|
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) |
---|
Archives |
||
---|---|---|
|
||
- How to add a copyright tag to an existing image
- On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page.
- From the page Wikipedia:Image copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag:
- For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators".
- For a work downloaded from the internet, please understand that the vast majority of images from the internet are not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. Exceptions include images from flickr that have an acceptable license, images that are in the public domain because of their age or because they were created by the United States federal government, or images used under a claim of fair use. If you do not know what you are doing, please post a link to the image here and ask BEFORE uploading it.
- For an image created by someone else who has licensed their image under the GFDL, an acceptable Creative Commons license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information.
- Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{GFDL-self}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page.
- Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}})
- Hit Save page.
- If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below.
- How to ask a question
- To ask a new question hit the "Click here to ask your question" link above.
- Please sign your question by typing
~~~~
at the end. - Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page.
- Don't include your email address, for your own privacy. We will respond here and cannot respond by email.
- Note for those replying to posted questions
If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template {{mcq-wrong}} and, if possible, leave a note on the poster's talk page. For copyright issues relevant to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally, questions may be directed to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.
Contents
- 1 User-generated image issue
- 2 UN global goals logo
- 3 File's description page
- 4 Orphaned Image Question
- 5 File:Pyotr Genrikhovich Tiedemann and Adelaida Mikhailovna Skriabin.PNG
- 6 Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Designer Margaret Howell.jpg
- 7 Do Public Domain Images require credits?
- 8 Requesting access to flickr photos
- 9 Book cover art from author's site?
- 10 The monkey selife...
- 11 Grave photo
- 12 United_Party_of_Canada logo violating copyright of Liberal_Democrats
- 13 Images with unknown copyright and origin
- 14 My Own Barnstar
- 15 Need to have image taken down immediately for copyright reasons
User-generated image issue
An editor created the image File:Cordlesslarrybffjpg.jpg and, following some previous advice I had given them, tagged it with the cc-by-sa-3.0 licence. However, the image was still tagged for deletion. It was only created to thank me on my user talk page, but could someone indulge my vanity and explain what, if anything, needs to be done to address the tag? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- You need to answer the questions in the tag, first and foremost.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- The image was created by Asdiprizio, who uploaded it. I would have thought the fact that they gave it a cc-by-sa-3.0 tag would make this clear, but perhaps not? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, the bot cannot tell that. Also, for reuse purposes images need to have this information on the file page.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus. So can I add that information, or does Asdiprizio need to do it? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, the bot cannot tell that. Also, for reuse purposes images need to have this information on the file page.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- The image was created by Asdiprizio, who uploaded it. I would have thought the fact that they gave it a cc-by-sa-3.0 tag would make this clear, but perhaps not? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
this photo it's related to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammednafea (talk • contribs) 10:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- File:Cordlesslarrybffjpg.jpg? Are you sure, Mohammednafea? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Cordless Larry. I don't think Mohammednafea was referring to that particular image. I believe they were trying to ask a question about images they were trying to upload per my suggestion in User talk:Mohammednafea#Wikipedia's image use policy. They seem to be a fairly new user who might not be too familiar with how to post on noticeboards such as MCQ. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Marchjuly, I sort of suspected that. They now seem to have been blocked for persistent copyright violations.
