Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 2

Make this a separate page?

I tend to feel this (copyright enquiries) should be a separate, actual page, and the talk page should be reserved for talk about the project page, as is usual. Plus this is quite hidden and hard to find for new users. Having a central page will (might) stop people occasionally asking on the VP too.

So how about Commons:Can I use this? or Commons:Copyright questions or Commons:Copyright enquiries or... etc. I think I favour Commons:Copyright questions. What do people think? --pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

No I think it is quite good having this sort of debate directly at the talk page of the licensing page as you can directly change a part of the page out of conclusions of the discussions here and both discussion and policy belong together. As I also have prominently linked this talk page everyone interested is able finding it easily. Arnomane 08:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Are images at "training.seer.cancer.gov" OK?

I've uploaded this image. The full URL of the source is here. Is this OK? It's a work of the US government, and there is no special disclaimer at the bottom of the page, so I believe it meets our guidelines. There are some wonderful illustrations there, but I'd like to check for objections before I upload more. --Arcadian 09:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It should be OK. However, sometimes images on .gov sites have little notes saying "Image copyright by .... " or "image courtesy of ...." , make sure you don't upload those. / Fred Chess 19:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

EU Images

Discussion is going on and help is needed about the use of EU images on wikipedia. Discussion :[1] EN Template : [2] Commons Template:EU image

© European Communities, 1995-2005 Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, save where otherwise stated. Where prior permission must be obtained for the reproduction or use of textual and multimedia information (sound, images, software, etc.), such permission shall cancel the above-mentioned general permission and shall clearly indicate any restrictions on use.

Example : [3] on the page of this picture of Camiel EURLINGS the page has a link to Legal notice on the left side which links to the modified version [4], dropping any relevancy with the old one [5]

Meeting wiki requerements: 1 Republication and distribution must be allowed 2 Publication of derivative work must be allowed 3 Commercial use of the work must be allowed 4 Acknowledgement of all authors/contibutors of a work may be required.

1. Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, 2. Where prior permission must be obtained, is not stated on the example page. 3 Commercial use of the work must be allowed, is not stated. 4. Acknowledgement of all authors/contibutors of a work may be required. Mention of the source is reqiured.

It was pointed out to me that in de.wikipedia permission of usage is not enough.

• The question arises, does that go as well for the other countrys ? Or can the images be used in other wikipedias ?

Which makes it obsolete to remove them from commons ? Reg. Mion 16:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• I now explained it again and again and again, when do you get it? These pictures can only be used on wikipedias which allow non-free licenses, since publication of derivative work is not allowed and distribution supposedly only in journalistic contexts. --Rtc 17:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, is there a list of wikipedias which allow non-free licenses ? and i assume that commons is ment only for images that can be used on all wikipedia's ? which makes the EU images fit for removal ? Mion 10:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of any Wikimedia project that allowes non-free (or non-commcercial-only) content - there are of corse some that allow images under the fair use clause. But please note that "fair use" is bound to the context of use. An image of and by itself can never be fair use! See en:Wikipedia:Fair Use for details. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 13:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. the point of fair use was already clear to me, but never mind . drop the whole thing. Mion 19:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

So 700.000.000 people have no rights of a picture of the people who represtents them ? Mion 00:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Works of European goverments (and so the EU as well) unless it is a law or decret are generally not within the public domain. Sad and very strange given the fact that the government is the representation of all of us but true. Arnomane 08:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

so, the only option is for each and all of them to ask them for a donation into the public domain as they are runnung up. something for wiki action weeks. Mion 10:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not enough. The term 'public domain' has too many different meanings. They must clearly declare that they actually intend to grant all rights as far reaching as legally possible. They must fill out the form at Commons:Email templates#declaration of consent for all enquiries. Please do not refer to Wikipedia in your inquiry: It is a release for the general public you are asking for, not a release for Wikipedia! --Rtc 17:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyright law in Australia

The description of copyright law in Australia is not completely accurate. See en:Copyright expiration in Australia for a better description. Could someone update the information accordingly? Thanks, Andjam 08:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

That article itself is not entirely correct. See the talk page. Lupo 10:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This pic

Why is this pic(Image:SatyajitRay.gif) free?--128.36.229.95 04:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

No idea. I tagged it 'unknown source' and if it isn't corrected, it can be deleted after a week. (BTW anyone can do this, including you.) pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Canada Copyright issues

Please see Template talk:CanadaCopyright.

