1285:: Sources often only provide the date a work was created. Creation is quite different from publication, which is "the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending". Taking a photo and placing it in an album or hanging it on a wall, for example, is not publication. Producing a painting or sculpture is not publication. Using the photo or an image of the painting or sculpture in a publicly-distributed book, newspaper, journal, postcard, or other such medium
670:
1049:, acceptable. Doesn't it seem implausible, however, that webmasters in the 21st century would have been photographing tanks in battle in the 1940s? Is it not odd that images taken in the 1940s would have a copyright license first released in 2000 (GFDL)? What is likely the case, in this scenario, is that the webmasters scanned the images, and believed the scans were theirs to license. This is not the case, as the scans would be considered "derivative works", as per above.
80:
800:? Modern digital cameras generally produce very high resolutions (for example, a 3.1 megapixel camera produces 2048×1536 pixel images). The more pixels an image has (the higher the resolution), the larger it is. Images used on web pages, therefore, often are low resolution, to reduce load time and to fit within the computer's screen resolution. Consequently, low resolution images (e.g. 300 x 200 pixels) claiming to be self-made should elicit additional scrutiny.
100:
1149:
1073:
475:
840:
2081:, by the way) is public domain, for instance, and frankly can't find any verification that it is so, though it would seem almost certainly the case. Specifically, I have no idea of when it was published, either in the USA (if it was) or in France, when the lithographer died (or even necessarily who the lithographer was), or if it is a copy (derivative work) of some prior painting. Incidentally, any clues would be magnificent! --
1231:: Works of the federal government of the United States are not generally eligible for copyright. It is a common misconception, therefore, that an image on a federal website, or in a federal report, etc. is public domain. Such images should not be assumed to be public domain in the absence of explicit assertion of federal authorship or a general disclaimer that all images on the site or in the report, etc. are public domain. The
1475:
436:
60:
1055:: As with "self made" images above, does the image have an expected technical quality? Professional images are not commonly published with free licenses; high technical quality and unusually good vantage points (e.g. when photographing celebrities) may raise red flags. Similarly, images claiming PD due to age are generally of inferior technical quality; "vintage" photographs are typically black and white or
922:
401:
1591:
90:
442:
110:
290:
Wikimedia
Foundation servers are located in Florida, images used on the Knowledge must be in the public domain in the United States. Non-US images hosted on Knowledge are not required to be public domain in their country of origin provided that they are public domain in the United States. Images hosted on the Wikimedia Commons, by contrast, must be public domain in
70:
447:
562:
120:
1196:(i.e. the "necessary details to support ... the image copyright tag")? No, the information provided is not adequately supported. The names of the uploader and asserted author do not match, which indicates the image is not self-made and, thus, there exists an external (non-Knowledge) source that needs to be cited.
2292:
I think it's pitched about right. I do think that the above information is useful, as it does seem to be a frequent cause of confusion. I know you don't want to produce a checklist, but if people know that they should look for the acronyms "CC-by" and "CC-by-SA" (and that the others won't do), then
2270:
out-dated, are already there to lay out the gambit of copyright tags. Part of me feels too much elaboration can even be condescending (i.e. is it disrespectful of our readers' intelligence to assume they can't put two and two together?) Ultimately, however, this dispatch needs to help people and if
1762:
directly subject to IUP. The criterion only says "images are tagged with their copyright status"; there's no consideration of whether those tags be correct (perhaps implicitly, but the wording is quite open to gaming) or requirement to provide additional information (author, publication date, etc.),
1751:
mandates information (e.g. description, date, etc.) not always required on the
Knowledge side. For the purposes of FA and GA reviewing, inclusion of COM-hosted images in an article certainly subjects the images to WP policy, but it's moot, as WP is more lenient (the FA and GA criteria do not provide
2458:
Hmm, that seems more pertinent to the uploading side of images - not so much the reviewing side. The
Commons' upload forms seem to change every day, so I'm no longer surprised when poor word choices appear. I tend to ignore what it asks for and rely on the preview button to make sure the end result
2105:, for example, has author, date and a declaration of "No known restrictions on publication" (the LoC's "cover our rears" way of saying it's PD); those can be considered reliable assertions. The point I'm trying to get across, simply, is that LoC is a reliable source for image information (certainly
690:
By taking a picture with a copyrighted cartoon character on a t-shirt as its main subject, for example, the photographer creates a new, copyrighted work (the photograph), but the rights of the cartoon character's creator still affect the resulting photograph. Such a photograph could not be published
654:
Copyright law is often nuanced and esoteric; consequently, there are many concepts of which image authors and uploaders may not be aware. "Derivative works" and "freedom of panorama", two such concepts, can be counter-intuitive and, as such, are a common cause of unintentional copyright violations.
