image verification and copyright status

Archives: The beginning through April 22, 2005 April 22, 2005 to August 3, 2005 August 3, 2005 to November 4, 2005 November 5, 2005 to January 24, 2006

Received your message and agree that the image should be deleted. Thanks for the explanation; the future I'll excercise more caution with copyright information before uploading. Kybard 17:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message, Carnildo. I appreciate your commitment to the Wikipedia community. I was just searching for the page on Wikipedia and was unable to locate it. Do you know if it was deleted or changed significantly? I will attempt to find an image with better copywright information for the page (if it exists anymore) soon. Adam 15:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carnildo, I realised after I uploaded the image that I didn't choose a proper licensing, so instead I renamed the pic and reuploaded it, going through all the proper steps. Please feel free to delete the above image as it is invalid. I can't figure out how I can add information to it regarding copyright or to change copyright information. --jennyarata 15:42, 10 February 2006 (PST)

Hi, I edited the image based on Image:WritingSystemsoftheWorld2.png which has been released into the public domain by User:Kwanikagami, the original author. I don't know how to edit the copyright status-- how might I do so? --Denihilonihil 13:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Click on a link to the image or a use of the image in an article to bring up the image description page, and select "edit this page". Replace the current license template (which looks to be {{GFDL}} right now) with {{PD}}. You should probably also include a link to the previous version of the image. --Carnildo 08:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image is originally two promotional images, they were put together for comparison, both individual images have been approved on wikipedia. I got the new image from a website which is listed on the image page. So I don't know what the right tag is. --Killingthedream 08:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depends. What is it going to be used for? --Carnildo 03:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but I clearly stated that I was writing to the Council for further explaination of its legality. I am currently waiting for a responce. Thanks. Ram32110 21:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The website I located the image was the Official Oddworld Website. An exact copy can also be found in their book, "The Art of Oddworld." --Nepharski

I think fair use might apply in this case, but would you please make sure? Please get back in touch with me when you do so. Many thanks. — Diamantina 11:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the photo was first published in 1914 (or at any other time before 1923), then it's in the public domain. — Carnildo 21:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The photo was produced circa 1914 (it has been stated in books that the photo was produced circa 1914: judging from the style of Venetia Stanley's clothes, the style of photography and the age of Venetia Stanley, I agree with that assertion), but I do not know if it was published before 1923.

It is possible that the photo was published pre-1923 (e.g., newspaper stories announcing Venetia Stanley's engagement to Edwin Samuel Montagu in 1915). However, extensive research would have to be done to verify publication. This would be impractical for me to do. The only British newspaper of the period that I could gain access to with relative ease are microfilms of The Times, and I do not know if The Times published photographs in engagement and wedding announcements of its social section in 1915.

The photo of Venetia Stanley has been widely reproduced since the publication of Roy Jenkins' biography of Herbert Henry Asquith in 1964, which is where I first saw the photo.

More generally, if a work that was produced pre-1923 was not published until after 1923, does the work still fall in the public domain? Please advise. Many thanks. — Diamantina 22:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For works created in the United States, unlikely. There are some other reasons why a work published after 1923 can be in the public domain, but "published before 1923" is reasonably absolute. A fairly comprehensive chart of what is and is not public domain in the United States is at http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_Public_Domain.htm — Carnildo 08:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The photo of Venetia Stanley was created in the UK. I read the chart per your suggestion and scrolled down to the "Works Created Outside the US" section.

Recent reproductions of the photo state "Courtesy of Milton Gendel" (Venetia Stanley's son-in-law, an American art historian living in Rome), but without a copyright sign. If the photo was first published post-1923, I assume that Gendel and his daughter Anna Mathias (Venetia Stanley's granddaughter) hold the copyright.

How could research be done to verify that the photo was published pre-1923? How regularly were photographs of socialites (who happened to be peers' daughters and married to Cabinet ministers, like Venetia Stanley) printed in the British press in the 1910s? Do you know of anybody who might be able to verify that for me? Many thanks. — Diamantina 01:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Copyright to British Crown Copyright.

P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 21:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this image, the Royal Burgh classification seems to be obsolete. I have emailed North Ayrshire Council to ask them to clarify any issues they may have Douglasnicol 13:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That one can be deleted; I've just realised I uploaded the picture twice, one was with the "this is an album/single cover" status, and one without any copyright information. The correct picture with description is on the page. PiffPuffPickle 19:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)PiffPuffPickle[reply]

• Carnildo,

I know that you need to check the copyright of the pictures posted here but please understand that LP covers are of public domain, everyone can show the cover of an LP that is available everywhere in the net and on record stores online etc.

• Carnildo,

Unfortunatly all I know of the images are included in the summery. While I am familiar with Wikipedia's copyright policy, I did place the Don't know template so that someone more qualified then myself would be able to determine its copyright status. The book, a 1999 reprint of Herbert Asbury's "The Gangs of New York", was published in 1926 with the majority of the images from various publications of the period including newpapers, magazines, and police and court records (principaly from the NYPD archives taken well before 1920). Although I would hazard a guess at the publisher, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., the book itself states no specific copyright on the images themselves. If no one is able determine its copyright status, the other images from the same source are at Benny Fein (Image:Fein.jpg) and Owney Madden (Image:OMadden.jpg). User:MadMax 12:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carnildo.

My compliments on your map of Europe during World War I. It is a really good image. But, as you have noted yourself, the borders on the Balkans are incorrect and show the 1911 situation. Have you seen this map? It is a 1923 version of Shepherd's map, and shows the situation following the Second Balkan War, so it has the correct 1914 borders. Please ignore its headline, it only shows the correct situation between 1912 and 1914. The relevant changes are:

• Greece has been vastly expanded on the mainland and now shares a border with Serbia, Bulgaria, and Albania. Greece has also acquired Crete and almost all of the Aegean Islands.
• Italy has acquired the Dodecanese islands (i.e. Rhodes and a few minor islands) from Turkey.
• Serbia and Montenegro have both expanded and now share a common border.
• Bulgaria has been expanded slightly (to the south west east) and has acquired access to the Aegean Sea.
• Albania has become independent. Albania was officially neutral in World War I.
• Romania has acquired a small strip of territory from north eastern Bulgaria.

Otherwise it is a very good map. Keep up the good work. Regards. --Valentinian 15:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that Cyprus was annexed by the UK as soon as war broke out. Since it had been under de facto British control since 1878, it is always shown as an Allied territory. Regards --Valentinian 15:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mark. I'd like to let you know that hiding unsourced images which are pending to be removed (e.g. [1]) doesn't help. Ordinary readers who're not editing the articles never know there're such images in the articles, and they've no way to help look for copyright information in order to put on the tags onto the image description pages. I've created {{speedy-image-c}} for your bot to apply to the captions. IMHO, it's gonna be a much better way than hiding the images. Thanks. — Instantnood 17:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thought I would let you know that OrphanBot removed an image that was relased by its artist under GFDL licence [here.] It appears the that artist, Kils, did not properly tag it in the first place, so OrphanBot was confused as a result.

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 07:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your robot are removing many of the images by one of Wikipedias best and most recognized photographers, Uwe Kils. Kils has clearly marked the images as gfdl self, although he does not use the tag. Please restore all of his images immediately! -- Egil 07:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't deleted a single image. OrphanBot removed exactly one of Uwe Kils' images from a few articles. --Carnildo 07:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your robot (hopefully) acts by the exact instructions you gave it, it does not have a will of its own, it is doing what you want. You cannot blame your robot. -- Egil 07:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the exact instructions were to "orphan all images in Category:Images with unknown copyright status and all subcategories that have been tagged for more than five days, or if tagged without a date, were uploaded more than five days ago. For all images, notify the uploader if there is no evidence of a notification already, and OrphanBot has not notified them about an image recently. For all images acted upon, save a local copy of the image in case deleting the image turns out to have been a mistake." OrphanBot is performing exactly as specified. If you feel that blame is needed, blame User:Admrboltz, who tagged the image as "no license". --Carnildo 08:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for getting ya dragged into this Carnido! I didnt notice that GFDL-self was in the upload summary, but not in the actual image page when i tagged it. Keep up the good work, and dont let OrphanBot die! --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 06:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carnildo, OrphanBot notified me about Image:Riots.jpg, but I just reverted the image. Can you make the logic of finding the uploader handle this? Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on it. It's a bit tricky, as I'll need to tell a revert from a re-upload, while not picking a vandalized image to notify on. --Carnildo 05:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seconding this request, see Image:Paudsrr.jpg -- Norvy (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a better understanding of fair-use than I do (or at least you do a good job looking like you do, heh). So I thought I'd run this hypothetical by you and get your comment:

Bob wants to add an image of a character from a videogame to an article. Bob finds the image on a website (let's say it's one of those tripod.com user sites). Bob takes the image and uploads it to Wikipedia. The website has a copyright notice on it (though the absence of one doesn't change the permission issue, this much I know).

Is the image Bob uploaded usable on Wikipedia under fair-use? If not, what's the best way to take care of such images? The images would be fair-use if Bob created the images himself (at least, this is my understanding of how things work now), but the fact that Bob got the images from a third party (which asserts copyright on the page) muddies the issue a bit (to me anyways). Still fair-use; usable on Wikipedia?

Thanks for your time. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

Assuming this is a cropped screenshot and not promotional artwork, the situation is complicated. The maker of the video game certainly has a share in the copyright, as the creator of the game artwork. The person who created the screenshot may also have a copyright, for any creative effort involved in posing the scene for the screenshot. And if there are any mods applied to the game, the mod maker could also have a copyright claim.

Bottom line, it would be a whole lot simpler if the screenshot were created specifically for Wikipedia. --Carnildo 05:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. And FWIW, the images in question are from Tekken and are cropped/transparent character shots. It sounds like, from the above, that simply taking these from a website would be inadvisable. Thanks again. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 06:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have that image uploaded on my page anymore. Thet was ages ago I did that. If I'm mistaken, please correct me.--Calvinsupergenius 16:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC) your bot messaged me

--Calvinsupergenius 16:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)==Call off your bot!==[reply]

your bot gave me a message about putting a picture on my page that I deleted a month ago, and Gadfium told me that it was going to delete my page if I didn't do something soon. Yor bot is malfuntioning!--Calvinsupergenius 19:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanBot does not delete images or pages. The warning was that an administrator is likely to delete the image soon if adequate source and copyright information is not provided. --Carnildo 05:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't have that image to be deleted.--Calvinsupergenius 19:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is your bot going to do to my page?

Nothing.

I won't get in trouble for posting a picture without knowing the copyright status, will I? They won't kick me off Wikipedia for it, Will they?

Bkissin 20:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not if it's only a few pictures, and not if it's clearly a mistake. There have been people who've been banned for it, but they've uploaded hundreds of pictures, or have continued to upload problem images despite repeated warnings, or are uploading pictures for their personal use rather than for adding to the encyclopedia. You don't have anything to worry about. --Carnildo 21:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You left a message on my user talk to the effect that I had uploaded an image FlueGas2.gif without indicating the copyright. I very clearly stated that I had made that image myself using the Paint program supplied with WindowsXP. I have never copyrighted it and that is why I left the copyright information blank. As far as I am concerned, anyone may use it for any purpose they desire. Am I legally the copyright holder by default? If so, feel free to add that information to the image or wherever it should be so noted.