The "for non-commercial use only" of the fr:Template:CanadaCopyright is not related with Canadian Copyright law but with the Canadian Trade-Mark law. The law says "9. (1) No person shall adopt in connection with a business, as a trade-mark or otherwise, any mark consisting of, or so nearly resembling as to be likely to be mistaken for (...)" followed by a very long list of protected material.

In that list, every flag of any country around the world is protected by section 9. So, in Canada, you can not use the flag or coat of arms of the United States (or any country) in such a way people will thing that your product/service/enterprise is endorsed by the Governement of the USA (or any country).

In that list, we can find the United Nations, the Red Cross, the Red Crescent emblems which are also protected.

So, I suggest that Commons reconsider its policy regarding the prohibition to upload pictures Copyrighted by "His Majest the Queen, Chief of Canada" (aka Canadian governement) and use something similar to [:fr:Template:CanadaCopyright]] license.

Yanik Crépeau —the preceding unsigned comment is by 24.201.201.160 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 30 April 2006

Book, CD, DVD covers

Citation from article: "Scans or reproductive photographs of copyrighted artwork, especially book covers, etc" - are not allowed.. but what about small pictures (NOT high resolution fotos of scans), as they are in on-line shops? Pictures, that helps only identify 1., 2, 3,.. ect. prints of books for collectors. There are forbidden too? --Rádiológ 15:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, such images basically rely on fair use, whihc is not applicable on the commons. They can not be used at will, thus they are non-free. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 16:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Photo Portraits

I'm trying to figure out whether a photo portrait of Herbert Croly I saw online would be under copyright. The photo itself was taken before 1920 and the subject of the portrait has been deceased for over 70 years. Would the image copyright be based on the subject's death or the photographers? Thanks for any help on this. CRobey 22:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

One needs to know when (and where) it was first published, and the date of the photographer's death. The subject's irrelevant. Hope that helps. Jkelly 00:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

19th Century Art

First of all I'm completely new here (though I've been editing in Wikipedia for some time). Consequently I'll need a little hand holding with respect to the copy right minefield!

I have a large collection of electronic images of 19th century paintings. As the Commons declares itself to be, in part at least, an educational resource, I thought it might be worthwhile to contribute these. However, what issues need to be addressed before I dive in and start uploading? Calilasseia 01:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

That's great! How many are there, like 100, thousands? What is the collection?

You can get some tips at Commons:First steps. Do you have any idea of if there's any overlap with existing content? pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