591:
An image employing this copyright tag would be expected to have a reliable source explicitly indicating the author's date of death or dating the image such that no reasonable scenario would contradict the claim (e.g. the author of a painting dated 1740 could not possibly have been dead less than 100
726:
Freedom of panorama is a copyright law provision that allows for photographs of works (e.g. buildings and sculptures) permanently installed in public places to be freely published, even if the works are still under copyright. Although such an image is still a derivative work (i.e. a translation of
2933:
I don't necessarily disagree. The
Knowledge vernacular, however, tends to use the terms interchangeably. Therefore, as a main goal of this Dispatch was accessibility to the image layman, I do think the inclusion of "fair use" is appropriate. Would something like "or, erroneously, 'fair use'" be
2454:
I find the "author" field the strangest in the information template. When you upload to
Commons, for example, it asked you who created the file, however that is not always the most relevant information for that field. I don't know if this confused other people, but it sure confused me when I first
830:
Reviewing images requires common sense. Consideration of provenance is an art, not a science, and the above notes should not necessarily be used as a "checklist". Whereas any one of these considerations may be meaningless by itself, a combination of issues may bring the validity of an image into
289:
Generally, an image enters the public domain when it is no longer eligible for copyright protection, usually a certain number of years after its first publication or after its creator's death. The length of time before copyright protection lapses varies greatly from country to country. Because the
1620:
Everything in the walkthrough section is clear and easy to understand, but I'm left wondering how I was supposed to learn/know all of this and which Wiki Page I would go to if I want to learn more. Can there be a
Seealso at the top of each section? How would I have learned this info without this
483:
2. A verifiable source can be in the form of a simple weblink, citation for the published work from which the image was scanned or the name and method of contact for the author. The format and location of sourcing information on an image description page may vary. Optimally, images will use the
2100:
The LoC, of course, does not always have complete information (thus the "Rights status not evaluated" notice on that image). The context in the
Dispatch (at least intended - perhaps it isn't sufficiently articulated or clear) is that LoC is a reliable site (e.g. the information it reports, when
2341:
Verily my verbiage veers verbose. You're actually stripping out more than you may realize; I suspect our real life writings are meant for quite different audiences and that, in turn, is manifested here as, perhaps, disagreement over what is necessary and/or appropriate. In any case, I'll drop
542:
After confirming the presence of the three required elements, reviewers should also examine the source provided. Like prose quotations or statistics, images should have verifiable and reliable sourcing. By their very nature, image copyright tags (especially those claiming public domain) are
1269:
and care should be taken to ensure that the correct version is reflected by the copyright tag. CC licenses, additionally, are particularly troublesome, as not all variants are "free". Knowledge uploaders, if unfamiliar with CC nomenclature, sometimes upload, for example, an image licensed
707:
the image and its subject. The image to the right, for example, contains a secondary copyright tag for the fountain/statue. In its case, the image as a whole is "free" and acceptable on
Knowledge, as the subject is demonstrably in the public domain. Alternatively, consider an image of a
695:
Wikipedians or external sources may believe in good faith that a scan, photograph, or screenshot that they have made is an entirely original work, thinking that, because they themselves made the scan or took the photograph, the resulting image is "self-made" and, thus, "free". This is not
685:
A derivative work is a copy, translation or alteration of an existing work – for example, a scan of a page in a book or a picture of a stuffed animal. The
Wikimedia Commons' derivative works guideline contains an example situation which explains the dilemma such images pose to Knowledge:
1757:
To go on a tangent, the criteria for both processes are poor in this regard. FAC becomes subject to IUP only because the criteria include "In addition to meeting the requirements for all
Knowledge articles" (where "requirements" links to a policy list, to which IUP belongs) and GAN
1003:
The verifiable source and image summary elements can, in many "self-made" cases, be reasonably treated as one thing. The uploader (i.e. presumed author) would really only need to add a statement to the effect of "Author: J. Ash Bowie" to the summary to resolve the issue.
758:
1646:
Precious little has been written about reviewing images. Existing pages generally address only what is acceptable (i.e. what one should consider before uploading), not how determine whether what is already here is acceptable. To my knowledge, Knowledge only has
2246:
Well, CC licenses can also add country "modules" (e.g. DE, IN, etc.) to indicate country of publication/origin (e.g. CC-by-DE as a German-specific variant), but I don't think that's really necessary to articlate here. So yes, that would be a complete list.
