User talk:Carnildo/images

If you've got questions about images that OrphanBot's notified you about, here's the place to ask them

If you are leaving a comment specific to an image please provide a link or the filename of the image

Tea Sandwich

I recently uploaded a pictue of what a tea sandwich looks like atFile:0905 tea sandwich.jpg,on which i put theTemplate:Art.However, Orphanbot said that it had no tag. Did I do something wrong (which I'm pretty sure I didnt, but I could be wrong) or did Orphanbot make a mistake? --JoeBlowfromKokomo 05:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's because you typed {{subst:Art}} rather than {{Art}}. As a result, the contents of the template are placed in the article, rather than a link to the template, and automated processes such as OrphanBot or the untagged images search think that the image is untagged.

That said, I don't think the image in question qualifies for use on Wikipedia underour fair use policy.You can't take images from just anywhere to illustrate articles: the image itself, rather than the subject of the image, must be relevant to the article it's used in. --Carnildo 08:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. Actually, I agree that it should be deleted now that you mention it and I have no trouble with it; I'll just make one myself so that its free-license. --JoeBlowfromKokomo 20:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images on Mark Bautista page

We wish to put back the images we posted at the Mark Bautista page. Here are the links of the sources of each image. Thank you. Hope you reply.

Mark_bautista.gif - came fromhttp://www.manilastandardonline.com:8080/mnlastd/ContentLoader?page=goodLife01_jan31_2004

Mark_five.jpg - came fromhttp://www.markbautista.com/multimedia/gallery/index.php?pageType=folder&currDir=./Magazines/Star_Studio

Mark_sfan.jpg - came fromhttp://www.markbautista.com/multimedia/gallery/index.php?pageType=folder&currDir=./Magazines/Star_Studiohttp://www.markbautista.com/multimedia/gallery/index.php?pageType=folder&currDir=./Screenshots/Star_For_A_Night/Grand_Finals&startFrom=1

Mark_lastikman.jpg - came fromhttp://www.abs-cbn.com/entertainment/ent-121504-lastikman.aspx

Bosphorus_01.jpg

Bosphorus_01.jpg It was taken by my friend camera in Istanbul 2004 summer. I can not send a puplic link but i thought it is nice to keep this image.

Question

Well for one, how does it decide what to orphan? Images without tags? There are lots of those, tagging wasn't introduced until more than two years into this project.Maury 13:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanBot goes after images that are tagged as "no source" or "no license". And there aren't that many old untagged images -- about a year and a half ago, there was a very successful drive to add copyright tags to all images. --Carnildo 18:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images for deletion

Go ahead and delete all the images that are usedhere(they are the same asImage:Cheerz.gifandImage:Help.gif), eventually the Bot will get them and i don't want it clogging my talk page with its messages. --Boris 14:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

done. --Martyman-(talk)07:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Filename: ChetHelms.gif

I uploaded this GIF photo to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chet_Helms

I got it at: http://www.bruceeisner.com/

The website's creator, Bruce Weisner, gave me permission to use the photo, which merges two photos of producer Chet Helms together, on the above wikipage i started, but I'm not sure if Mr. Weisner took the original photos. He has a Wiki page and assures me he has rights as per Creative Commons which has a Wiki page as well. I thought the only determinants would be Fair Use or the DMCA. Any inputs? I want to comply and am ready to take it down, but will I be running into this with all images unless I myself created them?

DonL 08:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

What images can I upload the the wikipedia site? Any ideas.

User:Dprevot 12:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DonL 08:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleat Image:Amishred.jpg

ok this can be deleated. thanks
paula clare 17:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ppatos.jpg

Please delete this image. I have been unable to determine copyright status for it.Erzahler 18:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I am aware of the problem with the image I uploaded. I was hoping it would go into the discussion area directly and that someone there would be able to help me with the copyright determination. Since it did not, perhaps since I did not give a good enough copyright status, I just left it there, and I expect to try and brave my way thru the cellar archives to see if I can find one that I took myself in the 60's of Felix. It is a very cluttered cellar, so it may take time.

I could not find any button to push so that I could delete it myself. Could you tell me how to?DanielDemaret 18:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responded. --Martyman-(talk)07:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Map_kanagawa_odawara_city_p01-01.png

Thanks for your (automatic) message concerningImage:Map_kanagawa_odawara_city_p01-01.png.It's a good idea to inform people. I only find it strange that I get the message the same day the picture gets deleted. Anyway, just for completeness, I got the picture from ja and there was no copyright notice and the user who uploaded is not active any more.Ben^T/_C21:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Smith_chart_1602.gif

How can thisImage:Smith_chart_1602.gifbe deleted due to lack of copyright status. I just don't know what tag to choose. But that's an instrument used since decades ago by Radio Frequency engineering, that can't be copyrighted.Afonso Silva 21:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

retagged -cohesion★talk 07:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

image:snaptrax.jpg

I am unable to dertermin the correct tag to use because I dont know which would be correct. I really would like to keep the image here, so if you could help me detirmin the copyright tag to use, I would appreciate it. The image is an image of a product made by LEGO™ (i got it off of googl image search). please contact me on mytalk pageif you have an answer. I will then be glad to give the image a license.

Image:Khuê Văn Các.jpg

I've just received a copyright message left byUser:OrphanBot(which, I take it, isn't only concerned with orphans...). Could you take a look at the image, and the inforamtion that I left when I up-loaded it? You might also take a look at the discussion that preceded it (to which I've linked on the image page). Thanks. --Mel Etitis(Μελ Ετητης)22:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

resolved on talk page -cohesion★talk 07:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (see your main Talk page for my main response). --Mel Etitis(Μελ Ετητης)12:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image: Image:NCG250collision.jpg.

Thanks for your post regarding Copywrite on the image of Galaxies colliding. I am still a newbie Wikipedia contributer and so have some difficulties in creating pages. The image, I believe was from a public domain site but for the life of me I cannot remember were I got it from. Can you help?

Warm regards

John D. Croft 06:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responded. --Martyman-(talk)07:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image: Image:BreannaLynn.jpg

(Picture of stillborn baby girl, Breanna Lynn Bartlett-Stewart, from a memorial site athttp://www.sids.org.uk/fsid/bartlett.htm)

This photograph exists on many different Web sites, including one that Lisa Bartlett seems to have created, herself. So I think maybe the copyright would rest with her, if anyone. Please advise. Thanks,BobbyLee 16:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

answered on talk page -cohesion★talk 18:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've verified the license on the photo, and re-uploaded it as Breanna_Lynn.jpg. Feel free to delete the old one.BobbyLee 19:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canada Gov images

A bunch of images from the Canada gov are tagged for deletion cause the template got deleted for some reason. Works of the gov are under crown copyright which allow them to be used as long as attribution is there, as the license template explained.Elfguy 19:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responded. --Martyman-(talk)21:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't personally care, I uploaded several of those and others did too, I just think it's a waste to mass delete, especially since several large canadian articles have just those images in them, and 5-10 pages articles will go from having 10 images to 0. All that because of a guess of how the law works, when I doubt this use is against what the gov wants with their copyright.Elfguy 21:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete

I know it's coming up on time for deletion anyway, but take this image off the server:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:047a.jpg.I decided to go another way after traking down the info on the copyright.JustinLillich 07:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge

I see your Orphanbot has removed the Caius shield20pxfrom certain pages. It seems to have singled out Caius from all the Cambridge colleges for this treatment (seehere), and I wonder why no others have been removed? I did not upload any of the college shields myself by the way. --Historian 14:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the internals of the bot, but I'd guess that the other images were tagged{{gfdl}}.If the creator of the image in question can or has released their rights to this reproduction of a historical coat of arms, retagging the image should keep it out of Orphanbot's orbit. Regards,Dethomas 18:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bot works on images that have been tagged certain things by human editors, so that one shield was tagged, but the other's weren't most likely. -cohesion★talk 20:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Futuramapilot.jpg

User:OrphanBotput the "this image will be deleted in 7 days" on Image:Futuramapilot.jpg. The reason to not delete the image is I have re-added it toSpace Pilot 3000. --Icweiner 02:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roomba,run byGmaxwell,is the bot that tags unused "fair use" images for possible deletion. OrphanBot removed it fromSpace Pilot 3000because, at the time, it was tagged only as{{somewebsite}},with no indication of license terms. --Carnildo 05:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jovanovic Ranjeni Crnogorac.jpg

Hello. I am unsure of what type of tag would be appropriate forImage:Jovanovic Ranjeni Crnogorac.jpg.(PD-art) does not seem to apply because the maker died a few decades back, and (art) does not apply because this was a very early painting for the artist (pre-1923). Any suggestions?Antidote 06:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does the source site[1]make the image available under afree license,such as{{GFDL}}?If not, you could opt for{{Fair use in}},together with arationale for fair use

copyright tag

For the second time now, your bot has tagged this image, but it HAS a copyright tag:Image:1776.jpg.

It has been tagged correctly now so it shouldn't be a problem in the future. -cohesion★talk 19:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Trina_Schart_Hyman_selfport.png

AboutImage:Trina_Schart_Hyman_selfport.png,here's what I said on that image's discussion page:

WP:FU#Imagesand the {{Art}} template state that low-res images of paintings are believed to be fair use for the purposes of commentary, but the drop-down doesn't provide an obvious option for such an image. help?Deborah-jl_Talk03:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any help would be appreciated.Deborah-jl_Talk03:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The dropdown only has many of the most commonly used tags, the full list is available fromWikipedia:Image copyright tags,you're right though the {{Art}} tag is a claim of fair use, and in this context I think it's appropriate, I removed the no license warning, and the image should be fine now. Thanks for responding:D -cohesion★talk 06:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much!Deborah-jl_Talk14:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and delete Image:S_mapdraw.JPG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:S_mapdraw.JPGis redundant and too big/good to be fair use. It is not being used anywhereRenmiri 03:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes forImage:RENKE.jpgandImage:Yrp 3.jpg

Should I have used a different tag for the images that need to be deleted?Renmiri 03:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you uploaded the image and then want it deleted because it's obsoleted by another image you plan to upload etc you can tag it for speedy deletion under CSD:G7WP:CSD.-cohesion★talk 06:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

image:city_link_bus.PNG

ive uploaded a new version of this picture when i found out the copyright holder - fotopic.netthe southerner 08:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading that, do you have some reason to believe that images on fotopic.net are licensed under theGFDL?I looked around and can't see anything to that effect. Please let me know either here or on my talk page. -cohesion^t20:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

image: Reddoglogo2.jpg

This is copyright Davy King & has his permission to be usedCuriousexplorer 15:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

image: Lsignme.jpg

This is copwright Davy King & has his permission to be usedCuriousexplorer 15:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately permission to use an image on wikipedia is not enough to satisfy theGFDLrequirements of our license. Works uploaded to wikipedia can't be more restrictive than the GFDL, or they must be used under a claim of fair use. If you would like to ask his permission to license the images under something compatible with the GFDL consider usingsome pre made letters.Hope that answers your questions. -cohesion^t20:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jalaseh Majles.jpg