That's part of the problem - as I'm completely new to the Commons, I've yet to find out what exists here in this area. I've yet to find out the basics of navigating the Commons and finding what's already in here, that's how much of a neophyte I am! As for the size of the collection, last time I performed anything like an inventory, the image count was in excess of 2,000 images, but I've added a fair number since then, particularly to the Pre-Raphaelite and Victorian Neoclassical sections, including some images that are gigantic in terms both of file size and pixel dimensions (even in JPG format, some of them are 4 megabytes each!). Basically, the collection includes a diverse assortment of images featuring works by such artists as Waterhouse (getting on for 200 of these alone), Rossetti (again, around 200 of these), Burne-Jones, a brace of other Pre-Raphaelites, and Victorian Neoclassicists such as Alma-Tadema and John William Godward (who I've been collecting with a passion now for 7 years - I must have close on 150 of his works as well). There's a brace of oddities in there too, including some Tissot, one or two John Singer Sargent images, some Giovanni Boldini "Swagger Portraits" (including the enormous diva from the Andrew Lloyd Webber collection that was on display at the Royal Academy some years back), and a sprinkling of Victorian fairy paintings. I've even alighted recently upon some postcard reproductions of the works of a minor artist called Angelo Asti, who seemed to specialise in what can only be described as the 19th century version of the "Page 3 girl" from The Sun here in the UK ... :) Apart from wishing to avoid overlap, the collection has been put together in a somewhat haphazard fashion over nearly a decade, and with this quantity of images, I can't provide meticulous provenances for all of them! However, as far as I'm aware, the collection is royalty free - in any case even a cursory use of Google with respect to most of the artists in the list throws up dozens of online gallery style web sites featuring material in the same vein ... the fun part is, I started this collection partly while trying to find out about a compelling and haunting picture that was owned by a former neighbour, and only after spending nearly a decade trawling through nore or less everything that Victorian art had to offer, did I finally (about six months ago) discover that the painting featured in my neighbour's photograph may have been an Angelo Asti "nudie cutie" ... but I've acquired quite an education in the process! Calilasseia 04:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

As to overlap, try searching for the artists' names or surnames here. That should give you an idea what already is here, and in what quality. Our collection also is put together a little hazaphardly: sometimes, there's a category collecting all works of an artist or all works relating to some subject (e.g. Category:Giovanni Boldini), sometimes there's an article (e.g. Harriet Quimby). Sometimes, there's both (e.g. Category:Paul Kane and Paul Kane). The advantage of categories is that it suffices to include a category link on the image page (for instance, by writing "[[Category:blah blah]]" in the upload comment), while on articles, one can group images better (see e.g. Paul Kane), but you have to include any new image manually in an article (it isn't updated automatically like the categories are).

Other than that, we are very grateful for better quality reproductions, so if you find some poor low-resolution image that you can replace with a better one, do so: just upload the better version with the same destination name as the existing poor version to overwrite it.

However, anything you upload must be in the public domain. See Commons:Licensing. With your 19th century paintings, there shouldn't really be a problem with regard to copyrights, they should all be {{PD-Art}} if the painter died more than 70 years ago. Note, however, that you shouldn't upload images that show the frame of a painting (as with the frame, it's no longer a simple reproduction of a two-dimensional object). Lupo 07:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Picture of School

There's picture of my school on their website. I uploaded it to the commons as Image:Eastglasscommons.jpg. Is that at all a violation?Foxjwill 17:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep. The photo is copyrighted, with all rights reserved, unless the school explicitly says otherwise. If you have a camera, why don't you try taking your own photographs of your school? User:dbenbenn 17:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Dang. Then I guess we'll have to take it down from Commons. Sorry. Foxjwill 23:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Photo deleted. Thuresson 10:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Copied From Website

Can pictures on websites be copyrighted, if you copy and paste them?

Yes. Unless you read something that specifically says an image is in the public domain or is freely licensed, assume that it is under copyright. pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Outdated maps

Some 15+ years ago i have bought a map of the public transportation network in my city. Since then, the network changed, and that map became perceptibly outdated. If i scan this old map, what will the licensing status be? -- Jokes Free4Me 15:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If the original map was copyrighted, which you should assume it was unless you have good reason to assume otherwise, then the map will still be copyrighted. Scanning it doesn't make any difference because it's 2D > 2D (no originality). pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

PD image or no PD image...

Hi, I would like to use an image from http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov/methods/ivcytoval.htm for an article on de:. Now my question: Are these images in the Public Domain, the site owner apparently being an US government agency (at least as far as I could tell)? Their Homepage is here. Thanks for your help, Lennert B 15:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Tja, ich sehe nirgendswo auf der Seite, dass die Inhalte public domain sind. Schreibe doch einfach mal den Kontakt an. Vorschläge eines Anschreibens findest Du unter en:Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission. Viel Erfolg ! --gildemax 16:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyright on Einstein's tongue ?!