1044:
era tanks containing vintage images of tanks in action and a general disclaimer that all information presented on the site is licensed as GFDL (i.e. "free"). An image from this site, uploaded to Knowledge with a full summary and link to the disclaimer seems,
2663:
I've often seen republication rights tagged as "free" in some way, but it should be made clear that republication rights are limited and that the author still owns the copyright, making the work a fair use work, not a free work under Knowledge's system.
989:
The image is a mid-resolution (at 800 x 600 pixels, it is just under 0.5 megapixels). Although this is a higher resolution than most web images, it is lower than expected and is also a common computer screen resolution (i.e. what one might find at a
2315:
I plead incompetence; images don't seem to mesh into my brain (and particularly not when I'm trying to sort what to do about GimmeBot, a big zap on my time). I'd say, ask Awadewit about the pitch. If Jbmurray and Awadewit are happy, good to go.
1265:: Copyright license variants and versions matter. Both CC and GFDL have version numbers (e.g. CC-by 2.0 or CC-by 3.0 and GFDL 1.1 or GFDL 1.2). Although the version number does not impact the image's acceptability on Knowledge, they are indeed
1249:: It is not uncommon for websites to contain disclaimers to the effect that "material herein is free for all to use", "images may be freely published", etc. Knowledge uploaders, if unfamiliar with licensing or copyright, may select a GFDL, CC or
2254:); it is very much "101" and stays quite general, so it seems odd to me to include such detail. The dispatch mentions, in several places, that free images need to be licensed to allow derivatives and commercial use. Given that the meanings of
972:
The image summary is essentially non-existent and, consequently, lacks necessary details. The copyright tag implies the uploader is the "I" in the copyright tag, but explicit indication is needed. Compare with the information present in the
285:
Works in the public domain are not owned, controlled or otherwise restricted by any person, entity or law in a given jurisdiction. A public domain image may be freely used, altered and published by the public at large without condition.
2139:(and the "common misperceptions" section), would it be possible to list all the acceptable (and perhaps even unacceptable) licenses? For instance, would I be right in saying that the following (and only the following?) are acceptable:
769:"Self made" images are generally those which are uploaded by their authors (i.e. Wikipedian-created images). In addition to checking for the policy-mandated elements, it is helpful to consider several aspects pertaining to provenance:
734:
The United States does not have freedom of panorama, although pictures of buildings are exempt. Hence "self-made" images of publicly-situated works in the United States require consent of the subject's author, as described above. This
806:: Does the subject appear posed, to have been taken in a studio or possess other "professional" traits? Some Wikipedians are indeed professional photographers, but unusually high technical quality should elicit additional scrutiny.
743:
in Chicago, for example, is incorrectly tagged. As a photograph taken in a country without freedom of panorama (the USA), it would require the permission of the fountain's creator for it to be published with a CC or GFDL license.
210:. Examining image licenses is not always straightforward. Ultimately, it is a matter of confirming that a copyright tag is present and that the information provided is sufficient to corroborate the tag that has been selected.
228:
Copyright holders may choose to relinquish some or all of their rights, for example, by licensing their image so that others may copy, redistribute, or modify it without seeking permission. Such licenses are typically called
2072:
You give the LoC as an example of a reliable site for information about whether or not a work is in public domain. In my experience, however, they don't necessarily give that information. I've been trying to confirm that
270:(GFDL). This allows for the copying, redistribution and modification of an image, even for commercial purposes. (Incidentally, this is the license under which Knowledge prose is published.) Attribution is always required.
73:
1012:
Already published images are those which have been obtained from external websites, published works or are otherwise not the authorship of the uploading Wikipedian. Provenance considerations for these images include:
2220:
It's been kind of fun. Although... I have three typewriter-related articles that would be so easy to bring from scratch to FA, but I keep getting side tracked. ;) Is there a projected date for the fair use version?
1116:(i.e. the "necessary details to support ... the image copyright tag")? Yes, the citation contains the publication date (1920), which supports the copyright tag's assertion of first publication before January 1, 1923.