Thanks and please let me know what I should do about some other images that I uploaded which were all similarly made by myself and which I have never copyrighted ... all of which anyone is free to use as they desire. I am very new to Wiki, so please explain what I have to do (if anything) and how to do it in very detailed, simple terms. mbeychok 06:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you created the image, you're the copyright holder. If you don't care what people do with the image, I'd recommend a license of "No rights reserved". The option for that is near the top of the dropdown menu on the upload page, and for images that have already been uploaded, you can indicate it by placing the {{NoRightsReserved}} tag on the page. Make sure you remove any "no license" or "unknown license" tags from the page when you do so. You can see a list of images you've uploaded at [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&offset=0&limit=50&target=Mbeychok&namespace=6], and an example of the proper tagging is at Image:FlueGas2.gif. --Carnildo 07:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion is acted upon on 7 days. Adding that tag at image pages uploaded by students during holidays will most likely get the image deleted before they come back and finds the note. Please do NOT mark images for speedy deletion unless you check the user page!

Thank you.

— John Erling Blad (no) 08:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanBot does not mark images for deletion. All it does is remove them from any articles they're in, and notify the uploader. --Carnildo 04:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, my viewpoint of the image that you questioned of the copyright status has changed. I would be happy to have it deleted, rather. Mr Tan 13:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carnildo. I've just been left a message from your Bot on my UserPage about this image. It's not one of mine, I just lightened and adjusted it a little. The picture was uploaded by user User talk:Poldiri who doesn't appear to have used his/her Talk Page since 2004. Judging from the file metadata I would assume that they took the picture themselves, but I can't be sure. Regards, Ian Dunster 13:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were notified because you were the most recent uploader listed for the image. OrphanBot can't tell the difference between image tweaking and a brand-new image, and currently can't tell the difference between a revert and a new image, so it just picks the most recent uploader and notifies them.

I've tagged the image as GFDL-presumed, since the metadata is consistent with the other two images User:Poldiri uploaded, which are explicitly stated as GFDL-self. --Carnildo 05:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original message left on my user talk page by Orphan about the image that I had uploaded (FlueGas2.gif) said to contact Orphan if I had any questions ... but it didn't explain how to contact you. It took me quite a while to figure that out. May I suggest that such messages from Orphan explain just how to make contact? I am very new to Wiki and I like it very much. However, the one thing I have found to be annoying is that most of the help and the "tricks of the trade" seem to be written by computer science gurus for other computer science gurus. They badly need to be "dumbed down" for newcomers like myself.

I am a retired chemical engineer with over 50 years of experience and I believe I have much to contribute here. But I am finding that it takes days upon days upon days to learn all of the ins and outs of using Wiki markup and the etiquette of how to use Talk pages and Discussion pages. Perhaps, what is needed is a section called "Wiki for Dummies" which should be reviewed thoroughly by some relative newcomers before it is published.

One final question: am I allowed to archive the comments on my user talk page to avoid having it become too lengthy? If so, how do I do that?

Anyhow, thanks very much for helping me understand how to license my uploaded images.

mbeychok 18:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion of creating custom messages for OrphanBot to use. It's currently using the same boilerplate text that everyone else does. I should have thought of setting up custom templates when I was setting up OrphanBot, and I should have thought of it again when I created the custom message for one type of problem image.

On the subject of tips, tricks, and suchlike, I'm afraid I can't help. I'm a computer guru myself, and documentation isn't something I'm good at. You seem to be doing fairly well so far. If you've got any questions, feel free to ask me or anyone else.

As for archiving talk pages, there are three common ways people do it, depending on personal preference:

1. Some people simply blank the page periodically. This isn't considered good etiquette, though, as it gives the impression you've got something to hide.
2. Some people "archive to history": they blank all or part of the talk page, then create a link to the version just before the blanking. Finding the URL for the correct edit is done by clicking on the "history" tab at the top of the page, then looking for the edit just before you blanked it. This is the method I use to archive OrphanBot's talk page.
3. Some people create archive subpages: pages with names like User talk:Mbeychok/Archive 1. They then cut-and-paste some or all of the comments from their talk page to this new page, and put a link to it at the top of their talk page. This is the method I use to archive my talk page.

There are also other methods that are occasionally used, such as archiving to subpages based on topic rather than date, but these methods tend to be very uncommon. --Carnildo 05:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've just been left a message on my talk page about Image:Blue Devils 1949.jpg and the fact that I haven't provided source data. This is, clearly, bullshit! I marked the image with {{CanadaCopyright}} which has subsequently been replaced with {{no licence}} for whatever reason by User:JYolkowski. I'm not sure whether this is a problem with you/OrphanBot or with JYolkowski, but I'm kind of ticked about it because I've always been exactingly careful in image tagging. I've left a note JYolkowski's page to look here, so let's keep the conversation here for now so it doesn't get too confusing. -User:Lommer | ^talk 09:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just re-read my above message and it sounds a little rantish. I apologize if this is the case, it's probably partly because of my feelings on this sort of copyright issue wrt wikipedia in general (see my user page for my stance). -User:Lommer | ^talk 09:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see now why JYolkowski rm'd the CanadaCopyright tag (it's being deleted). This isn't a problem for you Carnildo or your bot so feel free to ignore all of the above. -User:Lommer | ^talk 09:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are really two non-philosophical problems with non-commercial images in Wikipedia:

1. Non-commercial images greatly limit what Wikipedia can do for fundraising. For example, the German Wikipedia, which allows neither fair use nor non-commercial images, gets a significant amount of funding from selling CDs of the encyclopedia.
2. Automated removal of images is anything but easy. OrphanBot is an attempt to automatically remove nosource and no-license images, and 10% of its code deals with the actual mechanics of removing images. Even so, it needs to flag about one image in 50 for human review, and about one image in 200 for human removal. There are several hundred thousand images on Wikipedia.

--Carnildo 09:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. There is however no problem with the image. It is simply a crop of an already existing WP GFDL image that was uploaded by the photographer. The original image is of a set of crown jewels. I cropped it to focus in on one crown, as allowed under the licence, because (a) the original image is alkward in size and shape, and (b) it enabled me to show the specific crown being talked about. Your bot seems not to recognise images where it is stated in the file that an image is a crop of an already existing image and wrongly thinks those images are orphans. At least however I was notified and I appreciate that. I have spent much of my time on Wikipedia of late undoing deletions of images that are perfectly valid but which were deleted by users who didn't actually read on the file that the image was valid, or where the image had been uploaded prior to current rules and where the problem could have been corrected in a five second fix to the categorisation, not whole scale deletion, but where no-one was informed that there was a apparent problem and the broken image was then left in tons of articles. Thank you for alerting me. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for taking the time to contribute to the Patriots FA nomination. The first image has been replaced, but do you feel that the Patskick image should be tagged with a different type of source or just removed completely? Deckiller 23:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of those images you pointed out. Deckiller 23:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

I am a sockpuppet of user:batzarro. Regarding the kirpan image,i took it in punjab 3 weeks ago in a local shop,so i guess its self made.

I will be blocked,this is my last account,i cant be bothered making another one. I have run out of access to IPs ,this is my last message on wikipedia. Mohideene 07:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a sockpuppet of user:batzarro. Regarding the kirpan image,i took it in punjab 3 weeks ago in a local shop,so i guess its self made.

I will be blocked,this is my last account,i cant be bothered making another one. I have run out of access to IPs ,this is my last message on wikipedia. Mohideene 07:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just received your message and thanks. It seems as if I must have forgotten to place the proper copyright tag which is PD-Govt since the image is from the Government of Puerto Rico, a U.S. Territory. Thanks again! Tony the Marine 07:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Car: Thanks for the note on my user page. I write articles every day and that has been going for three years so as you can imagine I can't even remember everything I've done lol.

I probably placed that image there because of this: I saw the image at a few websites by looking through Google and obviously believed it to be public domain. What should we do in this case?

You know more about that than I do :)

Thanks and God bless you! Sincerely yours, Antonio's lost in his world Martin

If you can't find any definite evidence that it's in the public domain or under some free license, it should be deleted. --Carnildo 08:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'll try to investigate. If I can find no evidence, I agree with you; it must go.

Thanks and God bless you! Sincerely yours, Antonio Gomez from White Shadow Martin

The copyright is fine I assure you. It was a press released photo from a premiere.

JJstroker 08:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I entirely agree with the removal, Orphanbot and Rick lay95 appearing to be engaging in an edit war on List of episodes of Power Rangers. May be worth stopping the bot in this sort of situation? Cheers --Pak21 10:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way I could detect such activity: each revert by User:Rick lay95 took place after OrphanBot stopped running for one reason or another, and after each run, OrphanBot starts with a blank slate of who needs to be notified and what images need removing. --Carnildo 22:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about not finding the copyright holder, but that was a great picture of Strangelove.- JustPhil 14:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YOU WROTE (OR A MACHINE WROTE) Thanks for uploading Image:Stabkirche_Lom_Norwegen_1.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact Carnildo or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you.

Photo was originally uploaded from German site since I was unable to link it from the German site directly. The source of this photo is http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Stabkirche_Lom_Norwegen.JPG.

The source indicates, "Dieses Bild wurde unter der GNU-Lizenz für freie Dokumentation veröffentlicht.

Es ist erlaubt das Bild zu kopieren, verbreiten und/oder zu modifizieren, unter den Bedingungen der GNU-Lizenz für freie Dokumentation, Version 1.2 oder einer späteren Version, veröffentlicht von der Free Software Foundation. Es gibt keine unveränderlichen Abschnitte, keinen vorderen Umschlagtext und keinen hinteren Umschlagtext."

Translating a portion, "This picture was uploaded under the GNU Free Documentation License. The picture may be copied or modified under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 of a later version..."

The GNU Free Documentation License (GNU FDL or simply GFDL) is a copyleft license for free content, designed by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) for the GNU project. It is the open content counterpart to the GNU GPL. The current state of the license is version 1.2, the official text of which can be found here.