Hi, i uploaded the famous 'tongue'-picture taken on Einstein's 72th Birthday. Despite excessive search on the internet, i could not find a legal notice, the photographer might be still alive, though (i don't know). The picture is used for a myriad of posters, postcards, t-shirts, websites... you name it! So it's probably PD.... Does anybody know if there's a copyright on this picture? thanks -- DocMario 20:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

A picture taken in 1951 is rather unlikely to be PD; generally, only images who's creator has been dead for more than 70 years are considered to be PD everywhere. If the image was taken and first published in the US (which appears to be the case), Commons:Licensing#United_States applies - if I understand that correctly, the picture would be PD if the copyright for it was not renewed (which I find unlikely, but you never know); if it is PD in the US by those terms, it remeian a bit unclear if it would also be PD in the rest of the world. So, no definite answer from me, but doesn't look to good... -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 22:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

IP rights licensing information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein_in_popular_culture

Netherlands Army Logo

I extracted the logos used on Image:Flag of the Royal Netherlands Army.svg, Image:Flag of the Royal Netherlands Air Force.svg, Image:Flag of the Royal Netherlands Navy.svg and Image:Flag of the Koninklijke Marechaussee.svg from a Flash file found on this website: http://www.i-base.nl/defensie/asp/beeldmerken.asp (press the magnifying glass), a government website about the logos and style used by the Ministry of Defence. Can someone tell me what license to use? Or should I delete the images?

Suspicious licensing tag

The licensing tag on Image:Mosteiro igreja saobento.jpg claims that the uploader is the author and that the image has been placed in the public domain, but the image description page gives a link to the source of the image, which seems to require attribution. Since I'm new here on Commons and don't know how things work yet, what are the steps to take in this case? —Bkell 19:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

DVD-cover

Is this picture public domain? It says that on the page, but I am not sure (not Kjetil R neither). Can I use this in the no:Wikipedia? NorwegianMarcus 16:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This image can be compared to Image:Verdens gang 1.jpg, which seems to be allowed. But can a photo which only purpose is to show copyrighted covers be PD? Kjetil_r 17:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The Verdens image looks somewhat OK but a closer shot would not be OK. The Simpsons shot is too close with the Simpsons DVD-covers as the only object, I don't think it's OK for the Commons. I might be OK if taken from several meters away with more stuff visible around. --Denniss 18:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Striktly spoken the Verdens image is not OK --Historiograf 18:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Board game photographs

I note that Category:Board games has quite a few photos of copyrighted board games in the process of being played, and the photos are given free licenses. Is there general agreement that photos of games in play are no longer "derivative works" of the games, or have all these just been overlooked? Stan Shebs 23:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you can safely assume it's the latter case. pfctdayelise (translate?) 22:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

And once again I will complain about Commons copyright requirements being too rigid and taking more effort to adhere than they are worth... / Fred Chess 23:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It just seems like an awful lot of overlooking, including whole subcategories (Catan for instance) and a lot of use in de:. My interest stems from fair use scrubbing in en:, but not much point in working on it without a consensus here. Stan Shebs 20:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The most recent messages on the Commons mailing list were in favour of accepter derivatory 3D work. Of course, I am a little upset about it, because i asked several months ago for such a statement from the juridical side before we started deleted such items, but I don't think we got anything from anywhere and then all such images were deleted. The utopian dream of making everything free for everyone is, IMHO, just a dream, and it would be better to use what can while we can. But who am I to decide. / Fred Chess 21:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Norwegian state-owned picture licensing question

"When in doubt, ask". ;) I have the permission of the municipality that owns the picture, to upload this picture as long as copyright information (owner: them) is preserved. Which license should I choose? Thanks. :) SCA Jolly 08:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you use Commons:Email templates? If you didn't, you will save a lot of hassle by doing so first. pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

From image:Eina.jpg: “Vestre Toten kommune gir tillatelse til at det omtalte bildet blir benyttet av Wikipedia i omtalen av Eina” == “Western Toten municipality permits that the image in question is used in Wikipedia in the mentioning of Eina”.