This image was uploaded with a fairuse tag. I had already cleared it with the adminUser:wikiacc.The copyright holder source info and link was already provided. I dont know why it was marked.--Zereshk 08:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the edit history, what happened was:

Hope this clears things up. --Carnildo 08:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

indeed. that's why wikiacc advised me to upload ISNA images under fairuse. What do you think?--Zereshk 08:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's from an actual press kit or equivalent, then tag it{{promotional}}.Otherwise, it's not being used for identification and critical commentary, so it's hard to claim "fair use". --Carnildo 03:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Munson15Topps.JPG

Thought I fixed the problem, no?AriGold 12:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The tag was originally saying there was no license information, then you added a source and removed the tag. It was re-added because there was still unclear copyright. You added the copyright information now. I think there may be a misunderstanding about the central premise of what we are doing at image tagging. We're not arbitrarily enforcing rules about image metadata, we're trying to make sure we have the legal right to use the images on the site. In this case we clearly do not. Simply saying Topps has the copyright, while most likely correct, means that we at Wikipedia cannot arbitrarily take their photo and reuse it in whatever way we see fit without their knowledge. So what we are doing is looking through the images to make sure they are compatible with our use at Wikipedia. A good page to read might beWikipedia:Copyrights.Does that explanation make sense? If not feel free to ask more questions to clear it up on this page or my talk page. -cohesion^t18:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Drwagnerjr.jpg

I believe I've supplied the correct tag forImage:Drwagnerjr.jpgnow, but please correct me or advise me if I'm wrong.BronzeWarrior 08:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That looks fine, it should be ok now:) -cohesion^t09:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fukuoka_CityMap.png

This is one of several tens of images on English wikipedia used for Japanese cities and prefectures that sourced the same maps from the Japanese wikipedia. I don't know the license status of the maps on the Japanese wikipedia (although I remember reading something a bit ominous after the fact about them being released "as is" ) and I don't have time to look in to it now, but it is good that Wikipedia is sorting them out. I used the images from the Japanese wikipedia assuming them to have a wikipedia compatible license and apparently wasted many hours preparing them for the English wikipedia; it would be a shame for someone else to make further derivative works in vain. Speaking of which, "Thanks for uploading Image:Fukuoka_CityMap.png [but it will be deleted]" feels like rather patronizating recognition for what will have been a lot of wasted effort. --Oarih 15:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All images used on the english wikipedia must have full source and copyright information. If the original image was under the GFDL then there is a requirement that attribution be given to the image's original creator. Essentially the image should have a link to the original description page (on the japanese wikipedia) and a translation of the original copyirght text to english so that it is possible to check the copyright status of the original. Then based on that information you will be able to tell which copyright tag is most appropriate for your derived image. May I suggest if you are interested in chasing this up you could try and find an active contributer fromCategory:User ja-Nto help with translating the text. --Martyman-(talk)21:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Albert ekka Stamp.jpg

Hey Carnildo! It seems that the bot might be having some issues. This is realted to articleAlbert Ekka.The bot removed a fair use stamp from the article[2]and later added a tag to the image that it is not used in any article so it will be deleted. I am unable to understand as to why it is being programmed to do so.. First it removes the fair use image and then deletes it saying that its used no where.. I think this is unjustified... I had spent a lot of time in getting that stamp...

--IndianCow 15:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template{{PD-IndiaGov}}was deleted presumably because Indian government works are not actually in the public domain. ThenUser:Splashmarked the image as lacking copyright information. Later Orphanbot removed the image from the article. You then added a fair use claim to the image but did not re-add the image to the article. All fair use images must be used in articles, so another botUser:Roombamarked the fair use image as needing to be deleted. As it now stands the image is fine and will not effected by any more bots. --Martyman-(talk)21:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Canadian Destroyer.jpg

YourOrphanBottold me thatImage:Canadian Destroyer.jpghad no copyright information. I put that up when I uploaded it. As it turns out, some unregistered vandal decided to screw with the copyright tag. I didn't know until OrphanBot informed me that someone put a no-source-info tag on it. Thanks, I've reverted the description to the proper tag. --Kitch 10:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I have uploaded a few mimages and some have goten deleted and this is one of the last one left.

Image:German_88mm_Gun,_The_men_at_the...

Those images that I have uploaded are all 60+ years so copyright law cant affect them. Also some were taken by the Soviets or published by the Soviet Unnion and therefore cant be affected by copyright law either.

If you want to delete its fine, but I might maybe perhaps possibly upload it again and the others some time in the future with a much better source description.

Cheers

(Deng 10:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Image:Buck65vertex.jpg

Image:Buck65vertex.jpgis a CD cover. How much source and creator info is required for a lo res depiction of a CD cover or DVD cover? The current description (before i edited it today) said what artist and CD the cover was from. Is the tag wrong or something? Honestly confused. Its especally confusing for me since I made the artwork when I worked for the company that is now out of business....WayeMason 12:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As it's fairly obviously an album cover I've added an 'Albumcover' tag to the image page. Regards,Ian Dunster 14:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BoA_DontStartNow.jpg

Image:BoA_DontStartNow.jpgis a CD cover and I'm not sure how much information you want to be provided since the copyright is with the record label? I really don't understand (like the person above)... Yajimari21 13:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As it's fairly obviously an album cover I've added an 'Albumcover' tag to the image page. Regards,Ian Dunster 14:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Spicejet1.jpg

Uh,your bot sent me this message regarding my image not being in proper order(Image:Spicejet1.jpg).However i assure that i contacted the photographer via e-mail and he was more than happy to give it for free use.If however my tag is wrong,i am sorry,and can you help me out with it,i never really did get the hang of it.Prateek01 13:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To remain on wikipedia the image must credit who created the photo and provide some proof of the copyright claim. So in this cas eyou would need to credit the photographer involved and put a copy of the email releasing all rights on the description page. --Martyman-(talk)22:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging forImage:Brimingham_Central_Library_fire_jan1879.jpg

Image:Brimingham_Central_Library_fire_jan1879.jpgwas taken in 1879. I would think it qualifies as PD unless we are told otherwise. OK in theory the photographer was 20 years old and lived to 100, then we would have to rely on fair use, but realistically I think we are safe on this one.Rich Farmbrough14:009 March 2006(UTC).

tagged{{PD-old-50}}-The JPS 14:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging forImage:Spore_print_sheet_png.png

Hi again Carnildo.

This image is one ofUser:Rafti Instituteone's.

BTW, I have added the proper tags to the two album cover image (Image:Buck65vertex.jpg&Image:BoA_DontStartNow.jpg) pages in the two posts above, as they are fairly obviously album covers.

Regards,Ian Dunster 14:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, thanks for adding the corect tags to the album covers. The image above was uploaded by you according to the records. I assume you created a png version of the jpg original. Without a link to the original file it is impossible to tell the source or copyright of the file. Could you please let us know which file it was that this is based on. Thanks. --Martyman-(talk)22:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Howardzinn-wellfleet.jpg.

Fixed. Photo taken by his son Jeff Zinn and distributed as publicity photo by HarperCollins. No copyright claimed. I cropped it. Thanks for the note.skywriter 14:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tl from the template, so that the image would be tagged. Are you sure this license is correct? This is one of the most broad licenses available, It seems unlikely that HarperCollins released as such although I could be wrong -cohesion^t09:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Brugge Canel.jpg

I got your message, it says there is no source information. In the description it says that I took it myself and release it into public domain. Is that not enough? If not let me know and I can tag it with one of them templates I'm sure exist. thanks,Rx StrangeLove 15:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is tagged correctly now, and isn't in danger of deletion anymore, thanks:D -cohesion^t09:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Butyl nitrite.JPG

I just got a message from OrphanBot about Butyl_nitrite.JPG. Apparently information was not supplied with it. I can assure Wikipedia that I made this file myself, using MDL Is/Is Draw, along with a bunch of other molecule pictures for thealkyl nitritesring.

How should I go about adding source information to the picture? Thanks--Ddhix 2002 18:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look atImage:Butyl nitrite.JPGnow and see if that is acceptable, if so follow the instructions on that tag to change it to{{GFDL-self}}.Thanks for responding:) -cohesion^t09:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:James_Otis.gif

Re: Image:James_Otis.gif, the source info and PD-US tag were removed by an anon back in Nov for no apparent reason. I have restored my original info. Thx,Mwanner|Talk 22:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, sorry for the trouble, it is not in danger of deletion now. -cohesion^t09:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Ashokrowkavi.jpg

I had gotten the image from the pagehttp://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030809/nation.htmand was going to claim fair use, but I don't see anything other than his picture under the "Briefly" section and not a complete article to claim for fair use. It might be best to go ahead and delete the photograph in this case. (A rundhati Bakshi(talk•contribs))21:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this image OK?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ingleby_Barwick_Crest.gifI'm not sure since its a crest from the UK not US, but I've seen crests from the UK tagged wtith the US copyright tag before. Am I safe to remove the "unsure" tag? I'm new to wikipedia so a little unsure of what to do!

