be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited in any way by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, with or without attribution to myself, as if in the public domain. However, as a courtesy, a link back to my site and my name would be appreciated.

”

I hope that is free enough for our purposes. If the image's tag is incorrect, would someone please change it to the appropriate one? Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flight plans

Is the US form 7233-4 that is available from here and can be seen here covered under Work of the United States Government? The form is the US version of the ICAO flight plan. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Translations of Chinese documents

Hello, I am not very clear on the status of Chinese copyright law. Is a translation of a Chinese document likely to be a copyright violation? Does it matter if it is a temporary, computurised translation (e.g. Altavista), or a handdone translation published on a website? Thanks for the help, Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 14:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

A translation is a derivative work, so in addition to being subject to the copyright restrictions of the original, the translation has a copyright of its own. (This is why Bible translations are copyrighted even the the original text of the Bible isn't.) I don't know what the copyright status of machine translations is, though. —Angr 14:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

So, according to US copyright law, a translation or other derivative work made without the permission of the author would be a copyvio. But wouldn't Chinese copyright laws apply in this case? Is there a good way of determining whether something is covered by Chinese or US copyright law, or is it safe to assume it is Chinese copyright law if it is from a Chinese news source? And what is the Chinese stance on "derivative works"? — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 14:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Google Maps trace

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

I'll probably start putting up maps of Interstates shortly according to the standards, but I wondered if my technique is a copyright violation. I would zoom in to the scale I want on Google Maps and take a screen copy. Then I would trace the roads on a separate layer above the Google Maps screenshot. Is this derivative work a copyvio?

Thanks in advance! —Rob (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes - that's a derivative work. If you traced a photograph it would be a derivative work. If you rotoscoped starwars it would be a derivative work. Megapixie 00:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that there is no creativity in displaying exactly where roads are located, as a precise map like Google Maps does. (On a hand-drawn map, the roads might be fudged to fit certain things in better, but that's not the case for Google Maps.) As per Feist v. Rural, any copying of the uncopyrightable elements is itself uncopyrightable. Essentially, any map made using the same projection and accurate data would turn out identical. --NE2 00:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Maps are protected by copyright - and have been since 1790 in the US [10]. Show me a case precident involving maps (not telephone books) and that might have some bearing. Tracings would be derivative works in the same way if you traced a photograph (and recognized in the same terms by US copyright law). Megapixie 00:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Additionally see [11] Megapixie 00:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

What's protected by copyright about the locations of roads on the earth? --NE2 02:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing. And if you ride down these roads with a GPS unit attached to a laptop - the resulting data is entirely yours. However we cannot allow people to upload derivative works traced from copyright maps. If you read the links above, it's actually pretty hot, and we should err on the side of caution. Megapixie 05:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The only thing transferred from the map to the tracing is the locations of the roads. There's nothing copyrighted about that. None of the arguments I see on that link, such as "each mapmaker's selection of sources, interpretation of those sources, discretion in reconciling inconsistencies ... and skill and judgment in depicting the information", apply here, since only a chosen set of roads - Interstates - are being traced, and at a very granular level, such that slight differences in placement would make no 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 Interstates. The scale is such that the error introduced by the process of tracing is much larger than any errors in the map data. --NE2 06:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, this may all be moot, since these maps are public domain and large enough scale, though there may be some minor issues with patching together states. --NE2 06:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photo of a letter I purchased.

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

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

uhhhh. One could make the arguement that the act of writing a letter TO someone is effectively giving the letter (and its' copyright) to the receiver. That's the crux of the whole scenario; Is the act of sending a letter effectively transferring the copyright as well? I would say yes, and therefore having acquired the letter from the estate would mean the current holder should be entitled to its' copyright. But yeah.. only a real lawyer could answer such a complex situation with any confidence.--Jeff 00:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Person A is not dead. So, sending someone a letter is not conveyance of ownership (and of the copyright?) If I wrote someone a letter, I don't own it anymore; I gave it away, right?--Jeff 00:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that's what you get from reading too fast. But no, you don't give your copyright away with the sending of a letter. See for example [12] as an example. The "Restrictions on Use" section. Garion96 (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The current copyright status of the letters would very much depend on where (what country) the letters were written/sent from, and when. Short of certification from a competent legal authority that the copyright has expired or that the item was never under copyright, we have to fall back on the broadest interpretation of copyright coverage, i.e., in the U.S., the author died at least 70 years ago, etc. Ownership of the letters themselves is like ownership of a book. You buy a book that is still under copyright, it's yours, you can do whatever you want with it, except distribute copies of it. -- Donald Albury 11:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That's what I feared. I have no idea whether person A is alive or not - but it was a business letter - so the copyright would presumably belong to the guy's employer anyway. The company has been chopped up and bits have been sold off, other parts have collapsed and vanished so if the company retain 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're a long way from the 70 year rule. The letter was written in England. Oh well - I guess it's going into a picture frame on my wall, maybe my son will one day submit it to Wikipedia! This IP stuff is *such* a pain...argh! Thanks guys. SteveBaker 16:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about images of musicians, specifically for Bruce Hornsby