SCA Jolly, Wikipedia only licenses are not allowed. Kjetil_r 09:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Then a change is required. I have to make contact with the municipality again and clarify this. SCA Jolly 15:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Bmz allowed?

Copied to Template talk:Bmz for reference. This is a license that requires mentioning of source. I am under the impression that these images are not allowed here. Please comment. Siebrand 19:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If they allow commercial reuse and derivative use, there is nothing at all problematic about requiring attribution. Jkelly 21:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Nothing is mentioned explicitely [6]: Texts and images on the site may be used provided the source is acknowledged as the Amsterdam Municipal Department for the Preservation and Restoration of Historic Buildings and Sites (bMA), unless some other source is mentioned. Photographs are not available in higher resolutions than those found on the website. No originals can be supplied. If you use texts and images from the site, bMA would appreciate it if you would send a copy of your publication to bMA, City of Amsterdam, Keizersgracht 123, 1015 CJ Amsterdam. Siebrand 21:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it would be better if they would specify clearly what they mean be "use". But this is a statement from a government department, not some half-wit on geocities. So we can assume they know what they are talking about, and there are no further limitations.

The requirement to mention is the source is OK, of yorse - that's required on commons anyway, and it's basically an attribution requirement. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 22:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Siebrand 22:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not appropriate assuming a Dutch gov dep is knowing what they are talking about concerning copyright policy. Following the great steps of Rtc we have to ask: is commercial use and modification allowed? We don't know thus we have to ask them! --Historiograf 18:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

PD Iran

Hi everyone,

I'd like to know if it's possible that someone creates a tag for pictures which are public domain in Iran, there's a tag existing on the english WP here that I duplicated on the french WP. I should need it to upload some pictures sooner or later. Thanks Fabienkhan 13:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you can go ahead and create it here. Be sure to add it to Commons:Copyright tags. pfctdayelise (translate?) 16:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Which license is appropriate?

I am sending by email a template for permission to use a copyrighted image. Which license is appropriate? The photo would be released for use by Wikipedia, and for use by others without modification for their own personal use. (The photo is of the mother of the copyright holder). Thanks.ABenis 15:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No image like that can be uploaded here. All images here must allow commercial use and modification ("derivatives"). pfctdayelise (translate?) 16:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanx.ABenis 16:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we, on Commons, should be specific that "derivatory" is OK, but not distortive.

ABenis: Do you accept that the image in question may be: (1) color/contrast modified or in other ways improvied (2) rotated, or (3) cut (4) used together with other images such as a collage -- if these methods are in the intention of making the image appear better or better adapted for the use (e.g. in an article?), as long as they do are not modified in a way intended for libel. If so, I think you should upload the image and should any license, for instance {{Cc-by-sa}}.

I can find no reason to disallow images that have as requirement to forbid distortion, and I can find no statement on the Commons mailing list or elsewhere that would disagree with me. People often want their images, if the depict persons, to not be used in libelous purposes that makes the object look bad. I think this is a fair requirement, and it has support in the laws, so it should be pointed out clearly.

Fred Chess 16:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think modification would be an issue. However, the words "commercial use" in the template may be a problem to an individual releasing her mother's photo. If the photo ~is~ released without conditions, which tag is appropriate?ABenis 16:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The only appropriate tag is the one representing the license the copyright holder chooses. It's up to her, not you. She has to specify the license. If it's released without any conditions, that would be {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} or {{PD-author}} -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 18:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello. An ordinary individual clicking on the URL in the template will be bewildered by the choices and will need some guidance. What should she choose that would be acceptable to Wikipedia and still have the most restrictions from the point of view of the copyright holder? Thanx.ABenis 18:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The commercial use part means that there is no restrictions if someone wants (needs) to charge for the use, as would be the case for newspapers, magazines, or other -- the image would still always be available for free too.