1278:
2.0 because it seems "close enough"; it isn't. Per WP:IUP, "Images which are listed as for non-commercial use only, by permission, or which restrict derivatives are unsuitable for Knowledge and will be deleted on
383:, typically rectangular and appearing towards the bottom of an image page. The tag indicates the image's license or, if public domain, the reason the image is no longer eligible for copyright protection. The
251:
that govern the copying, redistribution and modification of an image. CC licenses are modular: the "base" license ("CC-by") requires just attribution. This may be supplemented by additional conditions such as
1504:
1391:
1319:
2724:
Very informative. I consider myself well-versed in matters of copyright, but I learned a new point or two from this dispatch. I agree that this Dispatch would become a great reference in the future. :-)
2523:
I think the section on "Derivative works" might need a bit of expansion to explain what would be acceptable and what would not be acceptable. An example or two might highlight the issue more clearly.
712:
action figure. Although the image itself could have any copyleft license, the image as a whole would still not be acceptable on Knowledge, as the figure has not been published with a "free" license.
1926:
of tags, I only wanted to touch on the most common for reasons of practicality and ease of comprehension. If you, however, think it would be helpful to list those as well, by all means let's do it.
1243:
of copyrighted software. Although the FTC is a federal agency and the text of the report is public domain, the screenshots are derivative works to which the federal government does not have rights.
225:
to that work. These rights prevent others from copying, redistributing or modifying the image without the author's permission. Copyright is generated automatically on the creation of such a work.
831:
question. A talk page note to the uploader asking for clarification or a Google images search, for example, may be appropriate or necessary to be more confident that image is indeed "self-made".
1597:
1529:
1416:
1359:
1539:
1426:
616:): Images from published material should contain enough information to identify the specific edition of the book, journal issue, magazine, etc. from which the image came (e.g. merely citing
2567:
I tried to clarify but, to my eyes, the only real jargon is "derivative work", which is defined before the FoP section. Is there wording in particular that you think will trip up readers?
1534:
1509:
1421:
1396:
264:(no derivatives). For example, CC-by, CC-by-NC, and CC-by-NC-ND are possible variations. Not all variants are copyleft or are acceptable on Knowledge (see "common misconceptions" below).
2479:
I guess what I'm getting at is that this field, because of poor naming etc., might confuse some people and I wondered if it was worth putting special emphasis on what goes in this field.
731:
the rights of the work's author in countries with freedom of panorama. In other countries, however, the derivative image requires consent of the subject's author to be freely licensed.
1565:
1519:
1406:
46:
1655:. Knowing, for example, that low resolutions and/or lack of metadata should prompt additional scrutiny is largely knowledge gained from experience uploading and reviewing images.
1318:
Copyright law contains a provision and exception for "article having an intrinsic utilitarian function". A picture of a car or a chair, for example, would not be problematic. See
2186:
I know Ec is concerned about length, but I agree with Jbmurray; I think this is an important Dispatch, will be much read and referred to, and I prefer comprehensive over length.
1918:
copyleft licenses", which is perhaps not explicit enough in the articulation that they are but two of many copyleft possibilites. The dispatch has probably already run afoul of
1499:
1386:
408:
606:): Images from websites should not link directly to the image itself, but to a page on which the image is used that also contains information to corroborate the copyright tag.
494:
template, which provides organized source and summary information. This template is not mandatory, however, and the information may be "hidden" within template boilerplate (
2074:
1455:
1440:
1225:. Retention of any right (e.g. the requirement of attribution) retains the copyright. An image is either copyrighted or in the public domain. There is no middle ground.
537:
1857:
is probably going to be confusing, as the presence of two sets of licensing information (the screenshot itself and the licensing therefor) may throw the 101 folks off.
1514:
1401:
2497:. From the reviewing standpoint, at the end of the day, all that really matters is that we have the "necessary details to support the use of the image copyright tag".
2018:
I'm calling it a night. It's still not done, but it's close enough (I suppose?) in case I can't get back to it before it's "published" (I'll be back in ca. 10 hours -
1648:
1486:
2379:
The concept is also implicitly contained the the "free" definition in the lead. Is there a place in the dispatch where you think it could/should be worked in again?
322:
An image may also be voluntarily released to the public domain by its copyright holder or, in certain cases, may not be eligible for protection in the first place.
199:
This dispatch discusses free images, and explains how to ascertain whether or not an image is actually free. A future Dispatch will cover the use of non-free images.
790:: Does the image contain metadata? Modern digital cameras tag images with camera type and other technical data. Images taken from websites rarely contain metadata.
158:
816:, small dots which appear as the image is magnified (i.e. zoomed in upon). The presence of half-tones may indicate that the image is not the work of the uploader.