The copyright tagging looks fine now, I have removed the warnings and it should be fine to remain on wikipedia now. --Martyman-(talk)22:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lotSuper Ted 12:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Image:Buckhurst_hill_tube.jpg

I took the image and am happy to release it into the public domain. I spent ten minutes trying to work out who to apply the tagb, but it's not explained clearly enough. If you'd like to add the tag then you're more than welcome. Best wishes. ~~User:Matt.whitby

I have added the appropriate tag. The tag you are after is added to an mage description simply by including the text {{GFDL-self}}. --Martyman-(talk)10:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woops, sorry I got that wrong. You where after the PD tag which is {{PD-self}}. I will fix the image description. --Martyman-(talk)10:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring Deleted Images

Hi. Since your or your bot erased most of the public domain images I had uploaded and used on the Union City, New Jersey article, I'm trying to restore them. Although I made it clear in the text of each that they were government images, I suppose I neglected to use the precise tag. The only problem is, the WP page on image copyright tags has very limited info on government tags, as it only mentions federal and state ones, but not city/municipal ones. Which tag do I use for this? Thanks.Nightscream 13:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessarily the case that images taken by local or city governments are public domain. You would need to check the laws of the particular city to see how they license their images. That information might also be available on their website if any of the images exist there. Some states release images into the public domain also, but not all do. The US Federal government is very open in this regard, but there is no blanket public domain license for all governments. Some do it, most don't. -cohesion^t19:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image ofDenys Rayner

Image:DenysRayner1943.jpg

I have been - quite rightly - questioned about the copyright of the photo of the article's subject -Denys Rayner.This photo of Denys Rayner, a friend of my family was given to me by him in 1965 at the time I was planning a transatlantic voyage in "Young Tiger", a Westerly 22 of his design. I have presumed that Deny's gift to me of his photo gave me the right to use it in a public piece about him. I would be sad not to be able to use the photo as it so captures the character of the man, especially when there's a photo of the U-Boat captain who torpedoed him in 1944 linked to this article. Can you advise me on what steps I should take to clarify the rights that might surround the retention of this image in the article? Would a sworn statement by me witnessed by an attorney (Commissioner for Oaths in the UK) on the circumstances in which Denys gave me his photo be of any help? A similar image - probably from the same photo as mine - also appears in the frontispiece of Rayner's book "Escort" pub: Kimber 1955 - publisher now no longer in existence.Sibadd 12:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you say you have the original image and it was given to you by the image creator? I'm a little confused as to the status of the image, at first it sounds that way, but then you mention that the same image might be used in a book implying that the image you have is a copy. If the image was given to you or you took it you could probably license it as you see fit. If it's a copy of another image that someone took for a book etc then the copyright it probably retained by whoever took the image (for the publisher etc). What matters more is who created the original photo. -cohesion^t21:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Greek_John.png

Just to clarify, this is a screenshot of the Greek text from theJohn 3:16article. As a Wikipedia article, the text is of course under the GNU Free Documentation License. I uploaded the screenshot with the web-screenshot tag; I don't know why this tag was erased.

I took the screenshot because a friend had trouble rendering the Greek text in his browser (it looked like squares rather than proper letters).Arch O. La^TalkTCF 14:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the tag itself states, "It is believed that the use of a limited number of such screenshots for identification and critical commentary relating to the website in question qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. SeeWikipedia:Fair usefor more information. "This does not describe your image. If it is a screenshot from the text of wikipedia then it should be tagged{{gfdl}}.I have tagged it as such. An example of an image properly tagged{{web-screenshot}}isImage:Google.com_front_page.png.If you have any questions feel free to ask them here. Also it's a good idea to check the edit summary for changes you don't understand, the reason is often given there. -cohesion^t20:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space

Hi. Just a suggestion. I think when your bot removes an image, it leaves an extra space at the top, and that looks rather ugly I think in articles, see for examplehere.I wonder if it is possible for the bot to not put that empty space. You can reply here. Thanks.Oleg Alexandrov(talk)17:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing extra spaces would cause problems when removing images from infoboxes and tables. I'd rather have an ugly-looking article than a broken-looking infobox. --Carnildo 04:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks. (But ugly space looks ugly indeed.:)Oleg Alexandrov(talk)04:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, sorry to point this out, but you're being a little rude. You could and, indeed, should say "I'm afraid that removing extra spaces wouldn't work if the image is in an infobox, and would cause more problems than the extra space would".Remember, Oleg Alexandrov hasn't done anything wrong: he was trying to help you to get your bot to run better.--Keycard^(talk)14:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're being a little over-sensitive, Keycard. I don't think Carnildo's resposne was rude at all, and OA's response suggests that no offence was taken. Indeed,sociolinguistic theorysuggests that the absence of such padding ( "I'm afraid..." etc) is actuallymorefriendly.The JPS 15:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright of image Rommie24.jpg

I made that 3D model myself. It is writtin in its description, so I don't get where is the problem.Walter Smith 17:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no license specified, also the image isn't used in any articles. According to the upload page we need both the source and the license. -cohesion^t20:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newbies

Ok I am not a newbie...Check my contibs...But I am disturbed at how rude the messages the bot posts are. Could you add..If you are new...Check outWP:IUPor something like that. Really the message is not nice sounding.(I saw it helping a new member of wikipedia).Eagle(talk) (desk)22:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Respond on my pageEagle(talk) (desk)

I think the messages are pretty polite. There are loads of 'thank yous' and pleases in there...The JPS 23:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shadrach Bond

Ok, this guy's been dead more than 170 years. Are you going to pull all the pictures of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson?Shadrach Bond M dorothy

Hi! Thanks for contacting us regarding the imageImage:Ihy9312181.jpg.It's helpful if you link the image you are discussing so that we can help find it and answer your questions better. It may seem silly that we would tag something so old for deletion. A good way to make sure images don't get deleted is to follow the instructions on the upload page, seeSpecial:Upload.We need both a source and a license to keep the image. Keep in mind that, while to you it's obvious this is in the public domain, for the image tagging group we have over ten thousand images to look through and can't always do lengthy historic research. I have tagged the image in question and it is no longer in danger of deletion. -cohesion^t06:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re:Image:DPscreenshot02.gif

This image is a screenshot from the filmDead Presidents.Also, it was already sourced as a screenshot "{{film-screenshot}}". Therefore, I'm removing the irrelevant "unsourced tag". |QzDaddy 21:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the inconvenience, that image may have been tagged incorectly. -cohesion^t05:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License Plates

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CurrentMILicensePlate.jpg] What is the tag for license plates in the United States? I understand that if it is a picture of anactualplate that is/was in use, then rights can be released by the author. But if it is a "Sample" from a government website, what is the appropriate tag? I have seen others use a tag that is specific to a state, but there is no tag for Michigan. Also, the bot has placed notices on most of the other license plates listed. Surely a sample license plate is intended for public domain.

Please see the article onPublic domainpeople often assume it means things in the "public" rather than what it actually means within the framework of copyright law. The copyright status of the Michigan license plate depends on the state law of Michigan. Unless they have declared it in the public domain then it most likely is not. Michigan is not one of the states listed onWikipedia:Image copyright tagsas having a public domain dedication, so for now we should assume it's not public domain. If you find out that such a law does exist though, we would be happy to know about it:D -cohesion^t07:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the state website everything is "Copyright © 2001-2006 State of Michigan" which implies that Michigan is not releasing anything into the public domain. -cohesion^t07:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I uploaded this image, Image:IMG_0817.jpg. I play on a vintage base ball team, the image is of a teammate. It was taken by a teammate of ours. I asked him if he had any images I could use in an article and he sent me this one (and some others). I was given permission to use it by the picture taker. What should I do to clear this image?Mestesso 16:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a friend of yours that you are still in contact with you could ask him if he minds releasing rights to the image. If he doesn't care then you should put an explanation of that on the image page (source etc) and say the the person has released all rights to the image. Then you can tag it with{{norightsreserved}}.There are other options for him too if he wants to retainsomerights but give up others, but that is the easiest one to explain to someone. -cohesion^t18:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are the other options? I (obviously) know nothing about this process. Thanks.Mestesso 19:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only option is to have the image released under a license that is acceptable to wikipedia. The choice comes in in choosing which license to release under. These include "norightsreserved" as mentioned above, theGFDL(wikipedias default license) and a few others (see:Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#Free_licenses) for a list. Essentially, to be acceptable it must allow the image to be used for any purpose (including commercial) by anyone. Basically all the different licenses do is require attribution (so the creator is given credit) and limit the ability of a third party to claim the image is under a different license. --Martyman-(talk)02:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kurushima-Kaikyo_Bridge_small.jpg

I found this image on the Japanese wikipedia. I don't read Japanese (my browser doesn't even display it). Pehaps you have a contact with the people who track down images on the Japanese side, who can read the comments about the picture and find out something about the image. I suspect it was made with a camera-phone, and would be very surprised if it is copyrighted. Thanks. --Samuel Wantman 20:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't read Japanese, it doesn't look like it has a normal tag though, most wikipedia's use similar tags regardless of the language. Also, just because something comes from another wikipedia you shouldn't assume it'sGFDLor even a free license at all. We will need the source and license information. Also, copyright attaches to a work the moment it is created, so unless there are special circumstances around this image you can assume it is copyrighted. -cohesion^t06:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tenyearcrusade.jpg

You can delete the image:Tenyearcrusade.jpg,I replaced it withTenyearcrusade.gif.Cuñado-Talk 23:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Martyman-(talk)02:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:JoeByrd_Maritial_Law_1_blowup.jpg

Would you be so kind as to wander by and take a look at how I've fleshed out the Image page ofhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:JoeByrd_Maritial_Law_1_blowup.jpgregarding origin, history, and copyright status -- which I've designated as Fair Use.

TIA... --talks_to_birds 00:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are using this as evidence in some ongoing dispute please be sure to tag it for speedy deletion when the dispute is settled. In general fair use images cannot be used outside the article namespace. -cohesion^t19:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:EMielke.jpg

The original link to this image no longer exists! But, it was taken from a collection of east german government personnel photos and even if copyrighted, is fair use under the panoramic clause of german copyright law.--Fahrenheit451 03:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't currently have a tag for the "panoramic clause of the German copyright law" and I don't have any information about that law. Please direct a comment about this law toWikipedia_talk:Copyright.Unless we get some more information about this law though we can't assume it's actually public domain. -cohesion^t19:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gostivari picutres

There's nothing wrong in posting Gostivari pictures here. You can verify that by going to its official website. Pictures are taken at www.gostivari.gov.mk and they are just postcards of the city. They are to be used freely by the public. Nothing wrong there!

Regardless of how easy the images are to obtain you would need to supply the license conditions. -cohesion^t19:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The picture of The Covered Bridge

Hi, you can delete the pictureImage:Pokrit_most.jpg,there is a new one uploadedhere--Tzeck 16:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks:) -cohesion^t19:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carnildo

We already resolved the issues and got hold of fair use images for the article instead. The previous series of images can be removed. Thanks for the heads up.Waya sahoni 02:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tdalton_007.jpg

Hello Carnildo,

Thanks for your message. I'm trying to modify the Tdalton_007.jpg by adding the correct copyright, but each time I do this the picture does not link to the main page (i.e: I don't see a link to Timothy Dalton page). Can you please help?

Regards, Lsaleh 09:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tdalton 007.jpg again!

Hello Carnildo,

I think I solved the problem now. Please confirm if something else is needed.