Hence this version is valid if the original license for the German site is valid. Image has been so annotated. Williamborg 16:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Status Added for that image. I also removed the no copyright tag if that's okay with you. mouselmm 16:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Unfortunately, your bot deleted the official portrait of former Governor General of Canada Adrienne Clarkson. I assume that this was because it was tagged as Canadian Crown Copyright, which is no longer a valid tag, and should have been replaced with the Canadian Political Figure Tag. Unfortunately, since Clarkson's term came to an end last year I dont believe the image is availavle online anymoreat gg.ca. During her tenure as Vice-Regal representative the image (featuring Clarkson wearing the Order of Canada against a Green Background) was made available in high-quality download free of charge to anyone who wanted an image of the head-of-state, or as a glossy print for a minimal fee. It was most definately fair use since it was created for the purpose of being an official image of the queen's representative. Is there any way to undelete it ? Dowew 22:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanBot keeps a cache of all images it's dealt with, so I've re-uploaded the image. It's at Image:Aclarkson.jpg, and I've tagged it as a "promotional photo". --Carnildo 23:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! - Clarkson's page is one of my long-standing works in progress. Having read a book about her I been trying to bring it up to FA since Christmas, but being sick over the holidays and now with Essay season it will have to wait for another 20 weeks or so. Dowew 23:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanBot keeps tagging my user page with a message about an unlicensed image. The problem is that it was an image uploaded by someone else that got overwritten by yet some other person, so I reuploaded it for them so it wouldn't be completely lost. I have already tagged the image and notified the user, and I don't want to have to keep removing the message from OrphanBot from my user talk page. Is there any way to get it to stop? Elf | Talk 00:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two options: First, I could add you to the list of people never to notify. This means that if you upload an image and forget to indicate the source or copyright, you won't be notified. Second, you could leave a link to the image somewhere on your talk page until the image is dealt with. OrphanBot checks for a link to the image when trying to figure out if someone's been notified or not, so by removing the notification, it no longer knows that you've been notified. --Carnildo 03:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, add me to the list. Thanks. Elf | Talk 03:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a corner case you might want to handle in a different manner. Cheers. --Gmaxwell 04:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete the image of Dhanjraj Pillai since it does not meet the copyright / fair use requirements of Wikipedia. -Uploader : Aravind Parvatikar Talk

--Aravind Parvatikar 06:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you write a program so badly that it stops whenever someone trys to send it a message, you deserve everything you get.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 13:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TheDoctor10, that is a rude message. Carnildo works very hard to do the right thing, which is why his bot has the brilliant <!- :) -> feature that stops the bot on a talk page post, which trusts other users will not interrupt the bot unless something has actually gone wrong. It was wrong of you to abuse the feature, it is wrong of you to take out your disagreement with Wikipedia policy (and indeed, with copyright law in general) on Carnildo, and it was wrong of you to continue being rude here. In my view you owe Carnildo a retraction and an apology... If you would like to politely discuss the requirements on Wikipedia for image sourcing, I'm sure he'd be willing. --Gmaxwell 16:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the above post, for one who talks about rudeness, your rudeness in failing to reply can hardly be written.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 13:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Carnildo,

I want to add the {Fairusein|Feng Yun}- Tag to the (now deleted) image. Several times I had contact with Feng Yun herself and she seems to agree with the content of it. How do I get this message across properly? How to restore the image - to which I do not have access at this moment? Mutatis mutandis with the AGA logo (AGA.jpg on American Go Association)), I spoke with one AGA official, Rob Laird, and he asked me by e-mail to help him writing, improving the stubb - which I did. How cann I CC e-mail to wikipedia in order to proof that there is no copyright infringement. Or should I boldly click on some of these Copyright tags (where I'm not sure which one the most correct would be?). Fair Use sounds good too, but is there a "Copyright granted in private conversation by (one) representant of that (group, orgamization, company etc. ) - tag, even if I wouldn't know whether this has person actually has the rights to do so?

Greetings, Tommie Tommie 17:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some users have redirected their User talk: pages because they have adopted a new user name. OrphanBot, however, goes ahead and posts its messages on the old User talk: page underneath the #REDIRECT command. This message is then invisible unless someone actively tries to edit the redirect page, which seems unlikely. I have come across this because pages edited by OrphanBot started showing up on Special:DoubleRedirects. See, for example, User talk:Serhiodudnic. --Russ Blau (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I spotted this and fixed it a couple days ago. Is it still happening? --Carnildo 18:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. It looks like all the instances currently listed are at least a week old. --Russ Blau (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should teach the OrphanBot to sign comments on user talk pages! But the signature should probably link to here rather than the OrphanBot's talk page. -- RHaworth 21:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to say the same thing. I find it kind of rude to post a comment without a signature. By the way, I don't really know anything about image copyrights, so sorry about posting that image. I can't grasp the concept. JHMM13 (T | C) 02:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigs have been off and on over time; right now they're on. I'm trying to minimize the number of people posting on the bot's talk page. --Carnildo 07:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This image is of a 95 year old Postcard. What seems to be the problem with copyright?Palmerston 03:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing wrong with the image is that it was tagged as "uploader unsure of copyright status". I've fixed that. --Carnildo 07:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded picture a while back and I cant remember what it qualifies for as I'm not sure, I got it from the company official site I think.. but I'm not 100% sure. Delete it if you wish I'm not sure.

I did not originally upload the image. I made a minor modification to the image uploaded by someone else. I assert no copyright (release to the public domain) on my modifications, but cannot speak to the copyright on the original image. That said, Cuban copyright law is... well, essentially they don't claim copyright on material produced in Cuba. So if it's a Cuban source, it's probably fine to use. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're the most recent uploader, and your upload didn't look like a revert, OrphanBot picked you to notify. If there's evidence that the image was produced in Cuba by a Cuban (and not a Canadian reporter or something), then it should be tagged as "public domain" and the reason given. --Carnildo 07:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the recent activity by the bot here on this article I am curious why it deleted one picture but not the other. The other picture similarly lacks copyright information, yet it goes untouched. Does the bot not source old pictures before a certain date? Anyway, regardless of the copyright of the image (which I shall enquire of the one who posted it, Junbee1977, though tye do not seem active), it is direct evidence of a phenomenon I had already commented on the impossibility of, so having it in the article is most valuable for proving the possibility. Compared to a conceptual drawing, date unverified (so it still may be copywritten) is just as much intellectual property not touched. --Tyciol 08:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to Image:Autocunnilingus.jpg, there are many reasons why it's not removing the image: (1) The image is on Commons, and the bot only deals with images on the English Wikipedia. (2) The image is tagged as having been created and placed under the CeCILL free license by its uploader. (3) The image is not tagged as having an unknown source, unknown license, or an uploader unaware of what the license should be. OrphanBot relies on human judgement to decide what images are problematic. (4) Even if it was tagged, OrphanBot works one image at a time, not one article at a time. Given the size of the "uploader doesn't know" category, it'll take OrphanBot about three days to work through all the images. --Carnildo 09:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the heads up on the possible deletion. I changed the copyright and added more info on the image. Could you take a look Image:HMAS_Brunei.jpg and let me know if its ok. Regards hossens27 12:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged this image as "Don't know" because it wasn't clear whether it could be used only on the article NEA Jazz Masters, or on the articles of individual Jazz Masters winners. I was led to believe that the "Don't know" tag would attract the attention of editors more experienced in copyright matters than I; since this seems to be not the case, I will interpret the image's copyright language myself and tag it as a press-release photo, which it certainly is. Thanks for your note. - squibix(talk) 13:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot(OrphanBot) informed me that an image I uploaded(Image:F-15I.jpg) has copyright problems. However this isn't true, as it is on Hebrew Wikipidia. I am unsure of the copyright status, since I can't read Hebrew. If you believe it should be deleted, or can read Hebrew, please let me know, otherwise, I am placing the image back in the article F-15I.

Prodego ^talk 14:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, how can you say the image is not a copyright problem when you admit you have "no clue" what it's copyright status is? We are only supposed to use images we can verify the status of. Have you tried asking anyone from Category:User he to translate the image info? --Sherool (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the image had a copyright problem, it wouldn't be permitted on the Hebrew Wikipedia either, correct? Also, I didn't think to contact anyone from the category Category:User he, but that is a good idea, I will go ahead and do so. Probably User:MathKnight, an administrator on hebrew Wikipedia. Although (s)he is not listed on Category:User he, (s)he uploaded the image into hebrew Wikipedia, and has an account on English Wikipedia too(assumed from same name and mention of hebrew account on english user page). Prodego ^talk 19:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The web source of the image appears to be [2], which gives no indication of the copyright status of any of the images on the site. I can't read Hebrew, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we need to assume that the image is copyrighted. The fact that it's on the Hebrew Wikipedia isn't evidence that there are no copyright problems -- I don't know how strict they are about enforcing copyrights. --Carnildo 07:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree now, I asked Mathknight where the he got the copyright information for the Hebrew wikipedia article, but haven't gotten a reply. He did say "The license and usage conditions were not much detailed but they did asked credit for the usage", but hasn't yet answered where he got that info from. So I'm going to wait one more day(removing image from articles right now) and then get it speedy deleted(I am the uploader), unless MathKnight explains. Unless there is an explanation, his image will need to be deleted from Hebrew Wikipedia too. Prodego ^talk 14:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's deleted. Prodego ^talk 19:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If OrphanBot automatically targets images tagged with "unknown copyright", then that option should be removed from image upload, as it is unclear what purpose it serves. I uploaded such an image (image:Golden Driller Sm.jpg), found via a Google search [3], choosing one that is reused on multiple Web site. Thus, the likelihood is that it's a fair-use image or promo photo, however, since I could not find such a statement as to its ownership on any Web site, I listed it with "found it on an unconfirmed website." I might have tagged it {{Fairusein}} or {{Promophoto}} but that would have been an assumption. Thus, if unknown/uncomfirmed=prohibited, then such images should not be uploadable.—LeFlyman 18:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Don't know}} is supposed to be a placeholder tag while the uploader asks for assistance from a more experienced Wikipedian. Unfortunately, most of the uses have been "upload and forget", and the category's become overgrown with such forgotten images. --Carnildo 07:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it as a tv screenshot. Hope this helps. -- Eddie 19:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged the image in question as being of fair use in the article it was linked to. I have also posted the copyright owners for both the character and the specific image. Oh, and I have also listed the rationale for claiming the image is fair use and re-linked it in the original article. I believe such measures justify it's existance on the Wikipedia, but I would appreciate it if maybe it was also vetted by someone else. I'll be more vigiliant about my images posted in the future. Thank you. -- Reverend Raven 20:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love you, man! Psyche, I just came here to say that you ought to delete the image, considering it does not link to any pages. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the foul-up. Please delete Thank you. |||MilesD.||| ^{01-31-2006 22:17 (UTC)}

I'm not sure about both the images, but I got the picture of the feather in the hat (I can't remember the name off hand) from Unencyclopedia which is part of the /wiki/ comunity, and therefore is most likely released into the public domain.

The latter image I don't remember too much about, but it's been on wikipedia for quite a while and no one seems bothered about it :) Chooserr 22:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncyclopedia's got very loose standards when it comes to copyright, and relies on being a small website and the "parody" protections in fair use. I'd consider any image from Uncyclopedia to be a likely copyvio if used anywhere else. --Carnildo 07:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read your comment and understand the problem. I have a question, though: if an image is posted on a webpage, does the copyright need to come from the site or from the person who took the picture? On the site where I found this picture (the only one I could find on the Internet), there is no mention about copyrights; however, the web master is an author who uses the image in his book. So you know, all the other images I've uploaded are ok copyright-wise. --Thebends 01:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could be either. If the image was created as a work for hire, or if the copyright was purchased by the website owner, then the site owner owns the copyright. Otherwise, the copyright is owned by the creator of the image. --Carnildo 07:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK... well, since I have no idea where he got the image (or if it is his own), I'll just take it out of the article. Oh well. Guess I'll just have to put a link to the site. --Thebends 23:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me select the proper image licensing for Iris CHacon's article? I am not sure what to do?

About your post on my talk page; I'm not sure who the image belongs to. It might be a fan work, I couldn't determine. Hence the {{don't know}} . --MasTer of Puppets ^{Picture Service} 04:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've answered your comments on Image copyright problem with Image:GustafVISwedenLate.jpg; please reply to me there if you wish. — JonRoma 04:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image was brought from an article in the german wiki on the same content Maltesedog 12:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't realise for which image you were referring to. The source is an old government pamphlet, 1960's. Photos are possibly excluded from copyright in Malta, http://docs.justice.gov.mt/lom/legislation/english/leg/vol_13/chapt415.pdf see.. and the legislation did not exist when the photo was taken. your advise is necessary.