2840:
The "freely taken" verbiage is from the Commons guideline (obviously, it's not correct there either). I've changed the wording, but I don't think it's optimal.
630:): Images sourced to an author (typically "self made" images) should explicitly indicate the author and provide a link to a user page or other means of contact.
3056:
2263:
1923:
812:: Does the image have ominous visual cues? Images with watermarks or borders should raise red flags. Additionally, for example, scanned images may contain
1259:
copyright tag. These disclaimers are not acceptable, as the source has not fully articulated what "free" means (e.g., whether derivatives may be created).
1808:
That's the plan. Ideally there would be three (evaluating free, evaluating non-free and one elaborating on public domain), but non-free is a certainty.
412:, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
191:"Non-free" images (those with a "fair use" justification) retain restrictions on derivatives, commercial use and permission for use; therefore, they are
174:
1652:
1364:
63:
2570:
I think the accumulation of words like "infringe" and "jurisdiction", which is legal terminology, might trip up some readers, but perhaps I am wrong.
1020:: Particularly relevant to images claiming PD due to age, does the image appear appropriate to its indicated time period? For example, a medieval
21:
2374:
Works so licensed are still under copyright; their creators have merely waived some, but not all, of the protection that copyright affords them.
603:
3032:
1209:, not truth, is the threshold for inclusion. Without a source confirming the author, this image could just as easily be a contemporary work.
3027:
3022:
1446:
573:
because its copyright has expired in the United States and those countries with a copyright term of no more than the life of the author plus
2815:
of works (e.g. buildings and sculptures) permanently installed in public places, even if the works are still under copyright. (my emphasis)
2203:
By the way, Elcobbola, you've put an enormous amount of work into this Dispatch, and it's much appreciated. Ready for part 2 yet ? :-))
969:(i.e. the "necessary details to support ... the image copyright tag")? No, the image only includes a description of the image's subject.
1492:
188:"Free" images are in the public domain or are copyrighted but have no restrictions on derivatives, commercial use and permission for use.
2251:
907:
The image does not appear posed, to have been taken in a studio or possess other such "professional" traits which would raise red flags.
154:
3017:
1726:
1637:
901:(1,929 x 1,284 pixels – on the image description page, look below the image itself or in the "Dimensions" field of the file history).
2808:
Hi. I previously changed the stress in the "freedom of panorama" section from taking photos to publishing. It's been shifted back:
466:
454:
1892:
1710:(WP:IUP) requires an image to have three pieces of information": All images? On Commons and on Wiki? Is there a difference ? --
2564:
I think the "Freedom of panorama" section might confuse some readers. I think the accumulation of jargon might be the problem.
974:
192:
2831:
2302:
2176:
2090:
2042:
The 4th Dispatch didn't post til the 9th, so you may have more time. Have fun! I'll read it tomorrow <yawn, bedtime: -->
1904:
1858:
1843:
1798:
1789:
I see you've decided to restrict your discussion here to free images. I do hope you'll do a follow-up on non-free images. --
1289:
publication. For PD claims based on the date of first publication, the source needs to indicate the actual publication date.
267:
2584:
I wiki-linked "infringe" and changed "jurisdictions" to "countries". Hopefully this will make the section more accessible.
1908:
1854:
1253:
145:
ask for "images and other media where appropriate" and that, as for the use of all images in Knowledge, they should have "
2293:
that's a help. NB we can always save space by continuing to copy-edit your, ahem, sometimes circumlocutious prose ;). --
2262:
are articulated, it seems unnecessary to elaborate further. I'm also trying to avoid re-inventing the wheel; pages like
1081:
721:
3012:
1474:
955:
copyright tag (note that, unlike the GFDL example above, this "self" variant begins with "I, the creator of this work").
870:? Yes, it asserts "self-made"; the uploader matches the author and a link to the author/uploader's profile is included.
776:: Does the image itself contradict the information available? For example, a car reported to have been photographed in
474:
17:
1199:
Without a source, we cannot confirm that the asserted author (Hans Holbein the Younger) is indeed the original author.
674:
910:
The image is dated September 29, 2007 (i.e. well after the claimed license – GFDL version 1.2 – came into existence).