Regards,

Lsaleh 09:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Ident-0b-1-.jpg

Thanks for uploadingImage:Ident-0b-1-.jpg.The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriatecopyright tag,it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice byOrphanBot.For assistance on the image use policy, seeUser talk:Carnildo/images.00:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howzthat? -TheKeith

01:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, cheers. I see that it's not currently used in an article. Unless it is used in an article, there's no point in having it on wikipedia. Would you like to add it to an article? Otherwise we can tag it for deletion. Also, when you upload images, could you please use a meaningful, descriptive name? Thanks. Take care.:)The JPS 11:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I was confusing it with the image used on the page, I dont really think there is much use in keeping this one, thanks. That file name is a bit ambiguous, lol. -theKeith

12:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

diagrams by Neils Bohr

I was warned about possible copyvio concerning an image taken from evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/bohr.htm. The page, however, is just a reproduction of an article by Niels Borh that was written in 1949 and used images which Bohr himself designed so as to illustate some of the points of contention between him and Einstein. These images are reproduced all oevr the place: textbooks, popular science books, web pages. I really didnìt believe there should be a problem. Please let me know what you think.--Lacatosias 17:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanBot ignoring souces

When they are in a template, for example{{PolandGov}}.This must be fixed. Example of malfunction:[3]--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanBot recognizes exactly two templates as specifying the source:{{PD-self}}and{{GFDL-self}}.For everything else, it's assumed that the person tagging the image as "no source" knows what he's talking about. --Carnildo 09:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that orphanbot isn't the one that tags the image as having no source, if it was tagged in error that's the fault of the tagger, not the bot that delinks the images. -cohesion^t20:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging forImage:Jango-Fett.JPG

I forgot to add a {{gamecover}} tag.Thunderbrand 20:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, should be fine now:) -cohesion^t20:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apres Match

This picturewas taken from the official Apres Match website. What copyright tag should it have?--Play Brian Moore 23:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read the language, but it looks like this is a commercial type site, do you have any reason to think that the image isn't copyrighted by them? My assumption would be that it is copyrighted and probably not ok to use on wikipedia, but I could be wrong. -cohesion^t20:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NetscapeNewsOops.jpg

Image:NetscapeNewsOops.jpgis a screencap of a small section of the news listings at netscape.com on a certain day. I uploaded it because it was pertinent to a discussion on the reference desk. I would expect it to qualify for some sort of fair use on the grounds of the extremely limited amount of creative content therein contained (something like quoting a couple of sentences out of an essay, perhaps). However I don't know copyright law particularly well, and in any case I have no great concern about whether it is deleted or not, given that that section of the reference desk will soon be archived and the image is not used anywhere else. --Trovatore 02:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It probably would fall under fair use technically, but we have a policy that fair use images can only exist in article space. This isn't a legal requirement of course, but it helps people organize images, and keep us on track as an encyclopedia and not a discussion site. People upload images like that a lot though to make a point, but they probably don't need to stay in the database forever. This seems ok to you, so I guess that's fine.:) -cohesion^t20:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Rodgers photo

Hi. Your bot informed me that I hadn't included copyright info, which I was aware of. I left a message on the discussion page of someone that is listed as being a ward for copyright on Wikipedia, but I can't find that info right now, and there was no response from the user.

I copied the image from another part of Wiki (I included a link to the source in theImage:Jim Rodgers.jpgpage when I created it. I wasn't sure what the copyright status was, as I wasn't a member of the other wiki group. Please advise. --Mal 11:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image is from another wiki altogether, completely unrelated to Wikipedia. That doesn't imply any source or license information, so I don't know if we can really help. Did you contact the person on that other wiki? If so they may be able to tell you where they got the image, but in the meantime the current tag is correct. -cohesion^t20:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know the current tag is correct - I tagged it meself!:) I'll see if I can contact the other wiki.. I'll maybe just join the site and see if I can just copy the copyright info from it. Its probably PD or whatever. How long have I got? About 6 days before the image is automatically removed..? --Mal 07:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It could be deleted on the 25th, although that's not an automatic process and we are sometimes behind. -cohesion^t09:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Image copyright problem with Image:Margaret_shelby.jpg

Hi,

When I uploaded Shelby's image (and other images), I did add the copyright tag, which I believe to be the licensing menu { { whatever } }. Unfortunately, what I did not understand is that, both tag and link were required (my fault, I should have read more carefully theImage use policy).

Of course, I did immediately provide a link for each picture, once I understood that was what I was supposed to do. I am not even sure if I am doing that correctly now, maybe not, after all I have been here for less than a week, and I am trying my best to learn and do things correctly.

I also thought that once I fulfill what I am required, it would be OK for me to remove theThis media may be deletedmessage from the User talk, I guess I was wrong again, because User:Cuahl (who was very helpful in the past) considered it as "vandalism", which, if my understanding about the word is correct, I believe it is a little too harsh for a silly mistake. I feel like I have lost my reputation here before even building one.

Probably, I should not upload other images in the future, so to avoid similar consequences. Please let me know if there is a way for me to repair for my mistakes for those images which I have already uploaded. If the best thing to do is to remove all the images, then I am willing to do so, just please let me know how to do that.

Thank you.

Kedar

Wow, you have certainly uploaded a lot of images! They are not actually tagged at all as far as I can tell, I have tagged some of them and left some other for you to do so you can practice. Don't worry about losing any reputation, everyone makes mistakes when they are new:D The link you're talking about is the source, or where you got the file. It actually doesn't have to be a link at all though. For example if an image came from the USDA you could just say "From the USDA" that would be acceptable. What you absolutely do need though is a tag. This is a system for specifying the license and sometimes source of an image. Some of the images you uploaded for example were movie posters, this tag is{{movieposter}}.To add the tag, simply click edit, then type that text where you want the template to appear (including the brackets).

Many of the images don't seem to have a valid license, for example, if you take the image from a random website we probably can't use them on wikipedia because they are not freely licensed, and our use would violate copyright law. A good page to read to familiarize yourself with the policies is theimage upload pageyou can also click through on a lot of those links to get more information. But don't worry about making a few mistakes, they can always be corrected:) -cohesion^t20:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James_Badge_Dale2.jpg

OK, I've got the copyright for the image in there (© 2004 Chris Walters WiredImage.com {off the top of my head}), but I'm not sure of the license. If the copyright is there, it should stay, correct? And I'm not sure what license as it wasn't stated... the copyright was.

This is the license, please readCopyrightandWikipedia:Copyrightsfor a better understanding about the concept of copyright. Intellectual property that is "copyrighted" cannot be reused without the creators permission. Simply saying where we took the image from is not reason enough to keep it. -cohesion^t20:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what do I have to do to keep it? --Jeremy 21:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BabyPeggy01.jpg

Hello! I received a message about lack of copyright notice for this photo. Thanks for alerting me to the error!

I've added two copyright tags to the image. The Public Domain image notice is there because it was made before 1923 and it has no claimed renewed copyright or author. The Publicity image notice is there because the photo was a publicity picture (did they even *have* press kits in 1922?:). I'm not sure which one should take precedence here--is it acceptable to leave both tags on the photo? If not, which one should stay? Tbanks for your help,Mademoiselle Sabina 19:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the promophoto one, that one is a fair use tag meaning the subject is under copyright but we are claimingfair use,since this image is public domain we don't have to claim fair use:) thanks for responding -cohesion^t21:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Irvis.jpg

I did tag this image's source. That information was removed by someone else -- I think they assumed that because I mislabeled it as the work of the Federal rather than state government, that I was also lying about the source. Check the history, though, and my source info is still there. I already got one admin to help me restore the information, and it got deleted again. I really think that this image should be put up for Copyright review, but I can't do it myself b/c it's protected (it was on the front page for "Did You Know?" ). So all I ask of you is, please instruct your 'bot to not delete this image automatically, but rather let it go through review. Thanks! --M @r ē ino 17:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the message left on the image page. Content created by US states is not usually public domain. -cohesion^t08:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Meyerklissura.jpg

I had received a notification about this not having source info. It did, but this was in a body of text. (It's from the April 1941 issue of Signal Magazine). I've now entered this information below the text. --ansbachdragoner 22:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fine:) -cohesion^t18:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Amber_macarthur.png

I have provided the correct source of the image as per your notification.
—Peter McGinley 11:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!:D -cohesion^t18:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

problem

the picture I have uploaded Hive_scale has no copy need for a copyright the picture was privately taken from streaming video because of this the picture itself is not owned by any company or individual. I have already stated in the picture itself that the show is owned by MGM and Sci-Fi so all should be well.

fromtonyNeglia

Please readCopyrightandWikipedia:Copyrightthe statements you are making regarding the law are inaccurate. The copyright to an image is owned by the creator regardless of how the media was transported through the network. MGM and Sci-Fi still own the copyright to this most likely. If you have any other questions let us know. -cohesion^t19:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siemens phones

OrphanBot has been nagging me about the images I uploaded for use on theSiemens cellular telephonesarticle. All these are official Siemens press pictures.κаллэмакс 15:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding, please include the source on the image pages and tag them using one of the tags fromthe copyright tag listaccording to the uploading instructions atSpecial:Upload-cohesion^t19:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Arnold.jpg

Your bot contacted me about this image, however I only uploaded some enhancements, and then reverted to the original version byUser:ChrisDJackson.The copyright status is unchanged, so maybe you could notify him if you still feel the need.Zanaq 16:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this image was already on the commons with the same name and has been deleted from the en side. Any subsequent activity will be within the common's system. -cohesion^t19:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok.Zanaq 22:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AustinCreekSRA.jpg

Greetings. Orphanbot seems to have tagged this images no-license and removed it from articles. But it's tagged PD-CAGov. Is this a mistake? Thanks, –Quadell^{(talk) (bounties)}17:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This seems to also be the case forImage:AuburnSRA.jpg,Image:AsilomarSB.jpg,Image:Arnold.jpg,andImage:AntelopeValleyIndianMuseum.jpg.–Quadell^{(talk) (bounties)}17:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MarkSweepmerged{{PD-CAGov}}with{{no license}}.Since merges with{{no license}}happen all the time when copyright tags based on mistaken interpretations of the law are discovered, OrphanBot saw nothing wrong with this, and went obliviously along removing the images. --Carnildo 19:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by OrphanBot

Images with the PD-CAGov tag are being vandalised. For example, image atLori Saldaña Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tagslists PD-CAGov as a tag. PLEASE STOP NOW. YOU ARE UNDOING MY HARD WORK--THE IMAGES ARE PROPERLY TAGGED .Dananderson 18:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pleaseassume good faith.There was a discussion about the accuracy of the claim that works by the state of California are indeed public domain.[4]In that discussion the template your image was tagged with was merged with{{no license}}and Orphanbot usually works on those images. No one was intentionally vandalizing your images, nor did any problem with orphanbot actually occur. It is slightly inconvenient of course, but I assure you no one was out to ruin the work that you have done. -cohesion^t19:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced

Hi! Can you tell please why your bot marked this image[5]unsourced? There is a link to the source in the image page.--Nixer 18:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That image doesn't seem to be on the page that is linked, so someone tagged it no source. Also you had tagged it "norightsreserved" which is a tag that implies the creator of the image has released all rights, but there was no explanation why you thought that to be the case. -cohesion^t19:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Di_deinonychus