The situation is complicated enough that I'd suggest not using the image. Sooner or later someone will provide a photo with a clearer copyright. --Carnildo 07:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I got the image Image:Baguette.png from the French-language Wikipedia and the Image:Meir Vilner.jpg from the Hebrew-language Wikipedia--Carabinieri 14:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

There was a copywrite problem with the 'Image:Kalbarri_natures_window.jpg' image I uploaded. I don't know a lot about copywrite and stuff, but I took this picture myself with my own camera. I guess no copywrite exists, and I'm fine with it being public domain. I've updated the copywrite accordingly, hope it's ok. - Mark 16:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. --Carnildo 08:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have added the source, Arabic Wikipedia, along with the unknown license tag. I was thinking perhaps someone could find its license status because I couldn't. - Eagle^amn 16:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixeded. (It explained in the upload summary "fair use via parody" - perhaps we need a template for this?) Cernen Xanthine Katrena 19:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soon i am planning to take a photo to put on this site. What do i choose as the licence when i do this. I only ask as you have deleted one of my other photos. Many Thanks (Dtfcdev 19:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

If you're taking the photos yourself, then you should license it under an appropriate Creative Commons license, depending on what you want to require people who use the photo to do. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Creative Commons Licenses for a list of CC licenses that Wikipedia allows.

As for the deleted photo, if you can give me the name of the picture, I can probably get it back. It might still be on Wikipedia, or I might have a copy on my hard drive. --Carnildo 08:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if the issue has already been raised, but it appears that this image (Image:Ftg-c.jpg) which was removed by OrphanBot, now has been correctly tagged. Is there a way to determine what pages it was removed from so it may be reinstated? Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 21:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanBot left a list of the pages it was removed from on the image description page, just like it does for every other image it removes. --Carnildo 01:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, this is the first time I've run across OrphanBot in action. I'll check the image description page and work backward from there. Thanks! Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 19:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

Yeah, It is OK for you to delete this image ans it is no longer being used. Should I delete it or will you do it?

Dear friend, I don't know what do you need as authorisation. Alberto Moreno, component of the band and curator of the site www.museo.it, gave me an explicit authorisation to use ALL the picture there through e-mail. I specified this in the image caption in its page. So, please, let me know what's the procedure to keep the image. Frankly speaking, before deletion I expected you first contact me to understand better the situation, as I specified that authorisation was given. Thanks. Attilios.

What sort of authorization was provided? Was it permission to use the image on Wikipedia, or was it permission to release the image under a free license (and if so, which one?)? The first is not acceptable for Wikipedia, while the second is. --Carnildo 08:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Carnildo, I picked up the image and information from a public forum, and I have not found it anywhere else, internet or otherwise. I doubt that it violates any copyright, and I try where possible in writing articles to e-mail sources to verify copyright information. Like I stated on the talk page, if you google the image name, you come across the original forum from which I got my information. Anyway, thanks for informing me. Does Wikipedia have a copyright template for an image from a forum, whose copyright is uncertain? Dessydes

Yes, but the copyright templates are all variations on "delete this image". Images on Wikipedia need to have clear copyright status. --Carnildo 08:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Sorry for uploading that -- but you can delete it. I made a mistake in uploading it, and no pages link to it, so thanks for taking care of it.

Alexander VII 01:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted on the image description page, it was drawn by me. I thought that should take care of any copyright problem. U Go Boy 2 Feb UTC

Hi. Got your message. That image is a cut and add-text from a larger regional map on the Wikipedia Commons map area; or from one of the main Wikipedia map pages. Wasn't that in the attribution notes?Skookum1 01:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sob sob, it has been such a nice image. But you do good job. Thank you. Sillybilly 01:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly says on the image's page where I got it and not to bother asking me if it was wrong.--The_stuart 03:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!, Can you kelp me? I can tell you where i got the pic--T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 05:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You recently pointed out that the images I've uploaded are of ambiguous status. It seems like you get a lot of requests for aid in correctly IDing copyright stuff for pictures, but I was wondering if you could give me a pointer. All three of them are promotional art of some sort, yet I couldn't figure out which of the available types of copyright would fit this kind of image. Thanks for your time. Kidicarus222 07:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's part of an official press kit or equivalent, then the proper tag is {{promophoto}}. Otherwise, you need to decide if it falls under the rules at Wikipedia:Fair use, and if so, tag the image with {{fairusein}} for each article that the image qualifies for fair use in. --Carnildo 08:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carnildo. Thanks for your note concerning the above. It is a picture of myself and my son, taken by my wife. It was on the occasion of my son's midnight return from his high school prom. As far as I can remember, I had considered inserting the image on my personal discussion page - but now have no plan to do so. So, please delete the image page concerned. Sorry for the trouble I may have caused you. Bob BScar23625 08:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the image in question with a self made (and released to PD) image instead. Could you give me any pointers to how to remove the image of uncertain copyright status? I'm a bit of a n00b as far as images go here on Wikipedia... WegianWarrior 09:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the best way is to tag it with {{db-unksource}}. --Carnildo 20:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go do that then. Thanks! WegianWarrior 08:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed copyright tag. I uploaded that and then set out to find the correct tag; got sidetracked and forgot until now. Thanks. Rogue 9 10:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me about the problem with File:Sculptyre 08. I'll get on it.Bjones 13:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have corrected its status - now how can I put it back on Donna Dresch without it being still up for deletion? Thanks. - 16:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC) THE GREAT GAVINI ^{LOBSTER TELEPHONE}

You really need to track down the original source. Right now, there's no way of knowing if it's a press kit photo (generally ok), a stock media photo (generally not ok), or a fan-made photo (who knows?). --Carnildo 07:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm it's a press kit photo, according to the image being under the "Promo" section, I reckon. Is that OK? - 17:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC) THE GREAT GAVINI ^{LOBSTER TELEPHONE}

Quote: Thanks for uploading Image:Shaft.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 09:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I have tried deleting it,but in vain. Could you help me to delete it? (I'm busy for something but cannot delete it again.) Thank you.--HydrogenSu 17:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It'll be deleted soon enough. --Carnildo 07:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im not completely sure but isnt there laws re: how long a image is in copyright, possibly as this image is over 40 years old it is no longer in copyright? Thanks for your time Luke C 18:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's a time limit. Unfortunately, it's a very long one: in the United States, only images published before 1923 are certain to be in the public domain. I don't know of any country that respects international copyrights that also has a limit of less than 50 years. --Carnildo 07:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• image:red_kangaroo.jpg is a copyright problem as I discovered that the source of the image is selling it as a wallpaper so if you can delete again. Sorry about the mess.
• image:happy cat 2.jpg and image:happy_cat.jpg are likely the same problem so if you want to delete, go ahead.
• image:SimpleKangaroo.jpg came from a picture posted by another Wikipedian from Brazil (maybe). I took the picture and cropped it and renamed it SimpleKangaroo. Do as you will with it.
• image:may_18.jpg was a picture from an old press release found on the internet. It made its way into Paul Bremer's book "My Year In Iraq:...." photograph by Roberto Schmidt for Reuters was the credits.

There may have been more out there.,,,,thanks.,,,,Ariele 18:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The picture you quote (just like Image:Omar.jpg) very likely is public domain. I posted the second one (Omar-2.jpg) for comparison to #1, to confirm it is indeed the same person. Omar did not want to have his pictures taken, and these are two of three I know about (the third being a very old, very low quality picture). As far as I know these pictures are rare, but public domain. How would you suggest I handle this? -- Beck 19:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look for evidence that they are indeed in the public domain. --Carnildo 07:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if that can be done. Maybe they must be made fair use? --Beck 18:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia rules for fair use require that the creator and copyright holder be known. --Carnildo 08:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a problem, since neither are known. Just to put things into perspective: we're discussing pictures of the fugitive leader of the taleban, it would be a good addition to wikipedia to have these pictures archived. --Beck 17:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm not good at legalese on this subject.

I think the relevant quotation is this one (from here):

Access to the Rosetta Project is provided at no cost to you and is intended for use in scholarship, research and educational purposes only. By entering, you certify that your use of the Archive will be noncommercial in nature and limited to purposes not infringing on Fair Use provisions under copyright law and other intellectual property statutes. No part of the material found in Archive maybe reproduced for commercial purposes or mirrored from another server without the express written permission of the Long Now Foundation. Content available in the Archive may be governed by local, national, and/or international laws and regulations, and your use of such content is solely at your own risk.

If you believe that this makes the Afar image violate copyright laws, feel free to delete it and possibly link the image from the Afar language page to the rosettaproject.org server.

Thanks, it is a promo pic. I might have forgot to mark it that.

Redd Dragon 23:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found that pic in a very old personal website..... However I think that now the problem is solved since the photo is in external links, right? See you soon, Arroww 23:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of the points raised, however I am not sure of the copyright status because the pages are not written in english. Two web sites have been included on the page, and as I noted the image likely falls under the protection of fair use. TomStar81 23:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ALL the images I have uploaded are specified as 'LOGOS', they have a copyright attached to them. I am not sure where you are finding these images that don't have a copyright license, most likely someone is changing them. Just change the copyright licence to 'logo', you don't need to post a message everytime you find one. HeMan5 23:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is that I'm working through a list of approximately 7000 of these images. It's a lot faster to have an automated process notify uploaders than it is to try to deal with each image individually. If you want the license tags fixed, you'll have to do it yourself. --Carnildo 07:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this is Sandro67. I'm not signed in right now, but I saw your post on my talk page about the Bill Gates photo. That photo was uploaded by a family member in my home, using my account, as a joke. Therefor, I don't know the copyright info., and it may be deleted. Sorry. 71.33.140.76 02:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like your a big image guy around here. Anyways, the thing is that I have no idea of the liscenseing of the image and was hoping that someone who might have known (like the guy who did the FE7 page) would stumble upon it and correct me. Alas, it was not to be so. I understand the strict copyright policy that the Wikipedia uses and I commend for taking notice of the fact that this image wasn't listed as an acceptable type.

I was under the impression that Image:Userbox pot.png was a public domain image. After the last image was removed from Template:User cook, I located the www.freedigitalphotos.net site on Public_domain_image_resources#General_collections (it is the third link). Their terms of use state that images may be used for commercial or non-comercial purposes, and may be used on websites [4]. Have I misinterpreted this? If this image is not acceptable, should I remove the link to the site from Public_domain_image_resources? Where can I find an image that can be used in a userbox if public domain and fair use images cannot be used? Please get back to me on this (feel free to answer here) so that I may find a suitable image. Thanks a lot. -- Chris 06:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are three things that freedigitalphotos.net explicitly disallows:

1. Claiming the image as your own
2. Redistributing them for public download (either free or paid for)
3. Offering them for sale

(1) is acceptable for Wikipedia, but (2) isn't (Wikipedia redistributes images to mirror sites such as answers.com, and has the entire set of images available for download), and (3) isn't (commercial use needs to include permission to sell the images). --Carnildo 07:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for finding images, Wikimedia Commons is always a good starting point for images of common things and readily-accessible locations, and images on there should be under a suitable free license. Best of all, you can use them on Wikipedia simply by linking to them like you would any other image -- no need to upload. --Carnildo 08:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just delete it, no pages are using it anyway. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. kallemax 07:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(also Image:Barossa dam engineers plaque.jpg) I responded on my talk page that I do not know if I can release a photo of a sign to the public domain, but if I can, I would. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carnildo, thanks very much for the message. The image was taken by the Rector or St Thomas' but is free to use by anyone for the purposes of promoting the church, etc. I'm not particularly sure how to go about changing the photo to indicate that!