The most restrictive license is {{GFDL}}, which require attribution and a full copy of the GFDL following the image.

Fred Chess 19:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Photos taken by a retired U.S. military or DoD employee

All the photos which are available in http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/ are said to be "Released to Public". Most of the photographers are U.S. military or Department of Defense employee, hence their photos are in the public domain. But some of the photos are said to be taken by a RETIRED U.S. military or Department of Defense employee. Are such photos in the public domain as well? Hashekemist 16:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Images taken by U.S. governmental employees in line of their duty are public domain. That's the only answer I can give. It is fullt possible that someone who is now retired took such images when he was still employed. / Fred Chess 16:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If this is the case then many of the images returned by searching for ret. should be removed. Hashekemist 16:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Doe's U.S. Embassy work is in Public Domain?

Doe's U.S. Embassy work in foreign state is in Public Domain? Hashekemist 15:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

If you mean photographs taken by people who work for a U.S. Embassy than I say: yes. / Fred Chess 01:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Maps from Demis Web Map Server?

I uploaded a GFDL map here from English Wikipedia, Image:GR 20 map.png. I then realised it says at the "original" at German Wikipedia that it was taken from this web site [7] which makes it all kind of fishy. If the maps you can get from their products in themselves are free of copyright and the user at dewiki added the text, then I guess it is OK. Does anyone know the copyright status of these maps? // Habj 16:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Demis maps are PD as per {{PD-Demis}}. Derivatory work may of course be relased under a license. / Fred Chess 01:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

{{PD-stamp}}

I already asked on the village pump. But this awaits still a solution.

The discussion so far:

---

Can someone explain when and how it is acceptable to use the template {{PD-stamp}}? I can not find any information on that. --ALE! 10:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

When he comes back from vacation, you can ask Mark Leon some questions about stamps and copyright policies.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 14:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems useless, as it makes no statement why specifically the image is PD. Should be made deprecated and replaced by specific templates mentioning the reason for being PD. --::Slomox:: >< 16:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

---

So far the past discussion.

Furthermore the template is not listed on Commons:Copyright tags.

So what do we do with this template? --ALE! 14:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Anybody out there...? --ALE! 14:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Nebraska state seal image

The exact licensing of the Great Seal of Nebraska on Wikimedia projects came up recently over at en: (for a full background overview, read this discussion). The following is the email exchange I had with the Nebraska Secretary of State's office:

---

In response to your e-mail concerning the status of the Nebraska Great Seal, I submit the following:

The Nebraska Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 24 and Nebraska law, Neb. Rev. Stat. Sec. 84-501 (1999), provide that the Secretary of State is the official custodian of the Great Seal of the State of Nebraska and shall not suffer it to be imitated or counterfeited.

This office is the only state agency that can allow use of the Great Seal which is limited by the Secretary to that of governmental or educational purposes. Once a request is received for use of the Great Seal, the request is reviewed for approval (of a limited use) or disapproval. Permission for use of the Great Seal is not given for commercial usage.

Ronald D. Moravec

Chief Deputy Secretary of State

Secretary of State's Office

PO Box 94608

State Capitol, Suite 2300

Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-4608

Phone (402) 471-4071

Thank you for your response.

In that case, I would like to request approval by your office for use of the Great Seal on Internet sites hosted and maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation ( http://wikimediafoundation.org/), a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that operates sites such as Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/), Wikinews ( http://en.wikinews.org/), Wikisource (http://en.wikisource.org/) and Wiktionary (http://en.wiktionary.org/).

The depiction of the Great Seal on these sites is solely for informational/educational purposes. An example of a page that uses the Great Seal is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_of_Nebraska (which currently uses the seal under fair use doctrine).