I've noticed that a user named BoaTeeth has repeatedly had trouble uploading images to contribute to the Bruce Hornsby article over the past weeks. Many of the images that user attempted to use were not properly tagged, etc, but the ongoing discussion on the various image pages, various user talk pages, etc, indicates, in my opinion, that good faith has been assumed by all parties...both the user trying to upload images to improve the article and by the questions regarding copyright. BoaTeeth makes a good point somewhere in the discussion about the vast number of musician pages, particularly branching off of the jam band Wikipedia Category, that are attempting to make use of Creative Commons licensing for images (usually taken from Flickr). Given that this problem has been ongoing, and that the Bruce Hornsby talk page features a request that images be added, I took it upon myself to contact the owner and operator of www.Bruuuce.com, a fan website for Bruce Hornsby which features a number of images of the musician (some of which are copyrighted on the images by the original photographer, the balance of which are copyrighted by owner and operator of the website due to the copyright notice on the webpage itself). The owner and operator of the website has granted me permission to use any of the images for which he is the copyright holder (his exact words were "any of the images not copyrighted to other photographers") on the Bruce Hornsby Wikipedia article. Surely the inclusion of such images in the article, which has undergone a substantial amount of very admirable revision recently, would serve to improve the quality of the article by illustrating some of the various time periods/performance circumstances discussed. I am writing now, before attempting to upload any images, to clarify exactly how these images should be sourced/tagged. I realize that these images would be in jeopardy of not qualifying for fair use; however, there seem to be no images of Bruce Hornsby available for fair use or for use under Creative Commons licensing. I've noticed that such pages as Billy Joel have resorted to really poor quality Dept. of Education images, Elton John to a highly questionable self-uploaded poster, and Jon Fishman and Trey Anastasio of the band Phish have both had images be the subject of much scrutiny and questioning. Surely it is best for Wikipedia to have encyclopedia-esque chroniclings of these public figures, images and all, especially when high-quality images are being offered for free use. Could these images from www.Bruuuce.com be uploaded and credited to that website owner, giving future Wikipedia readers/users the opportunity to contact the source to verify the permissions? It seems a real shame to have so many articles with such a paucity of images. I'm awaiting further advice (either here or on my talk page, or both) before I proceed, but I'm eager to try to add these images, for which permission has been given, to what has become a very exciting and vibrant article. Thanks for your help. Snidleysnide 18:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up (sorry): If these images are deemed usable on Wikipedia, then would the sourcing/tagging for them be done similarly to Image:SCI2005.jpg, found in the article jam band? Snidleysnide 20:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission? I ask because it sounds like the website owner gave Wikipedia permission to use the image, which isn't free enough for us. We want the image to be free for everyone to use for any purpose, including commercial use. If the website owner writes you an email stating they are willing to license their images available on their site under a suitable CC license or the GFDL, then you can follow the directions on that page and upload away. I'd like to point out at this time the advantage of uploading an image to commons, especially ones from flickr: Commons is setup to automatically review flickr uploaded images (if you select the correct license option in the dropdown box) and verify the license. This is important because flickr licenses can change, but if it was licensed CC-BY-SA-2.0, as it's verified, we can keep it forever. We're not setup for that here at Wikipedia. --MECU≈talk 22:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Owned picture of legislator; uncertain license, any ideas?

I received an award about a year ago from Dr. Alma Adams (American Legacy building in Washington DC), and have picture with her in them. I noticed that there isn't one of her. I can crop her out, but I'm not familiar with what, if any, copyright/licensing terms apply to this image. I do not know any of the photographers, but believe they were taking the pictures for media coverage of me (so I was told). I saw something about pictures of legislators being uncopyrightable, but am not sure if that applies in this case, since it was taken in a private building and the original image included other people. Any ideas? Should I post it, or is uploading it something illegal that I'd get blocked for? Smokeresearcher 04:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that Alma Adams is a member of the North Carolina legislature. The bit about pictures of legislators not being copyrightable is wrong. That appears to be a garbled version of the rule that the work of employees of the United States government carried out as part of their official duties cannot be copyrighted. That means that the official photographs of members of the the United States Congress, taken by employees of Congress, are not copyrighted. That rule does not extend to photographs taken by persons who are not employees of the U.S. government. Works of employees of state and local governments in the U.S. are copyrighted. -- Donald Albury 11:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I won't put it there then... Smokeresearcher 22:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photo of someone who died 68 years ago, author unknown