Images with restrictions such as "for promotional use only" are not acceptable for Wikipedia. They can't be re-used by anyone else, and if Wikipedia's coverage of the subject is negative, it's hard to claim it's "promotional". --Carnildo 08:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I since verified the "sunbus" image as a company logo and since placed it under the "Logo" category of Copyright regulations. Arnzy 11:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Carnildo, what is your reasoning for modifying Template:Warof1812-stub  ?? SirIsaacBrock 11:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the part I removed was advertising for WikiProject Military History and an implied claim of article ownership. --Carnildo 20:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I've asked for some more opinions on this general issue here. —Kirill Lokshin 22:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. I have contacted the photographer, and Stockholms Läns Museum; in order to determine the copyright status. -- Jobjörn 13:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have some experience dealing with image copyright issues. Maybe you can help me with an image I recently came accross on Wikipedia. The image "Image:AnimaltestingMonkeyCovance2.jpg" was uploaded to Wikipedia and

1. the image was probably obtained illegally
2. the person who took the picture is not identified
3. there is no simple way to verify the image and its copyright status
4. The Wikipedian who uploaded the image suggests that Wikipedia can use the image without any further verification the source of the image
   

What do you think? --JWSchmidt 13:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. I'm not a copyright lawyer, and I don't think even a copyright lawyer would touch this with a ten-foot pole. --Carnildo 08:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for letting me know about Image:Upski.gif. It was taken from a promotional flyer for a lecture he did at a college campus, so I've tagged the licensing information appropriately. Thanks again for checking up on my work. Take care. --Howrealisreal 14:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the heads up. That image (Image:Mk 48 Mod 0.GIF) was the first one I uploaded as soon as I joined Wikipedia, and therefore I was not sure how to handle copyright issues and determine the correct tag for each image. Since then, I uploaded a newer, bigger version of the image under a different name (Image:Mk 48 Mod 0.jpg), which I believe to have the correct copyright tag on it — let me know otherwise. As for the older image, if you have the power to delete it or ask for deletion, feel free to do so. Thanks. --Squalla 15:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for that bit. I don't normally do that. The copyright holder is User:Mir_Harven and he has released all... ; if a proof is needed to prove that the image is copyrighted, feel free to scan the user's talk page and his approvement. He is an administrator of a site that I got it from known as HERCEGBOSNA. Could you help a bit and show me how to put a copyright (all released) template, please? Thanks in advance! --HolyRomanEmperor 15:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just got your new message about the image that has been removed titled "glassy water" and the original image was found in an article of the journals of the Royal Society of Chemistry 1 When finding an appropriate picture to fit the article in order to help what glassy water actually looks like. I would like to know what license would this fit into?

XendrianMaranmore 15:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC) aka SignalMan[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Masonsigns.gif appears to be from a late 20th century publication, either The Brotherhood by Stephen Knight or Darkness Visible by Walton Hannah --Vidkun 16:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I updated the image page to include the proper tags, as well as the description to include copyright information as well. I'll try to be more carefull about this in the future. Artemisboy 16:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please go ahead and delete that image. I uploaded it from a business site (the copyright holder) only to quickly illustrate a point made on a talk page. It is copyvio. Apologies, and thanks. Saravask 17:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a promo tag to the Mi-Jung_Lee.jpg image (after looking at the station's website & looking at tags for other personalites' images from that station on Wiki), please revert if appropriate. Thanks. Southsloper 17:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image Image:Tego_Calderón.jpg is actually a rename of the image Image:DSCF0134.jpg. The image has the same copyright status as the image there, and from the filename I assume that it was submitted by a contributor who personally took it. As I only performed a rename I cannot vouch for any copyright to this. - Master Of Ninja 22:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to track down the copyright status unfortunately and the photo I wanted to replace has been changed anyway, so please go ahead and remove Image:Franjo_Tudjman.jpg. Thanks! -- AHrvojic 03:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fair enough. Thanks for your help anyway. Dessydes

---

Hi Carnildo, I think perhaps my lack of copyright technical jargon has led to my not explaining myself properly on this issue! You said... Images with restrictions such as "for promotional use only" are not acceptable for Wikipedia. They can't be re-used by anyone else, and if Wikipedia's coverage of the subject is negative, it's hard to claim it's "promotional". --Carnildo 08:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC) ...however, when I say it's for the purposes of promoting the church, I simply mean that the photo was taken to give anyone interested in the church a chance to see what it looks like inside, whether that be on its internal publicity or wherever, including wikipedia! The person who took the photo claims no legal authority over it whatsoever, it's just out there to be used by whomever, whenever! However, I can see how confusion would arise through my choice of wording!

If the creator is really allowing "whomever, whenever, and for whatever purpose", including such uses as advertising or rants against the church, then the proper license tag is {{NoRightsReserved}}. If negative and unrelated uses are not allowed, then the photo can't be used on Wikipedia. --Carnildo 21:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then "norightsreserved" it is! Thanks alot. Brian 10:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what's the code for deleting this image? Thanks. Rosenborg 10:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanBot gave me a heads up about Image:Jewishflag.jpg. When I uploaded that version, I merely reverted the this version, which had nothing to do with the name of the image, to the original version uploaded by User:Street walker. He'd be the one to talk to about the copyright status. --jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 14:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is the right way to reply, but here goes. The image was for an item for sale on eBay, as I've previously indicated. I don't own the item, but the original page is now gone and the image has been in my collection for some time now, so I think the 'fair use' tag could apply here?

No, it couldn't. There's nothing particularly signficant about that image: as far as I know, it's easy enough for someone to make a replacement for it. --Carnildo 21:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image has been actualised by me the uploader and the creator of the image, still the orphan boot has removed the image please revert the edits.CristianChirita 17:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

um, if you notice, I didn't upload the picture, i just took the silly border off. check the history. --jacobolus (t) 18:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very unsure if the image File:Guy-Manuel.jpg falls under the fair use. The source of the image is from here: http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?what=A&obid=1289

It seems images can be uploaded onto Discogs and that's how I got the image. I don't know if that qualifies for fair use. I'll leave this same message on the image. Douglasr007 01:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the things needed to determine if something is "fair use" is the creator and original use of the image. It seems unlikely that the owner of that website took the photo in question, and without that information, "fair use" can't be determined. --Carnildo 21:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a few possibly improperly used images, and know that you're pretty knowledgeable about image copyright, so I was wondering if you had to time to check out the inline photos at Michelle Kwan and Scott Hamilton. It uses images from Scratchspin.com that are posted through the use of a template at Template:ScratchspinImg, which is further described at Wikipedia:Scratchspin images. The intrusive copyright text within the articles doesn't look good, and is blatant advertising. I haven't seen precedent for this.

These images have subsequently been tagged fair use, but I wanted to just list the template and Wikipedia page for deletion. I don't believe that Wikipedia supports this kind of image use. What do you think? — Rebelguys2 ^talk 02:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The terms of use on that site restrict re-use too much. In particular, it doesn't allow non-website use, it does not allow certain classes of commercial use, and it does not appear to allow modification of the images. I'd shoot the template and list the images for deletion -- there's nothing special about the images, so they don't qualify under Wikipedia:Fair use. --Carnildo 22:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. Thanks! — Rebelguys2 ^talk 22:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, was it really neccesary to delete the S-Class picture. The picture was posted there since before I got here and really was the best fit for the article. It is really hard to get all three S-Class in one good picture. Would you mind if put the picture back in? Thanks. Gerdbrendel 07:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was neccessary to delete them. The images have no information on their copyright status, and seem likely to be copyright violations. --Carnildo 22:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude are you lazy or what? You say that However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. Did you ever bother to visit the website to which i have provided a link in the "Summary" section, that says - The membrane events in GPCR signaling cascade (from PDB's Molecule of the Month, October 2004)? I bet you don't have a clue what that site is all about, do you? Everything that the site provides, which is TONZ of structures, is free. The image was made by the staff using some of the structures and it's free too. I could have done it myself after downloading the structures either from that website or from NSBI (which i prefer as a source) using the codes provided by the text on the very page that you didn't visit - Four PDB structures were used in this picture: 1f88, 1got, 1cul, and 1tbg, from left to right. And i have a program Cn3D 4.1 (it can be downloaded for free from NCBI), that can work with the structure files and the result was going to be the same or very close, except that i was going to waste time to make something because i'm not allowed to use something else that's already free. -- Boris 16:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not bother to. There are too goddamn many of these images with no copyright information, and I don't have time to deal with them individually. However, thank you for bringing this one to my attention. The image appears to be a copyright violation (there's a very nice copyright statement at the bottom of the webpage), and so I've deleted it. -- Carnildo 22:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-huh. See, i don't really understand all this "copyright" bull-"es" - the image is taken from one public site and goes to another one, no money asked, and i have clearly stated that i wasn't the original creator. This can only be a problem if "Wikipedia" decides to sell it sometimes in the future - i've read some sh!t like - putting the best articles on CD and selling them. That's a major crap, ya know - making money out of the volunteer work of so many people. Uggggghhhhh, makes me sick. I hope it's not true. -- Boris 21:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, and as such, commercial mirrors of it can be created. Indeed, many have been—see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. A site such as tfd.com is an example of a commercial mirror of Wikipedia. As such, non-commercial licenses are not good enough. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. On what grounds do you base a call to block pedophiles as incitement for hate speech? Thanks. El_C 22:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because by doing so, you're targeting someone (pedophiles) for something they are. Calling for blocking someone for what they're doing is fine: if someone's using Wikipedia to troll for children, then by all means block. But to call for blocking someone because they admit to feeling sexual attraction towards children is not acceptable. --Carnildo 07:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Hi. I blocked you for 24 hours for breaching WP:POINT. Thanks. El_C 22:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explain yourself NOW ! Giano | talk 23:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hate speech contd.