852:
627:
2893:
Hi, the people at NFC are quite insistent that there's no such thing as a fair-use image; only non-free. A fair-use
1306:
669:
664:
178:
150:
822:: Is the uploader an established Wikipedian or a "drive by" uploader with few or no other contributions. Always
543:"material challenged or likely to be challenged" and, consequently, subject to Knowledge's verifiability policy (
524:
Permission: Who or what law or policy gives permission to post on Knowledge with the selected image copyright tag
248:
2991:
2970:
2949:
2928:
2910:
2885:
2855:
2835:
2794:
2780:
2752:
2734:
2714:
2693:
2673:
2658:
2599:
2579:
2555:
2541:
2512:
2488:
2474:
2447:
2411:
2391:
2357:
2328:
2306:
2286:
2236:
2215:
2198:
2180:
2124:
2102:
2094:
2055:
2037:
2013:
1996:
1975:
1941:
1876:
1847:
1823:
1802:
1778:
1687:
1670:
642:
to support the claim. Institutional and research sites (e.g. libraries, museums and archival sites such as the
3038:
3003:
1232:
1182:
copyright tag (claiming the image is in the public domain because the author has been dead more than 70 years).
166:
2785:
I just like to second or third the praise...this is great article on an often frustrating topic. Great job!
2640:
What about including something about republication rights and how they sound like "free" works but are not?
2078:
1040:: Is the source reasonably expected to have licensing rights? Imagine, for example, a website dedicated to
703:
Although not mandatory, derivative images will, ideally, have summaries identifying the copyright status of
298:
their country of origin; compliance with Commons policy, however, does not figure in the FA or GA criteria.
280:
170:
146:
2987:
2966:
2924:
2881:
2870:
2748:
2494:
2324:
2211:
2194:
2051:
2009:
1971:
1722:
1683:
1633:
1076:
Hard work and diligence like that exhibited by Mackintosh and Spencer-Smith yields soundly-sourced images.
1021:
728:
1861:
is better, as the markup helps distinguish the two. Obviously, it will need some refining. (MS Paint?)
1024:
or stained glass window should raise red flags if text therein is in English and not, for example, Latin.
962:? No, there is no explicit assertion of authorship, and, accordingly, no means of contacting the author.
1914:
Yes, they're indeed fine (meaning images so tagged are valid and free). CC and GFDL are introduced as "
1888:
1031:
312:, for which copyright has expired if the image was first published in the US before January 1, 1923; and
237:; their creators have merely waived some, but not all of the protection that copyright affords them.
2526:
I added "acceptable" and "unacceptable" examples. Let me know whether the addition helps/needs more.
1137:. Mackintosh and Spencer-Smith were indeed in Antarctica before 1920 (the reported publication date).
877:(i.e. the "necessary details to support ... the image copyright tag")? Yes, the image has a complete
1714:
1625:
881:
501:
3. An image summary provides the "necessary details to support the use of the image copyright tag".
488:
512:
Source: The copyright holder of the image or weblink, published work, etc. from which the image came
2945:
2851:
2776:
2689:
2654:
2632:
2610:"Self-made": What about adding scanned images claiming to be self-made which can be caught through
2595:
2537:
2508:
2470:
2443:
2407:
2353:
2282:
2232:
2120:
2033:
2019:
1992:
1937:
1872:
1819:
1774:
1666:
1240:
844:
643:
221:
is a legal protection granting the creator of an original work – for our purposes here, an image –
1109:? Yes, a full citation of the published source from which the image originated has been provided.
613:
2827:
2710:
2669:
2575:
2551:
2484:
2459:
is right - that or just upload the damn thing and enter information "manually" once it's there.)
2387:
2298:
2172:
2086:
1900:
1839:
1794:
991:
949:
380:
1148:
1072:
2980:
2959:
2917:
2874:
2741:
2317:
2204:
2187:
2044:
2002:
1964:
1718:
1676:
1629:
1561:
904:
The image contains camera metadata (on the image description page, under the metadata header).
700:
is under copyright – a consideration independent of the copyright status of the image itself.
93:
27:
406:
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the
400:
1153:
926:
898:
797:
244:
222:
638:
site, for example, claiming that an image is public domain will probably not be considered
103:
2905:
2790:
2762:
1176:
162:
2958:
word; doing something would be helpful, since idiots like me aren't aware of the issue.
843:
In full compliance with Knowledge image policy and properly licensed, the good people of
826:, but remember that less established users may be unfamiliar with Knowledge image policy.
123:
757:
2935:
2841:
2766:
2730:
2679:
2644:
2622:
2585:
2527:
2498:
2460:
2433:
2397:
2343:
2272:
2222:
2110:
2023:
1982:
1927:
1919:
1862:
1809:
1764:
1656:
1096:
839:
781:
740:
142:
133:
2423:
A public domain image may be used freely and without condition by the public at large.