- Hi Cordless Larry. I don't think Mohammednafea was referring to that particular image. I believe they were trying to ask a question about images they were trying to upload per my suggestion in User talk:Mohammednafea#Wikipedia's image use policy. They seem to be a fairly new user who might not be too familiar with how to post on noticeboards such as MCQ. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Cordless Larry (talk) 06:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC) hi and thank you once again gallant knight Sir Cordless Larry. I must say it surprised me that anyone cared about a nearly non-existent newby and I had dashed off mildly harmed by a user calling himself Dennis who deleted my user page in Wikipedia Commons. in fact he deleted every image I posted and wikipedia, once a wonderland, nearly anarchic but "not an experiment" in such, became a hinterland and I was banished from Commons {bot warned not to attempt to re-animate my userpage in commons-topia. and there is my tale of woa/whoa. I have not returned but for this. a dear stranger now friend, Cordless Larry who should live in Wiki Commons forever in whatever copyrighted land he desires. because is the personal not also political, said the jester to the community-is-king. Asdiprizio (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
to be clear, I submitted images I created on wikipedia commons using the creative commons license. all images and my wiki commons page were deleted due to copyright violations, but I quite clearly labeled them with creative commons license when prompted to do so. any person who says "the bot doesn't know the difference" needs to really think about the ramifications of such a cavalier attitude regarding the rise of bot sock army. humble suggestion. Asdiprizio (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- True. Generally the administrators processing the deletion requests have to control that the deletion reason still applies. Out of curiosity, from where did your images come from?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
UN global goals logo[edit]
I wish to use the logo of the UN global goals on Sustainable development goals - can I do this and if so can someone help me upload? JMWt (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- A wider question is whether the licensing of the current image, File:Logo of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development.jpg, is inaccurate given that it does not appear to fall into any of the categories on the {{PD-UN}} licensing template. I presume the logo you are referring to is this one? If so, it dovetails nicely into the conversation about the accuracy of the above license. Further, do you intend on replacing the current image on the article with the one you propose? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- that's right, I am suggesting replacing the existing logo with the correct one. The link I gave above is to the license on their website, if that makes any difference.JMWt (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Given that, the asset license makes it clear the logo is not compatible with our free license standards, and would have to be tagged as non-free. I concur it should replace the currently used logo (which is about an event, not the organization). --Hammersoft (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Surely this is a clear example where {{PD-textlogo}} applies? It only comprises some blocks of colour arranged in a circle and some plain text. ww2censor (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
-
-
File's description page
How do I change information on a file's description page? (This is regarding Copyright ownership of a image I uploaded) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithr32 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Just edit the file description page. The edit buttons are on the top bar.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
-
- (edit conflict) Just click on the edit button at the top of the image page, BUT it looks like this is a copyright image as tineye finds 199 copies online, including one on this NBC News webpage that clearly attributes it to Microsoft. So, I've go to ask, who took the photo and did they give you a free licence to use it? If the answer is no, then it will be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 13:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned Image Question
I had written a draft article about an Artist – Susan Eleanor Boulet (Susan Seddon Boulet) – in my own personal Wikipedia space; it was here: User:Mbabco/Susan Eleanor Boulet (Susan Seddon Boulet) . I subsequently moved it to here: Draft:Susan Eleanor Boulet (Susan Seddon Boulet)
I added some images of her art work under Fair use and received this message: However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia." The following tag was added to the top of the file: di-orphaned fair use|date=24 September 2015}}
What do I need to do to let the bot know it IS in an article. I can't find a list of tags that I might add to replace the {{di-orphaned one above nor can I find a way to notify whoever needs to know that it is in an article.
Any help is appreciated. Apologies if I overlooked the info somewhere. I'm new to Wikipedia and just learning to navigate things. I've placed it in this area because the issue seems related to the fact that I'm requesting fair-use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbabco (talk • contribs) 21:16, 26 September 2015
- Well the images you uploaded are derivative works and so require both a copyright licence for the photo and for the artwork itself. Unfortunately you have neither. The artist has not been dead ling enough for her work to have fallen into the public domain, so her heirs would need to give you permission to use any image taken by you or others under a free licence that we accept. You claim the use of these images as "fair use" but we have a much stricter standard for non-free image which must comply with all 10 non-free media content policy guidelines because of our goal of providing only free content, as in copyright free. Some language wikis do not allow any copyright media at all. Generally you may see the use of one image in an artists article to show an example of their work but any image will really need some critical commentary about the work or its style, preferable sourced by reliable third parties which is an acceptable non-free use. You may need to find out where some of her images are and take a photo yourself, so the photo can be released by you under a free licence but the painting will still be a non-free image for which a rationale can be written. BTW, we do not allow the use of non-free image on any pages that are not mainspace, so until your article goes live any such image will be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