You must immediately cease from inciting hate speech against children, or I will do everything in my power to have you removed from Wikipedia indefinitely. Thanks. El_C 23:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot respond to this statement, as I find it similar to the unanswerable question of "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" --Carnildo 07:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you, perhaps, the first admin deadmined due to a moral panic? If so congrats, because I'm sure we'll see many more such abuses in the future and you get to be the first. :-/ In all seriousness, I think that Jimbo made a pretty clear mistake.. a knee jerk reaction to what he thought would be a wheel-war. He failed to check to check if one had actually happened (and it had not [5], for others reading this). The mistake was his, and I expect it will be corrected soon. I hope he provides the apology you are deserved. I don't know that blocking was the right course of action, but at the same time we can not allow hysteria to drive Wikipedia policy. --Gmaxwell 02:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was painful to read. El_C 02:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carnildo blocked 3 users (2 of them admins) for no reason. They said that pedophiles should be banned from editing Wikipedia. That's a very respectable position.--Jimbo Wales 04:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I mistakenly though that you blocked him over a blocking-unblocking war. I think it is something of a stretch to say that he blocked them over a simple difference in opinion. I think his goal was simply to stop a witch hunt: keep in mind that the only 'pedophile' blocked was a 16 year old. Of course, we should, and do, block people who are trying to slant the encyclopedia. I think here we saw much drama created by Carnildo's block-first discuss later action... and perhaps we should be (temp-)desysoping people who's actions impede discussion, but if that's the case, then there are many more left to do... --Gmaxwell 05:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If one is to apprehend the question as one about whether it is proper to espouse that pedophiles should be banned from editing Wikipedia, one will perhaps fail fully to understand the question. I think it to be demonstrative of a form of intellectual infirmity to suggest that pedophiles—especially those whom we understand to be "self-identified"—ought not to be able to edit Wikipedia (I should note, for the record, that I oppose all age-of-consent laws, which perhaps colors my judgment, but I am eminently confident that I would support the continued editing of any other convicted of a crime, even the most serious of crimes, scilicent murder). Similarly, though, I think it to be altogether wrong to ban someone in view of his/her having espoused a view apropos of pedophiles that the latter should not be tolerated. I write, I suppose, then, to note that one needn't believe that those whom Carnildo blocked were at all correct on the substantive issues to oppose the blocks issued by Carnildo and to object to the fashion in which Carnildo acted. I would suppose that the majority of Wikipedians are more concerned with the content of one's contributions than the content of one's otherwise expressed opinions, and, consistent with that, I think most of us would believe both that those who called for the banning of pedophiles were wrong (in the opinion they expressed, not in the fact of their expressing it) and that those (or he) who called for (or undertook) the banning of the former were wrong. To lose the contributions of an editor—even for a short time—because he/she is a pedophile or because he/she supports banning pedophiles and has expressed (even if untowardly so) is unfortunate. Joe 05:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting question, however, is that ... is it really possible for us to accept the edits of a user as unbiased when they insist on user page to advertise their point of view? And when it is one which would cause others to distrust our content? It would seem to me that such users value the promotion on Wikipedia of their perspective more than they value the usefulness of Wikipedia to the world. Are we really better off with anyone who feels that way, no matter what that perspective is? --Gmaxwell 05:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editors have political beliefs and values whether they put them on their user page or not. If anything, having them out in the open makes it easier to spot when someone might be slanting their edits to advance their POV. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, banning someone for being a pedophile, or for being a Muslim, or being a neo-Nazi is absolutely unacceptable: it's targeting someone for what they are, not for what they're doing. If someone's using Wikipedia to troll for children, or to push hate speech, or to advocate jihad, then by all means, ban them: they've done something. But to ban them for being something, often something they have not actively decided to be, gives lie to our motto of "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". --Carnildo 07:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Carnildo writes is entirely correct. I must confess to having failed carefully to study his blocks and perhaps to writing while ignorant of all of the facts. If, indeed, Carnildo's bans were instituted in view of others admins' having blocked users simply for being pedophiles, his bans were wholly correct. I gathered, not having read the supporting materials, that he blocked other users simply for having espoused the view that pedophiles should be banned. In view of his response here, I suspect that he would not have so done and that his views apropos of allowing users to speak freely even as they maintain NPOV in their writing are akin to mine. Joe 14:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carbonite banned someone for identifying as a pedophile, and announced that he'd ban anyone else he found. El C gave the impression that he was only sorry that he hadn't gotten there first. Blocking Giano was a mistake, as he wasn't an admin and couldn't follow through, but with the "burn the witches" views being expressed, I wasn't too interested in checking credentials at the time. --Carnildo 20:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I disapprove of nearly every ban or block issued for offensive speech, believing that Wikipedia works best when users are free to express whatever views they like on pages (e.g., talk pages) not part of the project, including views depicting antipathy for specific users, upon which belief I would base my objection to the blocking of Giano, for which Carnildo seems to apologize, inasmuch as Giano should be free to criticize pedophiles as much as he wants, I similarly disapprove, for the reasons stated above, of the blocking or banning of otherwise competent contributors because of "states of being" (e.g., as a pedophile) or non-Wikipedia actions (e.g., engaging in pedophilia), and so I think Carnildo's block of Carbonite was altogether appropriate and that his blocking of El C, although perhaps premature, is likely on the whole to have saved the encyclopedia more quality prospective contributions than it cost the project. Joe 21:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is impossible to "engage in pedophilia", as our own Wiktionary will tell you. Sorry for spamming your talk page, Carnildo. Ashibaka tock 03:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While also apologizing for spamming Carnildo's talk page (and while promising that this will be my last posting on this page), I thought I should say taht Ashibaka is entirely correct, but that I chose the wording I did for reasons I enumerate here. Joe 04:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are different "states of being". Being a gay, straight, lesbian, a$$hole, drug addict, alcocholic, visually impared, overweight, diabetic, white, indian, jew, muslim, catholic will not send that person to jail. Being a rapist, serial kiler, Al-Caida activist, PEDOPHILE, drug traficant - will. I don't care if anyone from the first group comes here and starts making templates, talk pages, projects, you name it that is related to their "state of being". I would not care that much when people in the heat of the argument forget where they are and start using offensive words, as long as it is not some consistency - we are humans, sh!t happens. I would not care if the individuals from the second group come on "Wikipedia" and contribute for the common good, what's their life outside "Wiki" in this case is irrelevant to me. As long as they don't start flashing (promoting) their "state of being" - Over here. Come join our "Pedophile_WikiProject", where we can discuss important topics, exchange video files, etc - like it is good to be in such "state", they are welcome. That's my 5 cents right there. -- Boris 14:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean for people to burst into batshit hysteria when I created the template. I'm sorry about your (hopefully temporary) deadminship.. // paroxysm (n) 02:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too worried about that. Adminship's been useful, but the majority of my work on Wikipedia can continue without it. The hardest part's going to be the loss of the ability to tell people what happened to their images when those images are deleted due to a lack of source or copyright information. --Carnildo 06:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales has temporarily desysopped several administrators involved in the pedophilia userbox wheel war, yourself included, until such time as the Arbitration Committee can sort the matter out. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Desysoppings Raul654 07:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to hear. --Ghirla | talk 13:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please delete

What tag can I put on pictures of buses? I need to know for several images I have recently uploaded.

Thanks, sonicKAI 15:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depends. Where did the pictures come from? Who took them? --Carnildo 08:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The pictures came from [6], but there is no copyright information on the website. I e-mailed the webmaster, but I didn't get a reply. I couldn't find and temporary tag for it either, and Nv8200p is about to have them removed. Should I just create a new template? --sonicKAI 10:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I attached a copyright tag on Image:Ballot for monarchy in Norway 1905.jpg some time ago, but Orphanbot a) kept the warning and b) removed it from the article where it was included. --Leifern 13:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanBot considers a "no license" or "no source" tag to be more authoritative than any copyright tag, since it is very common for new users to put incorrect copyright tags on images, and it is very common for people re-tagging such images not to remove the old tag. --Carnildo 08:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request for arbitration where you have been listed as a party has been opened by Raul654 (per Jimbo Wales). Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war, as well as provide evidence at /Evidence and comment on proposals at /Workshop. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you were paying a little more attention, you'd have noticed that a help desk page is liking to it. Here it is. Basically, the original image was a fair use graphical plot, and I traced it by hand using a vector editor and created a PNG version of it. As I pointed out, I was wondering if the person can actually copyright the scientific data presented on the graphic. As far as I can see, nobody should be able to (it'd be considered trivial work, there's no creative content on it). The only reason it was fair use is because the original image was created directly by someone else, so I thought I could release my version on the PD.

So I'm aware of the copyright, but I decided to leave it as unknown until someone clears this out for sure. ☢ Ҡieff⌇↯ 14:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a copyright lawyer, but I think your image can be released into the public domain. I'd be more comfortable if you'd re-created it from the original data rather than from an image. --Carnildo 08:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I'm afraid I don't have a handful of powerful observatories available to collect such data. Sorry. :) ☢ Ҡieff⌇↯ 16:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the pic on the net somewhere. Anyway,i want it to be deleted only after we settle a dispute on wikipedia regarding the subject. pojojo 15:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was my first attempt at uploading a pic for an article I had written (also a first). I tried to figure out what to do by reading the policies on Wikipedia, but couldn't figure it out. There is no place that says: Step 1: Determine this; Step 2: Do that...

The image I uploaded (a picture of The Casements, a historical building) was pulled from the website of the Ormond Beach Historical Trust (http://www.obht.org/casements.htm). The site is copyrighted by the OBHT. Since the site seemes promotional in nature, I figured that using the pic would be OK under Fair Use. They didn't have any place on their site to contact their people for permission (or for anything else, for that matter). So, how exactly does one tag a photo (I assume it would be: Copyright 2005 Ormond Beach Historical Trust). Once tagged, can it remain on the page under fair use, or do I need to get OBHT's permission? Thanks--DocGov 16:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the sort of photo that any Wikipedian with a camera can replace. In that case, our policy on fair use (Wikipedia:Fair use) does not allow it to be used under a claim of "fair use", so either you need to get permission to use the image under a free license (some example requests for permission are at Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission), or have the image deleted. --Carnildo 08:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your message on my talk page... Image:Knighthawk.gif was just found floating 'round the internet. I do not know who the uploader is. Again, hence the "don't know" tag. --MasTer of Puppets ^{Picture Service} 16:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case it can't be used on Wikipedia. Our image policy requires knowing the source and copyright status of images we use. --Carnildo 08:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carnildo,

Thanks for your reply concerning the Mk_6 image. In the reply you said:

"Thanks for uploading Image:Mk_6.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status... ...Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator..."

I have made contact with the person who created the original Mk-6 image, Stephen Sutton. Mr Sutton has kindly granted me permission to use his images.

Below is his e-mail where he first responds to a technical question of mine and then grants permission to use his photos:

Subject: Re: Mk-6 image

From: "Stephen Sutton" <thunderhead7@hotmail.com>

Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 18:37:36 -0700

To: [my e-mail address deleted]

Hi [my name deleted],

I don't have a good answer for you as I was a missile maintenance technician, but I did place your question in my Yahoo group forum (this is a private group). Here's are some more photos I took at the Pima Missile Museum. You have permission to use my photos freely.

Cheers, Stephen

Egg plant 03:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

came out of his book, so no idea about copyright, delete I guess. john 20:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carnildo. I saw that you've been tagging a lot of images, and I was wondering if you did it all by hand or if you used a tool. I am developing a script that should help people over at Wikipedia:Untagged images, so I've been looking around to see what others are doing. Thanks! ~MDD4696 22:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been doing much tagging, actually. I've got a bot that does three things: it removes any image with no source or copyright information from articles, it notifies users if they haven't been notified, and it adds a datestamp to any nosource or no-copyright tag without one, which may be what you're seeing. I've been playing with the idea of creating a script to automatically tag images, but I haven't had time. --Carnildo 23:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please feel free to delete all the images I uploaded back when I didn't know what I was doing regarding wikipedia rules on copyrighted images. Thanks. Tombseye 23:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have permission from my school's computer teacher to use the image, and as webmaster she probably has control over it anyways. But what tag is that, and how do I do it? Thanks... Articuno1 11:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of permission is it? Did you get permission to use it on Wikipedia, or did you get permission to release it under a free license? The first is not good enough; the second is. --Carnildo 08:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reference

and Image talk:Sydney Airport (2004) By Air.jpg#Source

The image was tagged with {{GFDL-self}}, which would imply that the source is the original uploader — Mathieumcguire (not myself). Thanks/wangi 11:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DEAR WIKIPEDIA,

I do not have to prove to you where I obtained the photograph from. That is not my responsibility. I add things to wikipedia on a policy of good faith. If someone wishes to contact you to advise that a photograph has been obtained without the authrosiation of the copyrighted owner, that is the responsibility of the copyrighted owner, not the wikipedia user to prove that.