Thanks for notifying me about the image. Unfortunately, I don't know how to change the copyright status once it's uploaded! Could you show me how to? Thanks,Scorpionman 19:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, take a look atthe list of tags,then if you find one that is appropriate, go to the image page, click edit, and type the tag in the area below the source text. Include the brackets around the tag and type it exactly as it appears on the page, and click preview. You should see the template, if that worked click save:) -cohesion^t19:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Marchfongeu0001.jpg

I'm not sure if your OrphanBot has a bug. But it tagged this with unknown copyright status, when it already has the copyright tag for California Government Public Domain tag. —J3ff 19:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As has been noted several times on this page,MarkSweepmerged the{{PD-CAGov}}and{{no license}}tags. Consequently, OrphanBot saw the images as being tagged "no license", and removed them from any pages using them. A side effect of the merge is that none of the newly-tagged "no license" images indicatedwhenthe tag had been applied, so OrphanBot added a new copy of the tag with a date. --Carnildo 20:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Goebbels

Yeah sorry about that. That's why I removed it from the "Goebbels Children" article. If you wish to delete it then please do. Later --Bavaria 22:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:5262004bidopening.jpg

This was at time of upload properly cited as cal-pd and that citation remains. What further action do you (or your robot) require? -Leonard G.22:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be fine now, but be aware that the copyright status of works created by the state of California is being discussed. -cohesion^t06:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging forImage:Tetrarch_system.PNG

Hey Carni, you can now delete this image to your lil heart's content. I've found a suitable replacement and effectively ORPHANED it myself. See, you really don't need admin powers to carry out your self-appointed tasks. besides, you have your bot doing most of your work anyway.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)00:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to find someone else to do the work. Since I don't have admin powers, I can't delete the image. Thanks for taking the load off OrphanBot, though -- that's saved it a good 30 seconds. --Carnildo 00:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The offending image has been deleted. Everything seems to have worked out for the best. Always happy to help--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)05:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sienna_Guillory.jpg

Yes, the image is copyrighted. I admit the image is copyrighted. Uploading it was a mistake. I forgot about the upload, otherwise I would have orphaned it myself. Please delete the image. --Soumyasch 11:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for responding:) -cohesion^t07:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your actions

You several times deleted my images which had source shown as well as surely PD images.

But now you refused to delete and removed deletion tag from an image, uploaded by a long-term vandal Roitr[6]with no source information.

This image claimed to represent shoulder of a military rank that does not exist and never existed. The article on this imaginable rank was deleted and protected and several clone articles were created by Roitr and they were also deleted and protected.

Why do you support vandalism? --Nixer 11:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have to sift through hundreds of incorrectly tagged images each day. Could you please provide direct links to the images to which you are referring? You'll get a much better response that way rather than making us go and hunt for them!The JPS 12:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is[7](already deleted by other users). The deletion log shows it has been thrice deleted and re-created.--Nixer 14:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually the person who removed the delete tag, this is unrelated to image tagging though, or orphanbot. In image tagging we don't usually rely on speedy deletion mechanisms at all. As to the specifics, the tag on that image was simply{{delete}}with no explanation, on an image that wasn't obviously bad in any way (tagged correctly etc). With no explanation about why an image should be deleted I don't feel comfortable deleting it. There was no indication that the image was being used for vandalism. Pleaseassume good faithand don't assume that just because someone wasn't willing to delete an image with no obvious problems that they are trying to help vandalize wikipedia. -cohesion^t01:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The complete explanation was given in the talk page. You didnt even look there. The image also lacked any source information. Compare this with those images of mine that had all the needed information and a link to the source and which you deleted without even any notification.--Nixer 03:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which images are you refering to? By "those images of mine that had all the needed information and a link to the source and which you deleted without even any notification" are you refering to me in particular, or the image tagging project in aggregate? I don't know if I can give you any explanation that will be acceptable as you seem to be variously attacking me and/or the entire image tagging project for both deleting images too swiftly, and not swiftly enough. -cohesion^t05:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sango.jpg

I did not upload this image. Instead, I mistakenly uploaded a graphic,Image:Sango1234.jpg,but I didn't know that there was a Sango image. So, after realizing my mistake, I reverted to the uploader's version. I moved your bot's comment to the uploader's page. Thanks!M ^o P 17:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that:D -cohesion^t17:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:EGM_SushiX.jpg

Hi, I'm pretty new to wikipedia, so when I uploaded this image, I wasn't sure what tag to use. It's a 100 X 100 pixel scan of a magazine page from 1998 (I listed these details in the image description page) used to depict the character in the article. Your help on deciding what tag to use and whether this image is violating copyright would be very much appreciate. Thanks.--Mystical Ninja 14:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current tag looks good, and it seems to fall underfair useso everything looks great:) Thanks for helping out. -cohesion^t17:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by your bot

Can you please describe reasoning for deletion of the imageImage:092str.jpg?

Your bot deleted it without any notification to the uploader saying it had no source information, but it actually had.

It had a link to the source as well as a letter from the author provided.

Please restore the image, all the links to it and dont allow you bot do such things further.

--Nixer 12:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The actions of OrphanBot are initiated by different humans. Any sourcing information must have been insufficient. The uploader and all users with the article on their watchlists would have been given sufficient notice to correct it.The JPS 12:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had been asked to provide license and I did so, added the letter from the author. Nevertheless the image had been deleted without any further notification.--Nixer 12:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion, to which youcontributed.There is a procedure for logging permissions. You should have raised this withUser:SCEhardt,who had listed it onPossibly unfree images.He obviously wasn't satisfied with what had been provided.The JPS 12:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but why the image has been deleted? Please restore the image and all the links.--Nixer 13:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for informational purposes Orphanbot never edited that image page, also before deletion the License section was entirely in russian, with a{{CopyrightedFreeUse}}tag -cohesion^t17:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you decide to complain here? OrphanBot has not and can not delete images. As far as I can tell, OrphanBot has never seen the image, or removed it from an article. The image has never been labeled{{nosource}}or{{no license}},and it has never been in the categoriesCategory:Images with unknown sourceorCategory:Images with unknown copyright status.

The image has been deleted twice, once byIngoolemofor being under a no-commercial-use license, and once byNv8200pfor being listed as a potentially unfree image for two weeks. Both times, it appears that the deleting admin was the person who removed the image from articles it was in. --Carnildo 20:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the license was in Russian because the author is Russian and such texts cannot be translated. Please, tell me, what to do if the image is listed as "potentially unfree"? I replied to the list, but thi had no effect. Who deletes the image from this list?--Nixer 03:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images with your comments (to be delete)

Hi Carnildo,

This is Roger_ambrose writing about images you have left comments on:

Image:01_KINGDOM_of_the_DINOSAUR.jpg.

Image:Commercial.jpg.

Image:IBASH_Las_Vegas...jpg.

I loaded these, but do not need to use them. If I want to delete them, how do I do that?

If I need to add them back later, I will research the copyright tags and apply them.

Thanks Roger ambrose 07:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Roger Ambrose[reply]

I believe they have already been deleted, if you uploaded an image yourself and would like to have it deleted for any reason though, add the tag {{db|uploader request}} or something similar to the image page. -cohesion^t18:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie picture on Bonnie and Clyde

Hey buddy, I restored the image of Bonnie, because it is in the public domain, and the source is ·{PD-US}} (for work that is public domain for the U.S. only). That picture is all over, and has been in the public domain for many years. Here are some of the sources, so you know it is indeed in the public domain, and they are listed on the image's hisgtory now,Cheers, and have a good day!

Restored: this is listed as one of the pictures Bonnie Parker sent to newspapers herself for open publishing, seehttp://www.oglethorpe.edu/faculty/~k_aufderheide/Forensic_Science/Power_Point_Slides/Forensic_Powerpoint_Slides.htm

Amanda.holden

The image I uploadedImage:Amanda_holden.jpghas got a source provided so there isn't no need to delete it. Is it OK to restore the image on the page?Shakirfan 17:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think the problem here was that the original source isn't there: i.e. which TV show it is. From the other images on that link, it looks likeThe Frank Skinner Show?If you agree, put that in the image description, remove the no source tag, and restore it on the pages.The JPS 21:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mwanza-lk-victoria.jpg

Hi Carnildo - your bot notified me that this image needs licensing; I didn't upload it, I just edited it to make it horizontal. The original uploader isUser:Omoo,who is the person who should be asked to provide the licensing info - thanks,MPF 12:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image of soce, the elemental wizard

Here is soce's page:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soce%2C_the_elemental_wizard The picture of soce has been taken down, even though soce himself has given permission for it to be put up there.. please put it back up. If you have any questions, please email him directly at [email protected] thanks 11:59, 7 April 2006

Why is your bot tagging my images?

My images are clearly indicated as GFDL.Pollinator 03:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're referring to your recent uploads ofImage:Cell contents 3506.jpg,Image:New nest 3485.jpg,Image:Gathering mud 3552.jpg,Image:Syrphid with pollen 6506.JPG,andImage:Honeybee pollen 1165.jpg?That's because it's not in the standard form. To make it easy to identify what license an image is under, we've got a set of standardized templates to use:Wikipedia:Image copyright tags.In the case of a GFDL license for an image you've created yourself, the template would be{{GFDL-self}}.--Carnildo 04:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latymer School images

I have given sources for these images, bu Orphanbot has removed fromThe Latymer Schoolagain. Please advise.

Image:Ysgol.jpg;13:28.. OrphanBot (Talk | contribs) (Listing pages that the image has been removed from) Image:Oldcoatofarms.jpg;13:19.. OrphanBot (Talk | contribs) (Listing pages that the image has been removed from) Image:Music dept.jpg;13:17.. OrphanBot (Talk | contribs) (Listing pages that the image has been removed from) Minglex 19:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 of the images don't have a license, they need both a source and a license to remain on wikipedia, seeSpecial:Uploadfor details. For the coat of arms for the school, I have added a fair use tag, which means that, while the image is copyrighted we feel we can claim fair use. There are more details about that tag in the tag itself. If you have any other questions let me know:) -cohesion^t19:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Everyone, Several images that I have used in a wave structure of matter article at wikipedia have been listed as possible copyright violations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_Structure_Matter

I do not think this can be correct as they are thumbnails, and thus allowed under 'fair use' rules. (Also, some images in question are pictures of paintings which cannot be copyrighted) I have pasted in details below. Hope this sorts things out. Thanks, Geoff Haselhurst

Possible copyright violation

The images in this article arereprinted by permissionin various biographies of Einstein. AFAIK they are still under copyright protection. I believe that the rights to many of the best known most images of Einstein were willed by him to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Some appear to be owned by the Segre archives.---CH 02:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The picture of Einstein standing in his Berlin study c. 1920 appears in

Fölsing, Albrecht (1997).Albert Einstein: a biography.New York: Viking.ISBN 0-670-85545-6.

where it is credited to theEmilio Segre Visual Archives.The image was uploaded byUser:Haselhurstwho creditshis own website,but this looks like a copyvio to me.---CH 03:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Haselhurst's reply - As I understand copyright, you are allowed to use thumbnails of copyright images under fair use.