Does the image qualify as fair use? If nobody can tell who the photographer was, when does the 70-year copyright expiration period start: is it when the subject died or when the photo was taken? --Cameltrader 21:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The question of whether it qualifies as fair use is separate from whether it is in the public domain. I'll tackle whether this image is in the public domain. The date of death of the subject of the photo is irrelevant. To determine the copyright status we'd like to know three things: when the photo was created, when the photograph was first published, and when the photographer died. Can you track down any of this information? If the photograph was published (i.e. public distribution of copies occured) before 1923, then it is in the public domain in the US. If the photographer is truly anonymous (and not simply that you don't know the identify of the photographer) and the photo was created before 1887, then it is also public domain in the US. —RP88 12:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Highway markers

It's been generally accepted by highway editors that U.S. highway markers used by states to mark their roads are not copyrighted. For instance, the Interstate Highway shield is trademarked but not copyrighted, and thus there are no problems with using it in an encyclopedia: [13] It's also been generally accepted that toll road markers are copyrighted. However, a search through [14] for the names of several toll authorities, such as New York State Thruway Authority and New Jersey Highway Authority, turns up a few results but none for the marker. (Any marker created before 1989 would have had to be registered, since there is never a copyright notice on the actual sign.) Can someone give advice, either here or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York State routes#A letter from Public Affairs, NYS Thruway Authority, on whether this database is complete, etc.? Thank you. --NE2 19:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photo of YR Chao

Yuen Ren Chao was one of the 20th century's great linguists & the inventor of an important Chinese romanization system known as Gwoyeu Romatzyh. I would very much like to include a photo of Chao as a young man in both articles. This was probably taken about 1914-16, when Chao was a student.

I've asked the webmaster at pinyin.info about this image, & he tells me the picture was scanned from Autobiography of a Chinese Woman (John Day Company, New York, 1947), written by Chao's wife, Buwei Yang. He copied Chao's signature and superimposed it on the photo. Can I just go ahead & use it? Is John Day Co. still in business? I don't want to waste time using an image that's going to be deleted! Or am I just being over-conscientious?

Ideally this photo or a another one of Chao should be in the Commons. So if anyone can suggest another, free-use one, that would be fine. -- NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, as the original is out of copyright, and it's a two-dimensional work of art being slavishly copied, we can count its copyright status as the same as the original, e.g. before 1923, except you may need to get explicit permission from the webmaster to use the signature photoshop, but it sounds like you're on good terms with him, so that shouldn't be a problem. If I'm wrong on this, a fair usage criteria will probably do, as it's not like many photographs are likely to exist. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks indeed for the encouraging reply! I've now uploaded the image to WP as Image:Yr-chao.jpg, citing {{PD-China}}: is that the correct procedure? -- NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Anyone know if I can upload and use this image here [15] of Wingerworth Hall taken in 1920 Giano 16:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Since it was published in 1921, you can use {{PD-US}}. Be sure to give that page as a source. --MECU≈talk 17:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that - now uploaded. Giano 13:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

{{PD-US}} applies if "it was first published in the United States prior to 1 January 1923". Country Life (magazine) is British, and there's no indication if or when the photo might have been published in the US, so I don't see a reason to assume PD-US. --Davepape 15:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] eBay images of pre-1923 postcards

I like finding and uploading to Wikipedia pictures from postcards that were printed before 1923 and are therefore copyright free. eBay has a lot of good pictures of them. Occasionally there's some kind of "border" (some colored background that the postcard was up against when it was photographed) and eBay has a little cartoonish image of a camera on the lower right hand corner of its pictures. I see no value to eBay or eBay sellers and certainly none to us at Wikipedia or to anyone else in having these, and I'm reluctant to use them, although when I find a particularly useful image, I upload it anyway. Is there any legal problem with this at all? I assume if there were some added value that the eBay camera image gave to the picture, or the "border" then we couldn't use it because, for one thing, it would be post-1923. And if I knew how to crop the picture to avoid anything not in the postcard, I would. Since I don't want to go through this kind of work and see my images deleted, someone please tell me if I'm doing anything wrong here. Thanks! Noroton 02:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this acceptable permission?

This site has many low res scans of PRC propaganda posters and the author seems pretty cool about allowing them to be used subject to the conditions listed. Are they acceptable here and what kind of entry needs to be made when uploading the image? thnx --killing sparrows 07:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)