File:Pyotr Genrikhovich Tiedemann and Adelaida Mikhailovna Skriabin.PNG[edit]
Is the above photo, taken in 1902, in the public domain? It was almost certainly taken in Russia. The caption in the source says "(Photo: O. F. German)", which I take to be the photographer. Unfortunately, it's almost impossible to search a name like "O. F. German" online. It is unclear from the source if the photo was merely among the personal effects of the man in the photo and never before published prior to 1995, but it seems likely. Srnec (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- If the photograph was first published in 1995, then the copyright expires 70 years after the death of 'O. F. German' or on 1 January 2048, whichever is later. See c:COM:HIRTLE. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Designer Margaret Howell.jpg[edit]
Hello, I have uploaded an image to 'Margaret Howell' but just received an email stating 'Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Designer Margaret Howell.jpg' I'm not quite sure how to solve this. The image is not my image, but I have referenced the image - and have included a link of where it came from. Please could you talk me through what I need to do incase the image is taken down? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steph Davies (talk • contribs) 2015-09-28T12:37:56
- There is no evidence that the depicted person is dead. Per WP:NFC#UUI §1, you will need to provide evidence of this or see the picture deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Do Public Domain Images require credits?[edit]
I upload the image (Baitul Futuh) around 8 years ago and didn't know anything about copyright and simply put it as public domain. Now due to recent events and generally a lot of different websites are using my photo without permission, which I think is correct as it is in the public domain. However, are you allowed to use these photos without crediting the author? I've seen it even in TV Commercials recently without anything ever mentioning my name. Thanks.--195.212.199.56 (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Unfortunately yes, PD removes any sense of ownership or crediting because the public owns the image for all purposes, and there's unfortunately little that can be done now. However, if you do submit again, you can use the Creative Commons licensing which is as good for us in terms of free-ness of images, but also gives you appropriate copyright acknowledgement (particularly CC-BY - that your contribution is required to be documented somehow). --MASEM (t) 14:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Can I change the licence now or would it have to be deleted and uploaded again? I'm not thinking of deleting and uploading it because I was the first one to upload it and that evidence would be gone if I was to remove it. So, is changing the licence allowed/possible? The 'damage' has been done, but I would like to prevent any new articles from using my image without credit. Is there any way I can do this? --195.212.199.56 (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Attribution rules vary from country to country. In many countries, it is mandatory to attribute the author in many situations at least until the copyright expires due to moral rights. Copyright is normally mandatory and can't be cancelled by uploading a file with a {{PD-self}} template, but expires a number of years after the death of the photographer, and you are obviously not dead yet. The {{PD-self}} template acts as a licence which allows people to do a lot with the picture. However, the author's possibilities to license the moral rights tends to be limited, and there might be situations in some countries where the author can't grant a licence which allows people to use the picture without attribution, at least not in the form of a general licence such as {{PD-self}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
-
- Thanks to both of you. I guess there isn't much that can be done now. I just need to make sure I pay more attention when uploading images in the future. --195.212.199.56 (talk) 08:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Requesting access to flickr photos
I want to use this photo for Alberto Moreno. However the picture says all rights reserved. I have a flickr account. How exactly should I go about requesting to the user/owener of the image if I can use the image? thanks--Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 23:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Shreeraitheusthor. You might find the information you're looking for at Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. If you do get in contact with the copyright holder, then you might suggest they check out Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials so that they understand what a "free license" means. Another thing to try is to post a request for a photo of Alberto Moreno (footballer) at c:Commons:Picture requests. It's quite possible that somebody there can take a photo of Moreno for you and upload it to Commons. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
-
- In Flickr each user has a contact point, listed under the "More" button as Flickrmail. You can them to change the licence to one we accept but don't hold your breath as I have waited over a year for a positive reply and some never reply. If that fails and even so it may be a more fruitful option to find a freely licenced image of Alberto Moreno elsewhere or dig deeper on Flickr. Have you seen this image on the commons; File:Alberto Moreno.jpg? ww2censor (talk) 09:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- @Marchjuly and Ww2censor: Thanks for your suggestions. I have contacted the Flckr user. I have seen the Moreno images already used on his page but wanted a current one of him at Liverpool. I will see what the user says thanks.--Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
-
Book cover art from author's site?