From relevant page at our website. http://www.spaceandmotion.com/copyright-copyleft-gnu-free-license.htm

Images - Fair Use

All images used on this website are freely available on the Internet, and some of them, in their original form, may be copyright. However, as the images have been saved at a very low data size (about 1 Kbyte) and the originals were more like 30 Kbyte, it seems that these images would be OK under the fair use ruling. See comments below from Wikipedia;

"Images and photographs, like written works, are subject to copyright. Someone owns them unless they have been explicitly placed in the public domain. Images on the internet need to be licensed directly from the copyright holder or someone able to license on their behalf. In some cases, fair use guidelines may allow a photograph to be used.

Amount and substantiality

This relates to how much of the original copyrighted work is used in the new work; if only a very small amount is used in relation to the original (perhaps a few sentences for a book review) then chances are that the sample is a case of fair use. However, if a very substantial amount is used (perhaps an entire chapter, taken verbatim) then this will often be considered copyright infringement. See Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios for an example of substantial copying that was upheld as fair use.

One of the few cases where this factor is irrelevant is in sampling a piece of a copyrighted sound recording. If no permission is obtained to use a sample, then no matter how small the sample, an infringement has been committed. In regards to the digital reproduction of images it may be argued that a lower resolution sample of the image (i.e. thumbnails) is a lesser sample of the image (the sound recording sample is not analogous here) and thus the whole image is only being approximated by the lower resolution sample (limiting further reproduction outside an informational context) see the Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation case below.

Fair use on the Internet

A recent court case, Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, provides and develops the relationship between thumbnails, inline linking and fair use. In the lower District Court case on a motion for summary judgment Arriba Soft was found to have violated copyright without a fair use defence in the use of thumbnail pictures and inline linking from Kelly's website in Arriba's image search engine. That decision was appealed and contested by Internet rights activists such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who argued that it is clearly covered under fair use. On appeal, the 9th District Court of Appeals found that the thumbnails were fair use and remanded the case to the lower court for trial after issuing a revised opinion on July 7, 2003. "

Haselhurst 03:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haselhurst 04:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you are both handling an issue unrelated to questions about orphanbot or tagging processes outlined onWikipedia:Untagged images.I hope it all works out, and if you need any specific questions answered feel free to useWikipedia:Image legality questions,but as to this specific issue, I don't think it's related to Orphanbot. -cohesion^t05:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emax, Witkacy, Matthiasrex and Poland-related images in general

The first two of those users are inactive, the second rarely uses talk. You may want to leave a note atWikipedia talk:Polish Wikipedians' notice board,especially if a large batch of images is to be deleted. I - and others on that board - would very much liked to be notified in case of image deletion, as we are happy to look for the source and help keep the image - but we don't have time to keep tabs on their talk pages - and some images are often tagged without a comment on their pages...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you became aware of the images, if you know of other people who would benefit from knowing about a certain image problem certainly you can let them know:) The articles themselves will most likely be altered in a few days so any image problems will come up on people's watchlists if they are watching the pages. I'm not sure which images you are refering to, but keep in mind, even if we did work through a batch of Polish related images, they are a subset of a much larger batch we are working through. If you have any other questions let us know -cohesion^t04:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Morales Images Keep Getting Deleted!

This damn orphabot thing keep destroying the pageDavid Moraleswhich I have worked on and baisically brought up to a good standard from scratch. The two images I uploaded for the page were clearly tagged and explained in full on the Summary section. They were both deleted at least 3 times for no good reason. I'm getting a little tired of this and I am not the only one - why are images being deleted automatically anyway? A case-by-case system would work much better, this thing is destroying many pages on Wiki for no good reason at all. Sort this thing out or just destroy it!

Looks like you figured it out. Both images were tagged as{{nolicense}},so the bot quite reasonably figured that the images had no license information. Now that the images have license tags, OrphanBot won't remove them. --Carnildo 18:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kuszczak.jpg

Hi Carnildo,

Can you please help me make sure that the use of this image here is not wrong. The image is from the official site of the Polish Football Association. I was fairly new here when I uploaded it, and I took a webshot of the webpage and then used a photo editor to cut out only the image and use it under the webshot tag. I understand this was not the right way to do it. Can we use the image with a fairusein tag? If not, I'll list it for deletion. Hope you can help. Thank you.Aabha (talk)05:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably not fair use, because it's pretty easy to imagine other ways to get an image of that person. You're not actually discussingthe imagein the article, you are discussing the person. I went ahead and tagged it as having no license, sorry about that:( If you have any other questions let me know. -cohesion06:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problems about that - if the use isn't right, of course it should be deleted. Thank you for the help.Aabha (talk)03:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kirk001.jpg

How can there be asourcefor scaned images? (internet did not exist in the 60's so the image of kirk will have to be a scan one way or another,

Template suggests:the copyright for it is most likely owned by the company who created the promotional item or the artist who produced the item in question.

Paramount is the company owning the copyrights, what other source is necesary?

--Cool Cat^Talk|@10:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paramount is acceptable as a source, as they are the copyright holders, it's currently using afair usetag, which is probably ok. -cohesion06:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AndyCollins99HitFM.jpg

Andy has approved the use of this photo. He can be contacted at [email protected]

The picture also appears on the station's website athttp://www.99hitfm.com/showdj.asp?DJID=29355

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Collins_%28radio%29

Unfortunately permission to use an image on wikipedia only isn't enough for us to include it. Since Wikipedia as a whole is licensed under theGFDLwe are in effect telling the world it is ok to copy wikipedia. Any images we include need to be freely licensed or under afair useclaim. If you have any other questions let me know. -cohesion06:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't do the tag/license thing

Image:SBabayan.jpg Image:NKRSarsang.jpg

Can't do the tagging. Please help

I tagged the first image as no license, because it seems like it was obtained from a website that hold the copyright. The other image you indicated you took yourself. So, since you are the copyright holder you get to choose the license you would like to use, seethe list of tagsand read the descriptions and choose one from the section about image creators. If you need help using the tag you choose, or anything else feel free to update the question here:) -cohesion17:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SparksBuckinghamPalace.jpg

Kinda confused bout this deletion, it does have a promo copyright tag but says it doesn't, I presumably made a balls of it when I uploaded it, as I uploaded other images round the same time without this problem. Should I have just removed the no license tag as this is clearly a promo image or would it not have been deleted if I had added Fair use rational, which I did to the others. --KaptKos 14:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, no one does it right at first:) So here's what happened, so far the image has only been handled by automatic process, so that explains some of the confusion. When you uploaded it you said it wasfair usebut that you were also unsure. Saying you are unsure adds the tag that it is missing copyright information. The "no license" tag sort of trumps other things on the page, and so the image was delinked (not deleted). I have cleaned up the image page, and relinked it to the article, you should add a fair use rational still, but beyond that everything is ok. If it helps your confidence in the system an actual human would have looked at the image before it was deleted, even if you were on vacation or something, but no one had yet probably:) If you have any other questions let me know:) -cohesion18:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up for me, you sure know how to make an first time uploader feel good about themselves:) Its really reassuring, being out to lunch quite a bit but not on vacation very much, to find out that there are really real people looking at stuff on WP and not just bots deciding whats what:) My confidence in the "System" is rock solid!KaptKos 18:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ga 422.png

Whoops...that was supposed to have a {{PD-self}} on it. It's a bit of a moot point now, though, since that image has been superceded bycommons:Image:Georgia 422.svg.-Pedriana 14:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I went ahead and deleted the smaller one, as it was orphaned and moved to commons:) -cohesion18:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You removed all the article's images except 2

Carnildo, I believe your bot removed all the images I painstakingly had to find on the internet and might have been an honest mistake. The images are actually worth more in my estimation than the article itself, and the article isn't anything without those images of the team members and their game pictures. I didn't complete the whole article snd although its imperfectly written that gets some discussion, I'm disappointed your bot removed all images except two. The article I'm referring to is at www.en.wikipedia/wiki/Aranycsapat. I'll remove the entire article if you don't put back those images of the team members and their games.. Please let me know what if you will put back those images or not, thank you.Gallopingmajor

Bernardo Ríos: Colombian Artist

Camildo: Some help please. All the photos relating to the article on "Bernardo Ríos" in the Colombian artists section were taken by me, are owned by me and I have the artists permission to present them. I am not sure how to go about tagging as you require. Can you please advise.

Image:Tybee_lighthouse.png

Per my e-mail:

X-Gmail-Received: e945799d33ef4e4636dceafa732f6208e10a5ab2 Delivered-To: [email protected] Received: by 10.11.99.77 with SMTP id w77cs9630cwb; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 12:40:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.38.151.14 with SMTP id y14mr250172rnd; Fri, 08 Oct 2004 12:40:00 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: <[email protected]> Received: from [REMOVED].ipowerweb.com ([REMOVED]) by mx.gmail.com with SMTP id 58si3192457rnc; Fri, 08 Oct 2004 12:40:00 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: nocheck Received: (qmail 45656 invoked by uid 1003); 8 Oct 2004 19:13:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO Paullaptop) (REMOVED) by REMOVED.ipowerweb.com with SMTP; 8 Oct 2004 19:13:10 -0000 From: "Paul DeVivo" <[email protected]> To: "'REMOVE'" <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: "'Joe Ippolito'" <[email protected]>, "Amy Gaster" <[email protected]>, "Greg Stoeffler" <[email protected]>, "Shell Solomon" <[email protected]>, "Carter Hubbard" <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Pictures for public domain? Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 15:14:57 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset= "us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Thread-Index: AcStQZZXDyJqdPxFSbar0xkHwGG1HgAKPHEA In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

Hi Joe

Photos are available at www.tybeeonline.com/press

Thanks Paul DeVivo Tybee Island Online

Original Message-----

From: REMOVED[8] Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 10:20 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Pictures for public domain?

I'm currently working on the Wikipedia article for Tybee island and I figured I would contact you first.

I would like to have some pictures that could be used to highlight the beauty of the island such as the lighthouse or the pier but I am at a loss to find any which aren't already under copyright. I've got plenty of vacation pictures but they aren't the greatest quality.

If you know of any resources or know of anyone I could contact that would be great, thank you.