Jesse Whidden

Please send a fax number or mailing address where we can forward a request form for use of the Great Seal. Once that is completed we will review the request and notify you of approval or denial for use of the Great Seal. To be up front with you, a concern that we will have is the ease with which anyone will be able to copy the Great Seal and revise it, or use it, to fit their whimsical wishes.

Ronald D. Moravec

Thank you for your response and effort in answering this question. However, it has come to my attention that a non-commercial/eduational release of the seal is not in line with policies of Wikipedia at this time, as it is a goal of the Wikimedia Foundation to have images that are either free of restrictions for use or used strictly under a fair use doctrine (which the seal is currently used being used). A decision was made by the Wikimedia Foundation (http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-May/023760.html ) that non-commerical/educational use only images are not to be permitted. Therefore, a request form will not be needed.

Once again, thank you for your timely response.

Jesse Whidden

---

Unfortunately, it appears that Image:Nebraskastateseal.jpg will have to be removed from Commons... :-\ – Swid ^{(talk | edits)} 15:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, providing someone nominates it for deletion.... / Fred Chess 01:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe you will find the same with all 50 states. Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 02:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Pictures for The Simpsons (Drawed)

I've drawed a picture of Homer Simpson. Link are here: 1
The question is: can I upload it on the commons? we've discussed a bit on no:WP, and the conclution is that I probobly should have more personal touch on it. Now, what do you think? NorwegianMarcus 18:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think no. See this discussion about derivative works: Template:Deletion_requests#Various_Star_Wars_pictures. pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Like Pfctdayelise said -- illustrations of Simpsons characters are not accepted. It doesn't matter if you add a personal touch to it, it is still a derivatory work. / Fred Chess 21:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Question about what is mine to licence

Let's say I take a picture of an object... let's say a chair. Can I then licence it as I please, having created it, or would it be copywritten by the manufacturer of the chair, since it is their design?

Another (maybe different) example - a photo I take of a store. My picture, but it contains their logo on the building. Copywritten or not?

In the event they -are-, and can't be used here, what sort of tag would I put on either if I were to upload them directly to Wikipedia (under fair use)? I'd feel weird listing a picture I took as {{logo}} (in the 2nd case), yet don't know what else it would be. -Goldom 04:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm only replying because no one more knowledgeable has replied yet... I don't know, but I think you own the copyright in both cases. --Amcbride 20:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It is generally agreed on that pictures of 3D objects such as chairs, tables and cars are OK. Photos of stores, even if the company logo is visible, are also OK. In both cases, the photographer created an independant work. / Fred Chess 20:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

use of PD-old

I have found some pictures that claim PD-old, but don't give an explanation such as when the author died. These pictures were published in 1930, so it seems possible, but kind of unlikely, that the author has been dead for 70 years. Is there anything I should do about this? Is there a tag for "someone please check this"? The source website is in a non-English language, so if there were such a tag, perhaps someone who spoke the language (I think it might be Catalan) could sort things out. Or do we just trust the uploader to have figured things out? Thanks. --Amcbride 20:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I suggest you contact an administrator who speaks Catalan. You can see Commons:List of administrators by language and look for "ca" (catalan). Regards, Fred Chess 21:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit to {{PD-USGov}}