634:
WP:V notes that "the appropriateness of any source always depends on the context". A
3050:
2823:
2706:
2665:
2571:
2547:
2480:
2383:
2294:
2168:
2082:
1896:
1835:
1790:
1707:
1331:
823:
639:
595:
The following are examples of correctly formatted, verifiable and reliable sourcing:
569:
502:
387:
362:
207:
203:
318:, for which copyright has expired where the creator has been dead at least 70 years.
2811:
Freedom of panorama is a copyright law provision that allows for photographs to be
1041:
921:
691:
without the consent of both copyright holders: the photographer and the cartoonist.
548:
113:
2916:
OK, still catching up this morning, will ask Elcobbola how he can factor that ...
458:
302:
1372:
1343:
527:
Other versions of this file: Derivatives of the image, if they exist on Knowledge
1206:
765:, the appearance of dots when the image is magnified may be a cause for concern.
544:
202:
Although all Knowledge content is expected to have acceptable copyright status,
863:? Yes, it asserts that Daniel Case has released the image as GFDL version 1.2.
83:
2898:
2786:
1056:
762:
1744:
2726:
2376:- This might bear repeating. It is quite important and often misunderstood.
1236:
635:
218:
1030:: Does the date seem reasonable relative to the subject? An image of the
1189:? No, a source (e.g. web link or published source) has not been provided.
2611:
1221:: To reiterate a concept mentioned above, images with copyleft licenses
1060:
813:
230:
256:(share alike: all derivatives must be published with the same license),
855:) is in full compliance with Knowledge policy and properly licensed.
422://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License
2271:
expanding the CC licenses is really necessary to do that, then let's.
1309:: "U.S. law governs whether a Knowledge image is in the public domain"
330:
Article reviewers generally need to take into account three aspects:
1084:) is in full compliance with Knowledge policy and properly licensed.
777:
709:
584://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-08-11/Dispatches
141:
Knowledge's best articles are often enhanced by images. Indeed, the
2818:
But surely, except in military states, it is always permissible to
677:
is a derivative work. The copyright status of the fountain/statue
184:
Images on Knowledge are classified as either "free" or "non-free":
1147:
1071:
1034:(completed in 1931), for example, should not claim a date of 1920.
920:
838:
756:
668:
233:" licenses – a play on the word "copyright". Copyleft images are
195:
only under the restrictive terms of the non-free content criteria.
465:
The relicensing status of this image has not yet been reviewed.
1651:(which is almost exclusively for copyvio prose) and Commons has
1130:. The image is black and white and generally appears to be old.
2425:- Is it worth noting that public domain images can be altered?
1853:
I like the idea of a screenshot and numbering where to look.
1585:
556:
430:
395:
341:
ensuring the claims of the copyright tag are supported by the
1895:. They seem fine to me, but they are neither CC nor GFDL. --
696:
necessarily the case. Reviewers should consider whether the
2740:
Ec, this is a beautiful article. Can we submit it to FAC?
1735:
Yep, all images. WP:IUP is implicitly Knowledge only (i.e.
1473:
1360:
Knowledge talk:Knowledge Signpost/2008-08-11/Dispatches/FAQ
1834:
Some screenshots of image license pages might be good. --
1164:) is in not in compliance with Knowledge image policy.
365:
requires all images to have three pieces of information:
937:) is in not in compliance with Knowledge image policy.
2618:
2429:
2136:
1701:
1614:
1577:
1570:
1550:
1161:
934:
736:
495:
1445:
1380:
518:
Location: The location in which the image was created
2678:
I worked this in among the "Imprecise disclaimers".
1453:
554:
Consider, for example, the following copyright tag:
206:
receive particular scrutiny for compliance with the
2873:after Tony removed and I added back "fair use" ...
1575:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try
1438:
933:The "self-made" image pictured to the right (as of
851:The "self-made" image pictured to the right (as of
547:) and the necessity of utilizing reliable sources (
1763:which would be necessary to substantiate a claim.
1675:OK :-) So, this Dispatch will fill in the gaps.
538:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches
521:Author: The image creator and/or copyright holder
305:. The most common encountered on Knowledge are:
1649:Knowledge:Spotting possible copyright violations
393:copyright tag, for example, appears as follows:
2643:I'm not sure what you mean; can you elaborate?
2250:Comprehensive this dispatch is not (partly why
1152:Lacking a verifiable source and image summary,
1981:Unfinished indeed. I haven't forgetten . ;)
8:
2493:I think this would be more germane to, say,
2264:Knowledge:Image copyright tags/Comprehensive
2101:available, can be assumed to be reliable).