Joe Henzi

Links: http://www.wikipedia.org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tybee_Island

--

- Sorry to post all of this, I just don't have a lot of time right now.Abu Musab Al-Zarqawihas been reported killed and I've got a lot of bloggin and etc to do. I still have the image if there is no backup.JoeHenzi 07:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images in Lepenski Vir article

How am i supposed to fill in the copyright form for these images. The owner of copyright is a photographer I know and he has granted us the right to use photos in this article. I provided his contact address, email, and ICQ. I also provided a link to the original material. Is this enough for Wikipedia? If not how can I correct this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lepenski_vir_13.jpg

Stane 19:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Velocitygirl2.jpg

Earlier this year, you tagged an image for deletion namedImage:Velocitygirl2.jpg.Just out of curiosity, was this image a cover of theCopacetic (album)?I tried to get an answer about this onNumeric's talk page, but to no avail. ----DanTD 03:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so. The image was deleted just over 18 months ago, before it was possible to undelete images, so I can't see what the image looked like, but OrphanBot's log doesn't show it as having ever been used in an article. --Carnildo 06:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe it wasn't used in an article. However, since I wrote an article that could use such an image, I wanted to be sure it was the right one. ----DanTD 04:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the description in the upload log, I think it was a photo of the band. --Carnildo 06:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't work for me, then. Guess I'm going to have to wait for somebody to upload the CD cover. ----DanTD 14:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ALCO 0900.jpg

Image:ALCO 0900.jpgwas just tagged and I was notified by FairUseBot despite it having a human-readable fair use rationale that links to the specific article it is used in. Is it now insisting that rationales must be templated or they're not valid?Matthew Brown (Morven)(T:C)20:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bot couldn't care less about the use of templates. It's complaining about the lack of a link toList of ALCO diesel locomotives.You're the second person to have difficulties with this -- is the wording of the template really that unclear? --Carnildo(talk)04:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ACCA.gif

Can you please advise why this image is tagged? It has a fair use rational using templates? Thanks. --WinHunter^(talk)14:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the tag says, it doesn't have a rationale for its use inCertified Accounting Technician.It also doesn't have a rationale for its use inChartered Certified Accountant,but the bot didn't spot that. --Carnildo(talk)19:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta Road Signs

I was trying to update a bunch of Alberta Road articles (seeList of Alberta provincial highways), and noticed most of articles have an ugly bunch of code at the top (for example seeAlberta Highway 2A) because your bot seems to have removed a referance to the background image (15px [9]), leaving the code to display instead. Is there a way to undo this (there are 70+ articles affected), and then change the copyright tag, or replace the images with an alternate (15px [10]) that has a different copyright tag?

Any (practical) suggestions on how to avoid this mess in the future?

Thanks,Mr Minchin16:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how best to solve this.{{text-superimpose}}doesn't seem to be the right way to create these shields, since the text doesn't always line up right: seeImage:Text-superimpose mess.pngfor what it looks like in my web browser, and it produces nonsense in text-only browsers and screen readers:Image:Text-superimpose mess text-only.png.A quick-and-dirty solution would be to modify the template to not display anything if the image parameter is missing.

The only way to avoid this sort of thing in the future is to not use non-free images all over the place. --Carnildo(talk)19:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ajl772WikiExample.JPG

I believe the image is properly licensed, although I'm not entirely sure... Could you clear this confusion cleared up for me, please? Thanks,Ajl772(talk)20:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

The problem is that non-free images are not permitted anywhere except in articles. If you were to crop the image down so that the web browser frame isn't visible, you could re-tag it as{{GFDL}}and everything would be fine. --Carnildo(talk)03:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, do I need to crop off the Wikipedia Logo stuff too? Or should I just replace {{Non-free use rationale... }} with {{Information... }} because the reason I used {{Non-free use rationale... }} is because WP:UPLOAD asks:

Where is the work from?
It is ascreenshottaken of a movie, TV program, computer game,web site,computer program, music video, or other such source

Which led me to use the {{Non-free use rationale... }}. Thanks,Ajl772(talk)19:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Image:Amanteparados.jpg

I'm wondering why this bot keeps taggin images which clearly state the article it is used in?? I don't want to be recieving messages every minute for images which already have adequate rationales. If it isn't programmed correctly and begins tagging images which have a full rationale and state the article it is used in I have a grave problem on my hands.♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦^$1,000,000?11:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦^$1,000,000?11:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AlexanderLitvinenkoHospital.jpg

Your FairUseBot is whining aboutImage:AlexanderLitvinenkoHospital.jpg:"you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images"

In fact, I have.

That image has correctly filled out templates for both places where I added the image to articles. I suspect the bot is upset because the image hassubsequentlybeen added to several other pages by other editors without my involvement.

This is a problem with the design of the bot. I uploaded the image (actually - after it had previously been deleted by another over-enthusiastic bot) and added it to the two pages indicated in my FairUse templates. That's it - that's all I did. The bot SHOULD be complaining to the people who used the image in other articles without adding further fair use rationales. That's something that is entirely out of my control and if I'm going to be continually spammed by your bot for things I didn't do then that bot needs fixing because it's broken.

What it actually needs to do is to seek out images with copyright notices on them - then look at the list of articles that reference that image. If there are none - then by all means send a complaint to the person who uploaded the image. Then the bot needs to figure out which of those pages that use the image have no Fair Use template. If there are none - then it's job is done. But if the image is used in one or more articles without fair use templates then the bot needs to send messages to the Talk: page of that article - NOT to the uploader of the image. In the case where someone uploads an image and sticks it into an article improperly - the result will be the same - but in cases like mine, I don't have to be involved just because someone else screws up with an image that I used entirely legitimately.

The problem with the way it works now is two-fold firstly that it's sending me annoying messages and wasting my time checking to see if it WAS my fault...but also (and arguably, worse) it's failing to inform the editors of articles that reference the image incorrectly. If I fail to act in response to the complaint - then the first thing they see is the image disappearing from their pages without any warning whatever.

I suspect that many editors are unaware of the need to provide fair use justifications for EVERY use of an image - they see the image being used on (for example)Alexander Litvinenkoand simply assume that the image must be legitimate for use on any page.

I trust the bot is not going to remove this image from the pages that legitimately reference it - if so, please stop it immediately because it's doing more harm than good!

SteveBaker(talk)12:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - and the bot contains a typo:

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image'sescriptionpage for each article the image is used in.

SteveBaker(talk)12:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the image has rationales for some of the uses, it's only going to be removed from those pages that don't have rationales. Since images being used in multiple places is more common than I expected, I'll be modifying the bot to leave notices on article talkpages rather than user talkpages if the image has rationales for some but not all of its uses.

Thanks for bringing the typo to my attention. --Carnildo(talk)20:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chalino.jpg

Hi Carnildo, well I have seen the response you've sent me about my fair rational posting of Chalino.jpg, to make this short, I uploaded it off my computer after I scanned the DVD picture inside itself, & yes I realize their are other images floating around the web similar to it but I send my regards of my own guarantee of fair use, rather or not you agree, please send me a note, thanks!

--Andres Flores(talk)03:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crestlo.jpg

The text on the image page reads that the image is for use by all members. Therefore, I don't see why a group, such as theAuburn University Marching Band,who also has members of the other organization in it, is not allowed to use the image. TheULCA Bandis also using this image, but yet your bot hasn't appeared to make it to that page. I feel that the former page is being discriminated against. Maybe the use of the image itself needs to be rejustified, such that any wiki band page may use the image. If there is some clear text that you may be able to point me to, I'd be happy to read it. Thanks. Dennibr(talk)03:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What image are you talking about? The image you've named doesn't appear to have ever existed. --Carnildo(talk)03:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eitzen Group logo

Hi. FairuseBot has tagged the use ofImage:Eitzen Group logo.gifon theEitzen Maritime Servicespage as not being compliant with NFC.

After some minutes looking at it I can't see the problem - it appears to have an appropriate FUR including the link to the relevant page. If you have a moment can you point me in the direction of the problem so I can do something to fix it?Euryalus(talk)22:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the time the bot tagged it, the image only had a fair-use rationale forEitzen Chemical.Since then, someone has added rationales for the other uses. --Carnildo(talk)23:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. Thanks for the quick response.Euryalus(talk)23:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hiroshima Dome 1945.gif

FairuseBotleft a message onTalk:Ground zeroaboutImage:Hiroshima Dome 1945.gifclaiming that a fair use rationale was needed for it's use inGround Zero.I disagree with that assessment.{{Non-free historic image}},suggests that an additional rationale is only necessary if that template "...does not accurately describe [the] image...". Simply duplicating the same template is not necessary just because the image appears in more than one article.Astronaut(talk)13:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gallery.welles.headshot.jpg

Hey there, your bot tagged an image I uploaded because I put down in the copyright that I'm unsure of the copyright status.

The picture in question was taken from CNN.com and is of a dead person. Could you please take a look and correctly tag/swiftly delete it?

Image:Gallery.welles.headshot.jpg

As far as I can tell, if it's not a free image, then it could be tagged under not-free fair use because there are not alternative images, it's the only picture of him and it's only used once.

Thanks,

Metty(talk)19:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request not to be notified of deletions

My user page is filling up with notifications about imminent image deletions. I contest none of them, so is it possible for images to be deleted without the bother of notifying me? I'd be very appreciative. Thank you.--Hugh Manatee(talk)13:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added you to the do-not-notify list for my bots. --Carnildo(talk)19:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review forImage:Malice Manual Cover.jpg

An editor has asked for adeletion reviewofImage:Malice Manual Cover.jpg.Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Suntag ☼08:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cascading image notices

Hi Carnildo, with respect tothis FU notice,among several others, the disqualifying usage was actually in a transcluded template,{{Commonwealth Games Host Cities}}.

The bot notice was not delivered to the Template talk page, although that is where the non-free usagewas resolved.This had the effect of setting up a bit of a treasure hunt on 19 or so transcluding pages where various other editors would potentially try to hunt the image down independently so as to satisfy the bot notice. I caught this and followed up with various "it's ok now" notices, which I'm happy to do.