Just double-checking, but is it acceptable to use cover art for a novel which the author has on their personal website? I'm looking for an image for an article draft I'm currently working on, and the other Wikipedia articles about books in the series have all gotten them from this one site. I just want to be sure, though, and I can't find any way to contact the author to ask for her permission (though I suspect the publisher owns the rights anyway, and I can't find the right contact info for them either). Thanks in advance. 2ReinreB2 (talk) 06:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hi 2ReinreB2. Book and album covers, etc. are often uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content. You may be able to do the same if the cover you wish to use satisfies Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. Please note, however, that all 10 of the criteria need to be satisfied and that criterion number 9 (WP:NFCC#9) states that non-free content may only be used in the article namespace. In other words, non-free content cannot be used in drafts, on userpages, on talk pages, etc. Therefore, I highly recommend that you wait until your article has been accepted before uploading the cover to Wikipedia if you decide to go the non-free route. For reference, "non-free" on Wikipedia typically refers to content which is protected by copyright or only made available subject to certain restrictions imposed by the original copyright holder, whereas "free" generally refers to content which has been freely licensed for use by anyone for any purpose. Neither word on Wikipedia is related to the cost or lack thereof associated with procuring the image. So, even if you can download the image "free of charge", it may (and often likely is) considered to be "non-free" for Wikipedia purposes. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- You should also be aware that non-free book covers are generally only acceptable in articles about that title and not in the author's article, but from your contributions it looks like you are improving actual book articles, so you should be ok. When you do upload the image make sure to use both a fully completed {{Non-free use rationale book cover}} and a {{non-free book cover}} template (click on the links to see how to use them). ww2censor (talk) 10:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Another possibility, is that as the author has a website he may well included a link where you can contact him – authors love feed-back. Ask him if he is willing to email and ask the artist (who designed the cover) click on this link: [1] and email in a OTRS to us. Pointing out that artists love to get examples of their work to a larger audience, and to have just 'one' book cover artwork placed on a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International copyright license is a win-win situation for all. The artist, the author, Wikipedia, Wikimedia et, al. Try it .--Aspro (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Another thought, is to think out side the box. For instance, We have an article on the John Rocco who does brilliant covers for authors like Rick Riordan. If you wanted to request an OTRS off of him for instance, you could leave a message on the Talk:John Rocco talk page and hope that he may see it. Everybody reads Wikipedia and creative people are no diffrent. They are rightfully proud of what they do and often like to see some feed-back. So, if we have an article on the artist that create the cover that your looking for, he may well be looking at it and reply – or maybe he won't. Yet, at least ask. Actual, John Rocco is a good example as we have no examples of his work. It maybe that he controls his work very closely because this is his livelihood. However, we can guarantee that he can retain his copyright to anything uploaded under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.--Aspro (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Given industry practice, the strong odds are that the copyright is tightly held by the publisher, not the author nor yet the designer. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Another thought, is to think out side the box. For instance, We have an article on the John Rocco who does brilliant covers for authors like Rick Riordan. If you wanted to request an OTRS off of him for instance, you could leave a message on the Talk:John Rocco talk page and hope that he may see it. Everybody reads Wikipedia and creative people are no diffrent. They are rightfully proud of what they do and often like to see some feed-back. So, if we have an article on the artist that create the cover that your looking for, he may well be looking at it and reply – or maybe he won't. Yet, at least ask. Actual, John Rocco is a good example as we have no examples of his work. It maybe that he controls his work very closely because this is his livelihood. However, we can guarantee that he can retain his copyright to anything uploaded under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.--Aspro (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
-
-
The monkey selife...
Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your blog. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
It's in the news again but more importantly, it's in a song... http://gabrielquotes.org.uk/2015/09/29/morley-academy/#monkeyselfie --Gabrielquotes (talk) 09:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC) |
Grave photo
Do we have the right to publish a grave photograph, i.e. File:Alekos Panagoulis.jpg ?--Vagrand (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- While the photo is so small to be de minimis in the original image, cropping it makes it no longer de minimis. Greek copyright lasts for 70 years pma but we don't know who took it or when, or if it was even published. Besides which the subject died a young man of 36 in 1976, so this image is at most around 50 years old even if taken when he was 20 though he looks older than that. Based on the facts this image is copyright but could be used here as a non-free image and on those wikis that allow such usage. I'm not sure the other 7 uses can use a non-free image. You should move it here because I will tag it for deletion on the commons. ww2censor (talk) 13:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
United_Party_of_Canada logo violating copyright of Liberal_Democrats
While the fair use rational for the logo on the United Party of Canada page may be valid with respect to being the logo of that party, I think the party's use of it also violates the copyright of the Liberal Democrats. Is there grounds for removing it while the copyright status is clarified? Otus scops (talk) 09:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- While you may be right, the trademark (not copyright) violation is not on our part, but on the part of the UPC. I see no reason why this nullifies our fair-use rationale for the logo's use in the UPC article. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Mike. I thought that might be the case, but I wanted to be sure. Otus scops (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Images with unknown copyright and origin
Editor Osmond Phillips, a very new editor, has uploaded a number of images in the recent past, purportedly of notable American western figures. These images are all part of the so-called Phillips Collection. The collection of "over 200 photos" is reported to have been found by two individuals in the Downtown Antique Mall in Checotah, Oklahoma somewhere between 1995 and 1997. The images are claimed to be of famous Western figures including "Doc Holliday, Big Nose Kate, Wyatt Earp, Josephine Earp, Mattie Earp, the Clanton's, Johnny Behan, John Clum, Jesse James, the Younger Brothers, the Masterson family, and others." The owner of the images independently deduced "that the collection might have been compiled by Frank Phillips [who founded the Phillips Petroleum Company] because there may be photos of Mr. Phillips or his family mixed into the collection."