FOR YOUR INFORMATION: the above image that was uploaded was a digital photograph of a photography that is located in my parent's lounge room. Please re-admit it to the Gold_Coast,_Queensland aritcle as soon as possible. DB 13:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Image

You can erase Romaniagraiuri-mod.jpg. It was just a trial/proposal image.Constantzeanu 13:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carnildo, Can you help me in deleting the following images? Image:Froso.jpg; Image:Froso_t.JPG; Image:Chiculate1.JPG; Image:Nansy3.jpg

I've also added the appropriate copyright information to the pictures under my watch list. Please let me know if any additional info needs to be added/deleted. Thank you!! ~ Mallaccaos 2/7/06

Go ahead and delete it, I was gonna put a fair use tag on it but after looking it up it's entirely too much work to save a file someone else can probably replace later. Seriously doubt Farscape's copyright holders really care, they'd probably enjoy the exposure. But sure, whatever. TKarrde 18:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This image went with a deleted article. SO I guess this image can be deleted as well. Thanks. Madangry 18:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image IS tagged FAIR USE. and there is even a rational and pages it is used in. --UVnet 22:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Where did the image come from? Answers.com got their copy from us, and so did most (if not all) of the other sites out there. --Carnildo 08:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carnildo, do you happen to know the copyright situation for official Japanese government portraits? I can't seem to find it anywhere. I'm concerned about the images on this list. Any advice would be appreciated--thanks. Chick Bowen 00:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No clue. Anything published before 1923 is in the public domain; everything else is very complicated. --Carnildo 08:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; that was kinda my impression. It would be nice to have sources, wouldn't it? It seems to safe tag the turn-of-the-century ones as {{PD-US}}, but I'll go through this afternoon (have to go to work now) and tag the more recent ones {{nosource}}. The uploader's long gone, it seems. Chick Bowen 11:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May i request a warning about Khoikhoi who is always disturbing me? He is insulting me and please tell him about this.Thanks --Altau 01:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. Altau is a sock puppeet of User:-Inanna- and I have never insulted her, although it is very hard at times. --Khoikhoi 01:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Carnildo/The_100_Biography is brilliant. The analysis is very interesting. Thanks for doing that. Cheers, -Will Beback 11:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I really need help with editing a page. I need to know the exact code to post a head shot photo of an actor from his website. Also I would like to know why the bio I posted for this actor was deleted? I wrote the bio and it's posted to his official website, as well as to the IMDB? I used Ian McKellen's page as a reference to see what codes I needed to use when I started posting info for this actor. I was also in touch by email with someone from this website who told me to post this to the front page "photo and bio posted with permission." Like I said on another talk page, I'm new to all of this. I keep trying to post the photo, and it keeps getting deleted. And It seems that I'm not supposed to keep trying to put the photo back up? I'm sorry to be a pest, but you have an enormous amount of info posted to the copyright page that I just don't understand? I used this coding on the page with the head shot, fairuse with the proper symbols, but I guess it's not correct? Then I found these... Template Permission And Fair Use and this one Template Promophoto But again, I'm not sure if this is correct? And I'm not sure where I have to post it on the page? Can someone please explain to me (in more easy to understand terms since I'm a dummy), what I have to do to keep the info I posted, up on a page? I'm not being rude, I really, truly, just don't understand what I'm doing wrong? Please help me! I have a limited knowledge of how to use HTML but that's really it. I'm just a regular person who really likes this site, and is trying to post info for actors that I admire. Any help you can give me is VERY much appreciated. Thanks so much! Abisel 13:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Abisel (<-- I'm not sure that this is the right way to sign my name here? So, sorry it's wrong?) I just found this page and I feel like they could be talking about me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_faith I really am "in good faith" trying to post the correct information here! I just don't understand some of the terms you guys use and I'm totally lost with all this copyright stuff. And if the bio I wrote isn't something that is allowed to be posted, can you please point me in the right direction, so that I can learn how to write one that is suitable for this page? I really did read a few other bios and thought mine was OK to post here. Thanks for any help you can give me.[reply]

What image and article are you referring to? --Carnildo 07:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bio and photo for actor Robert Gant. Abisel

Thanks so much for getting back to me. I'm going to try to put the photo up again, once my IP # is unblocked. I have aol and that sometimes happens. What about the bio? Should I post it here so that you can read it? Or, I can post the link to it as it's posted on his official website too. Please let me know so that I can put it back up again if you approve. If you approve the bio, is there anything that I have to add to it so that it's not deleted again? Thanks! --Abisel

Listen Carnildo, I've been keeping an eye on the whole arbcom thing, and I noticed your comment on how you feel you must have annoyed enough people over image copyright to preclude you from any popularity. I just wanted to say that although nobody is ever going to be particularly pleased about having an image deleted, I would like to think that the enlightened sort of people who are a part of this online encyclopedia would appreciate that your intention is not to piss people off but rather to ensure the continued existence of this fantastic endeavour. And although I may have thought a few choice expletives when you deleted my own image I absolutely respect and commend your reasons for doing what you do. I'm sure that this experience will leave a nasty taste in your mouth, but as one wikipedia user to another, I honestly hope you stay with us. Brian 20:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously haven't seen the sort of resentment OrphanBot's image removals have produced, or the sheer scale that it works on. Over the past month, OrphanBot has removed 16,992 images from articles, uploaded by approximately 11,000 different users, and is continuing to remove images at a rate of about 300-400 a day.

OrphanBot has notified 7,179 users of impending image deletions, and I usually get the blame when the images are deleted -- after all, my name's the one on the warning, they can't check the deletion history, and they don't know about the deletion log. I frequently also get blamed for tagging images, and I've been accused of all sorts of other things -- see OrphanBot's user page for a partial list.

I've currently got two emails from irate users sitting in my inbox, and I get regular accusations of vandalism on my talk page. I haven't checked Wikipedia:Vandalism in Progress or Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that I've been listed there, too. I've had ten users and three anons deliberately trigger the bot's emergency shutoff feature not because the bot was malfunctioning, but because they didn't like that it was enforcing policy. There's at least one user who sees my bot (and by extension, me) as a menace to Wikipedia on a par with Willy on Wheels.

If a re-application for adminship were judged only by administrators, or only by contributors with over 1000 edits, I might have a chance of a fair evaluation. With anyone and everyone allowed to come by, I don't stand a chance. --Carnildo 23:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Not wanting to sound like I'm in any way pre-judging the outcome of all this, but I know I'm not alone in saying the being an administrator is not the be-all and end-all of Wikipedia, like a status that all users should one day aspire to. If the number one aim of every regular user is to learn, to share that learning, and to make that sharing more effective, then Admin status or not, your ability to be a productive member of the Wikipedia team is undiminished. What I'm basically trying to say is that whilst this incident may have dented your ego, it doesn't make you any less an important member of the Wikipedia team. I'll not say anymore because my intention isn't to preach - I'm really just trying to be nice, I hope that's how this is perceived! Take it easy. Brian 10:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hello, i have received your notification on my discussion page regarding to this picture, i have specified source and why it is believed to be fair use. If further details are required please feel free to send me a feedback. HappyApple 00:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are works of a Public University considered fair use? R'son-W 01:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, no. It's quite possible for a Wikipedian to make a free-license replacement for an image like Image:UGA_Arch.jpg. --Carnildo 07:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I have written to the owner requesting permission to use the image. If I do not get it, I will find a "fair use" alternative. Cheers. -- S Masters 06:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your note. I've dropped the picture you were unsure about and loaded up a different one. What is the rule regarding anonymous old postcards in which there was no claim or assertion of copyright? I took some information from the Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Reading Room. I found this information useful:

To establish a prima facie case of copyright infringement, the plaintiff must prove "ownership" of copyrighted material and "copying" by the defendant. (Norma Ribbon & Trimming, Inc. v. Little, 51 F.3d 45, 47 (5th Cir. 1995) (citing Lakedreams v. Taylor, 932 F.2d 1103, 1107 (5th Cir.1991). A plaintiff establishes "ownership" by demonstrating that the material is "copyrightable" and that he complied with the statutory requirements in securing the copyright. Central Point Software, Inc. v. Nugent, 903 F.Supp. 1057, 1057 (E.D. Tex. I995).

If it is difficult for you to find a rights holder after employing due diligence, it ought to be equally difficult for a claimant to show that a copyright had been secured.

I take that to mean that if an image is unmarked and unclaimed and has been in the public domain for some years (a postcard for example) then it would be hard for anyone to claim copyright infringement. SilkTork 09:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For material that was published in the United States before 1977, where the original publication lacks any copyright statement, the material is in the public domain. --Carnildo 04:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your help a few days ago. I've stumbled on another possible copyright technicality that I was wondering if you could advise me on, regarding Image:Former BSA.jpg at the discussion here. As a side note, the user I'm talking with is possibly arguing in bad faith, based on the ANI entry I started here. Regardless, what do you think? I'm not knowledgeable enough to tell if his arguments are valid or simply done in bad faith. Is the image a breach of fair use policy? Thanks again for your help; I appreciate it and all you do regarding images on Wikipedia. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 11:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. The issue's resolved - a few court cases set precedents that uncopyrighted but trademarked images can be altered and released as public domain, regardless of trademark status. Sorry to bother, and thanks. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 17:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Carnildo, I just erased the pictured from Willie Lanier article. You can delete it from Wikipedia site, at will. Yours anytime. --Zzzzzzus 13:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)zzzzzzus[reply]

I wanted this image deleted that is why I left it w/o copyright information. It is redundant and of poor quality. All my other images have the correct copyright information. Is that the proper way to get an image deleted ? I have a couple more that I uploaded by mistake. Renmiri 20:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Renmiri[reply]

I have a similar case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lattice_of_the_divisibility_of_60.PNG is a picture I thought I had left with an open licence, but apparently i left it with no license. Anyways, the picture has been since replaced, and should be deleted. Fresheneesz 20:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that this old image (uploaded back in November 2004) does not specify its sources. I am not sure what to do in this case, so I am asking for an advice of a more experienced editor. Thanks in advance. Pecher ^Talk 21:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image I have uploaded is of the same source as Image:NexhatDaci.jpg and therefore should have the same copyright status.--Pjetër Bogdani III 23:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hogwarts (2nd nomination) because you participated in the first vote. Savidan 04:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, is there a reason I received a second notice about the same image? I wrote the organization last week to request a replacement. Feel free to delete the old one. My apologies for the oversight. Durova 10:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader of this image initially claimed to be the author of the work (as per the image page tagged above). The book was then discovered to be nonexistent. Lastly, the author was indefinitely blocked for being a sockpuppet, so no proof of source will be forthcoming. Please speedy this at your earliest convenience. MSJapan 14:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me. I have put the tag GFDL. It was created by me. It was earlier wrongly tagged- fairuse. burdak 15:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting really tired of being bugged about this stupid picture. If you don't want it here then DELETE IT and quit freakin messaging me about it. For the official record... It's been up here on Wikipedia for a while I don't even remember uploading it and I don't remember where it came from. If the "screenshot tag" isn't good enough anymore - then WHATEVER - just get rid of it because I really don't care. Cyberia23 15:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STOP YOUR ANNOYING BOT! It's been putting the same stupid image tag message on my talk page over and over again and I want it stopped! Cyberia23 22:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me. I have put the tag GFDL. It was created by me. It was earlier wrongly tagged- fairuse. burdak 15:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The source, if it is the same as the Walsh biiogrpahical article itself is the Georgetown Universtiy Digital collection.