I wonder though, could you modify the bot to spot the transclusion and either post to the article talk page noting that a "transcluded image" is not compliant and/or direct the bot message to the template talk page, where it can be dealt with centrally? This might save some wiki-hunt time for lots of people, if it was something you could easily implement. I imagine that the algorithm would need to compare image references in the HTML output with those in the edit-text to decide on whether it's transcluded or not. Thanks!Franamax(talk)18:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do what I can, although there are cases where someone has decided that the proper solution to "no non-free images in templates" is to wrap the images in "includeonly" tags. --Carnildo(talk)21:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting tactic that:) Isn't wide use of a non-free image (such as by means of a template) almost by definition an NFCC fail? In any case, if your bot can pre-trace the problem to a template, it would likely be helpful in solving the problems more quickly in article-space. Here's hoping!Franamax(talk)03:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heather higgins.gif

Hi, your bot placed a template onFile:Heather higgins.gifasserting that separate NFCC rationales were not provided for each article making use of the image described there. If you visit thefile talk page,you will see that there is a separate fair use rationale provided for each article (Heather HigginsandIndependent Women's Forum). Please let me know if I can clarify anything. I've removed the template, but wanted to notify you that I had reverted your bot. Cheers,DickClarkMises(talk)06:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rationales are usually put directly on the image description page. --Carnildo(talk)06:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the confusion. I just wanted to point you in the right direction so you wouldn't revert my reversion. Cheers,DickClarkMises(talk)00:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:HKUSPACElogo.png and Image:IELTSlogo.jpg

Your bot has tagged both images as not compliant with NFC rules, however each has a {{logo fur}} template (linking back to the articles in question) and the logo licensing information.Misterx2000(talk)07:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:HKUSPACElogo.pngdoes not have a rationale for its use inGraduate Diploma in English and Hong Kong Law,andFile:IELTSlogo.jpgdoes not have a rationale for its use inBritish Council.--Carnildo(talk)09:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CanMilEng.png

It appears your Bot has placed tags on this image and several others that link to articles I have worked on. This images are all copyright by the Crown in Right of Canada. Is there a new template I should be using so that articles using Canadian Crown copyright images can continue to use them?

--Sapperbdl(talk)01:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:Navenbyfclogo.gif)

Re: Your message of January 6. You've uploadedFile:Navenbyfclogo.gif,and indicated that it's used underWikipedia's rules for non-free images.However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice byFairuseBot.For assistance on the image use policy, seeWikipedia:Media copyright questions.15:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to delete this.A bot recently changed the format of this logo from a gif to a png, so I presume that is why this one is now orphaned. The other is still in use on theNavenbyarticle.--Myosotis Scorpioides16:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change of file name

Hi Carnildo. Would you see if you can get your bot to recognise when an image has had a change. File:SIBAlogo.gif was changed to File:SIBAlogo.png. Perhaps you can get in touch withUser:East718.That user is running the bot which is changing the images from gif to png. I'll also leave a note on East718's talkpage regarding this. RegardsSilkTork*^YES!18:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Whole of the Moon (song)

Fair Use bot is grumbling aboutFile:The Whole of the Moon Waterboys single.jpgatTalk:The Whole of the Moon (song),but the bases seem to be covered. Pls advise. ThanksBen Mac Dui 18:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a rationale for use of the image inThis Is the Sea,but not for the use inThe Whole of the Moon (song).--Carnildo(talk)22:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heather higgins.gif

FairUseBot removed this image fromIndependent Women's Forumfor lack of an NFCC rationale. Please seeFile_talk:Heather_higgins.giffor this rationale, which has been present since September 2008. I'm re-inserting the image, which shows the organization's chair in a media appearance and is thus illustrative of the organization in a way that a free image could not be. Cheers,DickClarkMises(talk)18:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bot's doing the right thing, even if it's for the wrong reason. The image clearly failsWP:NFCC#1 onHeather Higgins,and #3a and #8 onIndependent Women's Forum.--Carnildo(talk)21:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the dupe message on your talk page--had to check my contribs to find where I had messaged you. I'm taking a look at the points you mention.DickClarkMises(talk)04:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on the questionable significance (NFCC #8) of the image as it was used in the IWF article, and I'll leave the image out of that article. So far as I can tell, #3a is only implicated here if you assume that there is a problem with #8. However, one deficiency is enough for me to agree with the conclusion to jettison it there. Re: theHeather Higginsuse, I am afraid I don't agree as to your assertion that a free alternative could replace this portrayal on the Maher show. There is definitely value-added there, beyond what a free stock headshot or candid would likely provide, because the circumstances of the image, which the caption noted, reinforces the article content mentioning her role as a political commentator in episodes of the Bill Maher show and other political commentary programs (including her own, with Gingrich).DickClarkMises(talk)04:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please engage me in discussion rather than just edit warring. The images you are on a vendetta to remove would certainly be more useful to the project if they were free, but there is value to having the fair-use images where others are not available. I think the whole IP thing puts a terrible damper of innovation and creativity. The fact is that fair-use images are permissible on Wikipedia, whether you like them or not. These images have reasonable fair-use rationales, and the articleHeather Higginshas been named a "good article." Your edits are disruptive.DickClarkMises(talk)17:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See especiallyWikipedia:Non-free content> Acceptable Use > Images > #5: "Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television." The article names the showReal Time with Bill Maheras one of the shows for which Higgins has appeared as a commentator. Cf. Unacceptable Use > Images > #12: "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing;provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image."As I have already mentioned, a free candid shot or other headshot would not the same purpose as this portrayal on the Maher show.DickClarkMises(talk)18:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly a "vendetta": there's been a concerted effort over the past three years or so to remove exactly that sort of image from Wikipedia. There's nothing special about her appearance on the show that justifies using a non-free image. Acceptable use #5 you mention is forcommentary on the show portrayed.It's not an excuse to stick an image in an article of someone who appeared on the show, and it's certainly not an excuse to use it as the lead image.

The use ofFile:George (magazine).jpgin the article is such a gross violation of the non-free content policy that I'll block you if you re-insert it in the article. --Carnildo(talk)21:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I think I now agree with your analysis (or at least your conclusion), I must say that you could improve your manners. Threatening blocks rather than just being willing to thoroughly and calmly explain your actions is an abuse of your mop and bucket powers, and I really hope that you will reexamine this strategy. There is no reason to threaten someone who has actively sought discussion with you.DickClarkMises(talk)06:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Tagging

Totbtot555xmu.jpgplz check your bot's tagging againBurhanAhmed(talk•contribs)07:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me: you don't have a fair-use rationale for the use inCollege of Traditional Chinese Medicine of Xinjiang Medical University.Youdohave a rationale for use in a template, but non-free images aren't permitted in templates. --Carnildo(talk)08:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image Removed

I have a little article calledTorneo de Apertura de Chile 2009,and I noticed that in two of my sections somebody removed three images, I was wondering on the reason. The User:FairuseBot removed them. The reason it gave it is "Removing image with inadequate rationale". The images in question areUniversidad_de_chile_football.png,Universidad_concepcion.png,andUnion_espanola.png.what do I need to do to the images to have them in my article???...please help thank youChagousa(talk)21:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The images are notfree content.Because of this, each image needs an explanation as to why the article in question requires those images be used in it: seeWikipedia's policy on non-free content.--Carnildo(talk)01:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image removed - Yatterman logo

Hi. Fairusebot just removedthis imagefrom the articleYatterman (2009 film),claiming insufficient rationale. I would appreciate your help, guidance or advice in crafting a sufficient fair use rationale. Thank you.LordAmeth(talk)11:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image has a rationale for the use inYatterman,but not for the use inYatterman (2009 film).The rationale forYattermanlooks reasonable, so you could use that as the basis for writing yours. --Carnildo(talk)03:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a new rationale. The exact same reasoning and logic applies, so I really don't see why a second rationale template is needed, but I'll play by the rules. I'm readding the image to the article now. Thanks.LordAmeth(talk)03:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Social rejection

Fairusebot keeps deleting an image used in a particular research study from thesocial rejectionarticle. I think the use of the picture is justified as I have stated on the talk page. Could you get it to stop removing it? Thanks. --Jcbutler(talk)17:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. That image is a classic example of using a non-free image to decorate an article rather than to provide additional information, and as such, it violates points 1 (no free equivalent), 3 (minimal usage), and 8 (significance) ofWikipedia's non-free content criteria.--Carnildo(talk)20:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tigertailz - "Banzai!" album cover

Fairusebot is complaining aboutFile:Tigertailz_banzai_cover.jpg.But I can't see why. It seems to fulfil all the criteria it's complaining about. Is this just a buggy bot, or is there a real problem here? The only thing I can see is that the article isn't linked to in the image description. But then again, I didn't add the description -- it's autogenerated by wikipedia...—Precedingunsignedcomment added byThargol(talk•contribs)14:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When the bot tagged it, the image had a rationale for use inBezerk (album),but was used inBanzai! (Tigertailz Album).--Carnildo(talk)23:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wreckless Eric album covers

Hallo, I got a complaint from Fairusebot about two images:

I've added the fair-use template. Is it OK now? Lucius Lucullus(talk)08:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. --Carnildo(talk)08:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Trust logo

FairuseBothas removed the imageFile:National trust logo.pngfromWallington HallandRothley Castle.I understand the concept that the National Trust retains the copyright of the logo; and that it has to be used fairly. Both are National Trust properties so I assumed that I could attach it to that article (and eventually all the other NT properties in Northumberland). Can you explain where I went wrong? I have put this page on my watch list so please reply here.Twiceuponatime(talk)13:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since they retain copyright and all associated rights, we want to keep our usage of it to a minimum. Basically, that means using it only in the articleNational Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty.--Carnildo(talk)22:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I can see the logic in that, but it does seem rather restrictive if we cannot promote their individual properties. I will comply, but presumably it should also apply to theEnglish Heritage logo– seeWarkworth Hermitage.Twiceuponatime(talk)13:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The English Heritage logo image is claimed to be in the public domain, presumably because it's too simple to meet the threshold for being copyrightable. --Carnildo(talk)22:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Behavior Genetics cover.jpg

Hi, I got a message from your bot, but as far as I can see, this file has an adequate fair-use description. The only thing I can think of is that there is a redirect to this file that another user created. If that causes the problem, please delete the redirect, because it is not used. Thanks. --Crusio(talk)07:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the rationale is for the article "Behavior Genetics",while the image is used in"Behavior Genetics (journal)".I've updated the rationale to fix this. --Carnildo(talk)02:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I hadn't seen that, learned something!:-) Thanks! --Crusio(talk)07:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:CNJ logo.png

I just added fair-use tags toFile:CNJ logo.png.The only question is of the resolution. ----DanTD(talk)13:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FairuseBot

Why is FairuseBot no longer running (and hasn't for a number of years now)?NFCC#10ccompliance is important and its practically the only non-free content criteria (in addition to NFCC#9) that can be checked and acted upon by a bot. The bot with similar functions,BetacommandBot,has been blocked, but I see no explanation as to why is FairuseBot no longer in use. I do NFCC#10cenforcementby hand.–Finnusertop(talk⋅contribs)08:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(@Carnildo:pinging in case this ancient noticeboard is not actively watched by you.–Finnusertop(talk⋅contribs)08:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]

@Finnusertop:,FairuseBot was shut down because I got tired of working around bugs in the MediaWiki handling of images. The final straw was a bug where images displayed via redirect weren't included in the list of pages the image was shown on, making it appear to the bot that some in-use images were unused. --Carnildo(talk)23:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]