Phillips has uploaded the images to Commons stating that they were all taken prior to 1923, but Phillips has not provided any proof of this. I truly believe that some of the pictures are in fact of the individuals stated. The likenesses are very clear, though in a few instances, less so. I'd really like to help get the images accepted as valid. They are a wonderful contribution to the historic lore about the individuals who they are supposed to be pictures of. I think the collection itself is notable and may merit an WP article itself.
However, because Phillipes is the uploader of the images, it's obvious his simple declaration of their provenance, that the images are all pre-1923, and that they are of the people stated does not appear to be sufficient meet WP image use policy.
Issues:
- Phillips isn't the creator, so she or he can't release them into the public domain.
- There isn't any evidence to conclusively prove the images were produced prior to 1923.
- Phillips hasn't provided any sources to substantiate that the images are of the individuals named.
I've asked Phillips to provide some third-party sources to establish that the images were taken before 1923, or proof that the studio on the image closed before 1923, or other evidence. I suggest that he provide third-party expert opinion that the images are of the individuals named, or other evidence that the person's names were written on the images, etc.
As the owner of the images, if Phillips can clearly establish the authenticity of images of famous historical figures, Phillips could be greatly rewarded financially. Because this is a complex issue, due diligence is required.
What standards should WP apply in this instance? — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 23:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Just a note that, no matter what the case, to be PD under PD-1923 the images would not only have to have been taken before 1923, but also published. US copyright law determines copyright based on year of first publication. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Authenticity above all else seems important here. Even if we can't support the date, but can verify these are photos of the people they are claimed to be of, that means where we lack free media we should be able to use these as non-free (at worst assumption) to depict the persons of those articles. If they do end up both authentic and pre-1923 or in PD, even better. How to judge authenticity is something that I'm not sure how WP can go about, short of either Phillips getting an ORTS statement to that regard (to protect privacy, etc.) or having an expert in the field review the pictures for authenticity. I would think that if this has been a find that has existed for some time and publically known, there would have been a great deal of interest in it before, as well, to judge that. --MASEM (t) 23:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
-
- Surely some of these image, if never published, are only copyright for 120 years, so images such as File:Dave Rudabaugh.jpg who died in 1886 and File:Johnny Ringo.jpeg for example should be in the public domain? Images for people who died before 1895 would all fall under the same situation but others are a different matter and need more verification. ww2censor (talk) 09:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- That's assuming the uploaded image is actually Dave Rudabaugh. The provenance of the images is largely uncertain. Phillips hasn't yet revealed how they know if this image (and the others) are of the person named. This collection of images was found in a couple of photo albums in an antique store. Some of the images were loose and unmounted. No one has stated if they images were labeled or not. Should WP rely on the statements of Osmond Phillips as fact? — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 17:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- MASEM, if an ORTS statement were sufficient, do we need one for each image? And what would it say under these circumstances? — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 17:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- One ORTS statement would be sufficient to cover them all (they would all need to be linked in that message). I'm not saying that that's necessarily going to be the accepted statement but it would be start to discretely keep the person's information private to only the ORTS list but engage with them to verify the validity of the photos (and not that they may be actors or well-done photoshopped images). -MASEM (t) 17:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- MASEM, if an ORTS statement were sufficient, do we need one for each image? And what would it say under these circumstances? — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 17:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
-
-
My Own Barnstar
I have created my own barnstar by editing the original barnstar in paint. How should I correctly upload it? Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 10:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- There are a lot of different versions of the original barnstar with different licences. Please show us the original file you used for making your own version so we can determine whether it should be a "share-alike" version of Creative Commons. Generally you should upload it at Wikimedia Commons under a free license of your choice and credit the source file and its author. De728631 (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Need to have image taken down immediately for copyright reasons
Hello,
I need the following image taken down ASAP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Triple9_poster.jpg. This image is not available to the public yet and it needs to be taken down. Please help.
Jamie