I added this to the USGov template because I got tired of reclassifying and deleting images from states that people tagged as that. I admit it's not formatted or written very well, but I thought it might help... 68.39.174.238 03:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Good job. Thanks for your help, it is appreciated. pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you think something similar could be effected for the lic. picker to ensure that people see it when they tag such images? I suspect it would help cut down on alot of miscategorizations and later deletion red tape. 68.39.174.238 08:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how - it's a pretty small box. Can you think of a way? It's also hard to stop people who are determined to upload something under a certain license. They will ignore a dozen warnings. (People even pick "I don't know" and they still leave their image there with a big red deletion notice! Bizarre.) If you notice repeat offendors please explain to them what mistake they're making, and if they continue to upload wrong images, please alert an admin. Thanks, pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this restriction of U.S. state images. Can you provide a link to verify that? / Fred Chess 09:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It is correct. See Wikipedia:Public domain, or if you prefer off-Wikipedia confirmation, see [8] or [9]. U.S. copyright law has only an exemption for works of the federal government, but none for state governments. Lupo 20:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what it looks like now, but I'd suggest something like "PD - Work of the United States Federal (not State) Government", or somehow emphasising that it has to be the FEDERAL org, not some state or local one. 68.39.174.238 18:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It already says "Original work of the US Federal Government - public domain". (You can see the license selector text here: MediaWiki:Licenses) pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd just as ", NOT state," after "Federal", but that may make it too long as well... 68.39.174.238 10:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've also noticed that a large fraction of the images labelled PD-USGov are images which were not created by US government employees, but have simply been displayed on US government websites. I think it is important to get the message across that images from US government websites (e.g. NASA) are often not created by US government employees and are often copyright. Rnt20 11:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: See also Template_talk:PD-USGov for a discussion of PD applicability of PD-USGov works in non-US jurisdictions. Tomos 10:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Embedding your name

Is it ok to have your name (as the photographer) embedded in small writing in the bottom right corner of photos taken by yourself?

Kris 07:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It's fine, but please understand that all licenses allowed here MUST allow derivative works. This means there is nothing to stop anyone cropping your name off. But they might not bother. Of course you are fully credited on the image description page, which is linked to by almost all image uses. pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Ontario Highway Shields

I had been discussing it elsewhere but forgot about the Commons talk page here. I'm thinking about uploading Ontario King's Highway shields. I uploaded two already before remembering the page, so before I go any further, I would like to get a better answer than what I've gotten so far. The two I've uploaded so far I've tagged under Canada's 50-year Crown Copyright rule. However, I also plan to upload a shield for the MC Freeway, and was designated and signed less than 50 years ago.

Does anyone have a definite answer concerning the copyright status of Ontario highway shields before I make a more serious mistake than I have now? --WhosAsking 19:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Works derived from other works licensed under GFDL

I recently uploaded Image:ITV_regions_map2.png which was adapted from this image which was licensed under GFDL. I was wondering if someone who is capable of actually understanding what the GFDL entails (a feat that is unfortunately beyond me) could tell me whether or not I've fulfilled the requirements of the license as things stand, and also whether the work I created also has to be licensed under GFDL or whether I can license it under {{self2|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}}? --Daduzi 22:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

As you provided a backlink to the original file, you fulfilled the requirement of preserving history, so in my opinion, it's fine. I've done it like that a lot of times. GFDL is a viral license, so no - you can't multilicense it if it was available only under GFDL. ~~helix84 00:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Question about licensing found images

I was looking for images of Senate House, London, and found two that very nice high resolution pictures ([10] [11]), which come from this page. On the top of the page the author states: "Feel free to reproduce these photos on other sites; all I ask is that you credit me as the photographer and make a link back to www.zardoz.net." My question is: is this statement alone justification to put it up here, properly sourced, under CC Attribution-Sharealike 2.5, GDFL or a similar license, or do I still need to get explicit permission from the creator? --Daduzi 16:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You can't choose a license on behalf of the author. Only they can state specific licenses such as the ones you mentioned. I suggest you use Commons:Email templates to get the right permission (ask them to use CC-BY-SA, that's the best in my opinion) and forward it to permissions@wikimedia.org . Then there will be no problems at all. pfctdayelise (translate?) 16:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've sent an email. My one worry is that the page hasn't been updated in over 2 years. If I don't hear back from the site owner is there any way to use the images on here based on the statement he made on his page? --Daduzi 20:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

At the bottom he also has "All rights reserved". So although he authorises reproduction we can't assume he's also happy with commercial use and derviative works. So, best to get the full permission. pfctdayelise (translate?) 22:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)