Hey there. I have been looking really hard for it. I found the image where it is based from. But i got it from a moderator at the official mandy moore website.

Parys 17:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of Image:JephJacques.jpg is the subject himself, Jeph Jacques, as I pointed out in the image description. He has referenced his Wikipedia article before, and posted this image on his LiveJournal. I will seek his aproval on the use of the image, but he can be slow to send responses. Is there a more appropriate copyright status to use in the time being, or should it be removed and re-uploaded at a later time? --Inarius 17:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to remove it and re-upload it later. --Carnildo 04:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i have received your message at my discussion page, I want to apologice for the inconvenience the picture related to Hoffmann aparatus has caused to Wikipedia. In order to extinguish flames i have uploaded a second version of the picture (properly tagged and fair use claimed) which seems to had a friendlier copyright to wikipedia standards, But i advise you to please do not and avoid all condemning adjectives such as you have used Edit summary which can be seen on the history thread http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Electrolysis_hoffman.PNG&action=history of that image on which you used unappropiate words when referring to this graphic material.HappyApple 20:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanBot took out a chunk of the intro from this site when it removed the image, losing a fair bit of basic info. Might be worth having a look at OrphanBot's approach, as this may be due to some systematic problem which could seriously affect other intros. Also, if you could restore the intro info, that would be great.Thanks. Robma 22:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanBot does occasionally remove too much when it's taking out a captioned image (maybe one edit in a thousand has this problem), but when it does so, you can find the missing piece inside the HTML comment with the removed image, and whenever OrphanBot thinks it might have removed too much, it logs a message on its talk page. What happened here was that OrphanBot removed the image, then almost two months later, an anon vandalized the intro --Carnildo 02:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Righto - thanks for the note; understood. I've fixed the intro using the original text, so it's fine now. I must say as a newbie I'm v impressed with these bots .... Robma 10:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war case Raul654 23:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not upload this image and have never seen it before. Were you mistaken in your message on my user page? --Randy Johnston 03:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no, and maybe. The image currently displayed at Image:Printer.png is on Wikimedia Commons. However, sometime earlier today an image with the same title was deleted from Wikipedia, which was almost certainly an image uploaded by you. --Carnildo 03:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==Need to restore photograph from Georgetown University Special Digital collection at Edmund A Walsh School of Foreign Service Site.

Feel free to delete all those images I uploaded back then (when I was stupid...)!

(I am leaving the same info on User talk:Freakofnurture.)
FYI:
Noticing you-all's work, i toured the lks on User:Jerzy/WikiProj-soliciting stub templates and did these. So far, these resulted. This exchange of talk followed. Tnx for your related edits, and your attention now.
--Jerzy•t 13:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know you can #REDIRECT your bot's talk page here to this one, right? That way your bot can sign its name and less confusion will occur. --James S. 17:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using the bot's talk page as a record of edits that the bot thinks I need to look at, and as a way for people to stop the bot without blocking it should it start malfunctioning. Unless there's a way of doing both of those tasks while still redirecting the page, I'm pretty much stuck with the way things are. --Carnildo 18:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The image Image:Chivimaxim33qn.jpg has a source!

It's a scan of an Argentine Tabloid called 'Papparazzi'.

Can you please put the image back to it's place?

Thanks.

Thanks for uploading Image:Daedaluscap158.JPG. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. -- Carnildo 19:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You've only changed the tag, but still haven't provided a source. What is the text? Exactly where is this from? I appreciate the details you have provided, but can we have a link to the source, so the status can be verified by other users? The JPS 04:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Daedaluscap158.JPG

I took the screen shot myself. It is from COSMOS by Carl Sagan. There is no on-line source to link to. I do not maintain a web-page. What else do I need to tell you. This is not a new item -- I uploaded it in June. Why have you waited until now?

-- Jason Palpatine 04:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC) [reply]

There were 18,547 images ahead of it in line. --Carnildo 02:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Screaming Trees and Donna Dresch.gif

Have corrected its status - is it okay to put it back now? - Greatgavini 09:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page name for temperature articles

To avoid flip-flopping between 'degree Fahrenheit' and 'Fahrenheit' or 'degree Celsius' and 'Celsius', I propose that we have a discussion on which we want. I see you have contributed on units of measurement, please express your opinion at Talk:Units of measurement. Thanks. bobblewik 22:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omnipotence paradox

Thank you for reverting omnipotence paradox to the version which was promoted to FA. I edited the article again to include the two or three positive changes which had been made during the interval, so perhaps some good came out of the mess. Anville 15:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accident...

It was probably an accident. Chill dude.... Your over reacting, its just a letter.--Gators222 00:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Gators222

Can you delete my image?

I uploaded an image by mistake that your bot tagged... I realized the image was unnecessary, can you take it down? It's Image:CandyJaracp2.png Caleb 04:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Saltmarsh-Grass.JPG

Hi Carnildo - saw your bot had tagged this as no license. Other (more recent) pics by the same user are tagged gfdl, so I guess this one can be tagged presumed gfdl. - MPF 11:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanBot does not tag images. Image:Saltmarsh-Grass.JPG was tagged as "no license" by CLW on [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Saltmarsh-Grass.JPG&diff=38194793&oldid=26835513 4 February 2006]. --Carnildo 07:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tripod image

It's a screenshot from a movie. That is it's copyright status.- JustPhil 11:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pot on stove.jpg

Hey Carnildo, you recently uploaded Image:Pot on stove.jpg, which has no licensing information. Based on the source information you provided, you're the copyright holder, so could you hop on over there and release it under the GFDL or public domain or something to that effect? Thanks! —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 13:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Airdosechernobyl graph

Hi, I have started to take some steps towards making a more copyright free version of the graph. I have taken public doman data from the OECD (same source as the graph), plus some other data which is freely avaiable, and some data from a data book, I have redone the calculations in excel and drawn a new graph which displays similar data.

If I then cite the sources of data when I upload the graph, as I calculated the lines for the graph and made the drawing, do you think that I will legally own the copyright and thus be able to sign it away ?Cadmium

If you make the image yourself from data, then yes, you do own the copyright. --Carnildo 07:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphanbot's deletion of Image:Shooting.jpg

I have made the entry, but this may have been too late. Orphanbot has deleted it. It is a lovely picture. It shows Ian Smith at the Bulawayo Farmers' Fair about two days after he became Prime Minister of Rhodesia. There was a lot of grumbling about "lazy kaffir" waiters in the beer tent and Smith picked up a rifle and took aim at one of the waiters. This caused much amusement amongst the onlookers. The picture was taken by a middle-aged reporter from the Bulawayo Times. The latter paper went defunct in 1981 and the photographer must be dead by now. The picture has been used all around the world in numerous publications and web sites. There cannot be any copyright in it.

Any chance of restoring it?.

Bob

ps : I have put a revised tag on the image and taken the liberty of restoring it to one of the articles. Hope this is OK. Bob

image help

does that mean that the picture of dog eat dog will also be deleted from my user page? Dog Eat Dog World 16:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i found it!!!!

i found the copyright! it's Fotosearch and Photosearch are trademarks of Fotos earch, LLC All rights reserved. © 2/14/2006 [pr] yay! Dog Eat Dog World 16:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wheeljack picture removal

You removed a picture of a Wheeljack toy I put on the Wheeljack page. This is a picture of my toy Wheeljack I took with my digital camera. How do I add copyright info to it exactly?

Image copyright problem with Image:Robert_Jordan.jpg

Well, this image has no copyright info. Well, owners said that we can use it for only non-comercial use. Well, I don't know how to set up copyright notice on Image:Robert_Joran.jpg so can use set it insted of me...

Thanks

Wladimir 19:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can't use images that are licensed for non-commercial use only. --Carnildo 07:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image copyright problem with Image:SJHS.jpg

The image was taken on a digital camera and uploaded to the school's website about 3 years ago. There is no known copyright on the image. I must apologize as I am still new to Wikipedia and am still learning. If you could assist me in this matter, I would be most grateful.

--GuyOfOwnage 21:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re tmccrannold.jpg

Hi. you left this message on my talk page... "Thanks for uploading Image:Tcrannold.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: Template:TemplateName.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 00:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)" ...I thought that I had already resolved this problem with RFJFR (another user) back in October... guess not. Delete the image if you wish - I don't know the copyright owner.

Ta. ZPMMaker 21:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Blsoldclass2.jpg

Hello, this image was published between 1964 and 1923. It is used on the Seevak site with no copyright clearances, renewals, notices, or attributions. These two images are public domain. --Muchosucko 21:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gallio.gif and Gassner2.jpg

Please wait a couple of days before deleting. Both pics are PD-old and appear on the first page of a Google image search with the full names of the persons. Thanks--J heisenberg 23:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Alex_Smith.jpg

Hi, can you tell me how to find out if the picture is copyrighted or not. I want to know why you think this picture is copyrighted. This was my first picture, so i wasn't sure on how to find out the copyright of the picture. Thanks.Giantsrule 23:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot removing unsourced images from pages after 5 days instead of 7

It seems as if your bot is removing unsourced images from pages 5 days after they're marked with the unsourced tag, instead 7 as recommended. See Image:Universityofdayton.jpg. Thanks. Peyna 23:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's by design. By removing images two days before the earliest they can be deleted, it gives other users watching the article notification that the image has a problem, and a chance to fix the lack of source or copyright information. --Carnildo 00:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thanks for the reply. Peyna 01:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you understand...

how it was probably an accident, sorry dude. How do you get or make a bot.--Gators222 00:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Gators222

Image copyright problem with Image:HFHS_Mumbai_Building.jpg

I actually do want the above image that I uploaded to be deleted. --Amit 00:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this now seems deleted. --Amit 04:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image copyright problem with Image:Kahn's_Rochester_Sanctuary.jpeg

This is a photograph that I took myself- What should I do about this? Sorry it took so long to respond. --Jimbo35353 14 Feb 2006

Re: Image copyright problem with Image:01holly.jpg

The image is a Charmed Season 8 Promo picture that was released before the start of season 8, I found it at http://charmed.fan-sites.org. Could you please fix the copyright as I do not know how to do it? --Chimufu 02:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Warnings

Stop spamming me with your image warnings, I don't care. --Tykell 15:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've been added to the "don't notify" list. This will take effect the next time OrphanBot starts running. --Carnildo 18:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB

Hello. Sorry if this has been covered before, but I'm seeing a lot of people tagging photos as promo, and citing the IMDB. Image:Gambon3.jpg is an example. What are your thoughts on this, from experience. Copy vios, or acceptable? The JPS 20:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:NES_Metroid_Map.jpg

Carnildo: Thanks for uploading Image:NES_Metroid_Map.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you. -- Carnildo 13:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kris18: Thank you for notifying me about my mistake on Image:NES_Metroid_Map.jpg, but unfortunately I do not know the correct lisense. I would like to keep it on Wikipedia for use but I understand the policy and I guess I have to let it be deleted by an admin. Kris18 21:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Bloody_April.jpg and Ion_Dissonance.jpg

For Bloody April, my friend is friends with the band and they said they were fine putting the picture on the site, i have problems with putting pictures up, so i need some help because i am planning to do this more in the future. as for ion dissonance, this photo is given on many sites as a promo for their cds. please also reverse this, thx.

-- User:Panasonicyouth99 20:57, 14 Feburary 2006 (UTC)

Kristen Kreuk

Even if all the text has been photoshopped out? Oh well. And thanks for the heads-up about my page. Nightscream 04:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]