681:the photograph itself need to be considered.
301:Copyright terms in the US vary according to
997:The image does not contain camera metadata.
459:Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0
2765:may be as close at it could get, if that.
1653:Commons:How to detect copyright violations
1365:Commons:How to detect copyright violations
929:is far more lush than the image's summary.
761:Unless an image is deliberately employing
473:
445:
440:
434:
155:criteria for inclusion of non-free content
3001:Make sure we cover what matters to you –
2954:I was thinking you might work in Tony's
2822:outdoor sculptures and buildings etc. --
1462:
1433:
1375:
796:: Does the image have a reasonably high
2761:well. I think the "advice" section of
1887:What about licenses such as the one on
1578:
1554:
1342:United States Copyright Office (2006).
1299:
1205:Although this is likely public domain,
1080:The image pictured to the right (as of
40:
561:
1743::IUP). The relevant Commons policy (
739:of an image depicting Jaume Piensa's
7:
2382:Maybe in the common misconceptions?
2150:And the following are unacceptable:
515:Date: The date the image was created
3057:Knowledge Signpost archives 2008-08
1596:This Dispatch is supplemented by a
1156:is humiliated in the ensuing chaos.
780:should raise questions if it has a
722:Commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama
646:) are generally the most reliable.
1263:All licenses are not created equal
35:
2109:that all images thereon are PD).
1959:Image quality, anachronisms, usw.
1560:These comments are automatically
153:images or media must satisfy the
41:Dispatches: Reviewing free images
2757:Ha, I'm sure that would go over
1589:
665:Commons:Commons:Derivative works
560:
457:, it may also be used under the
399:
240:Commonly used licenses include:
118:
108:
98:
88:
78:
68:
58:
2705:I hope these suggestions help.
1859:Image:Rhinebeck screengrab2.jpg
1700:<Question below copied from
1613:<Question below copied from
727:an existing work), it does not
1855:Image:Rhinebeck screengrab.jpg
1571:add the page to your watchlist
1160:The image on the right (as of
1063:than contemporary photographs.
847:are able to enjoy a sunny day.
509:Description: The image subject
419:GNU Free Documentation License
409:GNU Free Documentation License
268:GNU Free Documentation License
28:Knowledge:FCDW/August 11, 2008
1:
1752:consideration of COM policy).
2428:It certainly wouldn't hurt.
1128:expected technical qualities
1059:, over-exposed and are less
18:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost
2992:17:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
2971:17:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
2950:17:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
2929:15:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
2911:13:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
2886:15:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
2856:17:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2836:17:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2795:03:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
2781:18:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2753:17:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2735:10:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2715:00:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2694:18:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2674:14:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2659:03:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2600:18:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2580:14:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2556:14:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2542:03:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2513:18:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2489:14:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2475:01:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2448:01:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2412:18:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2392:14:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2358:20:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
2329:20:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
2307:20:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
2287:20:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
2237:20:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
2216:16:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
2199:16:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
2181:16:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
2125:16:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
2095:16:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
2056:03:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
2038:03:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
2014:01:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
1997:01:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
1976:01:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
1346:. Retrieved August 1, 2008.
1283:Creation is not publication
675:Fountain of the Great Lakes
204:featured article candidates
147:acceptable copyright status
3073:
2252:I wanted to split to three
1747:) is stricter, in that it
1599:Frequently Asked Questions
1505:Board Nominating Committee
1392:Board Nominating Committee
719:
662:
535:
505:recommends the following:
348:consideration of possible
278:
260:(no commercial usage) and
2020:there's never enough time
1942:20:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
1909:20:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
1877:16:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
1848:09:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
1824:14:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
1803:08:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
1779:18:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
1688:01:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
1671:01:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
1223:are still under copyright
1135:reasonable subject matter
175:valid fair use rationales
143:featured article criteria
1172:? Yes, it is using the
945:? Yes, it is using the
455:eligible for relicensing
379:1. A copyright tag is a
357:Policy-mandated elements
336:policy-mandated elements
165:require that images be "
2167:Is this a full list? --
1924:sheer and absurd volume
1882:
1344:Copyright Office Basics
281:Knowledge:Public domain
2871:User talk:SandyGeorgia
2817:
2368:Comments from Awadewit
1568:. To follow comments,
1478:
1157:
1077:
1022:illuminated manuscript
930:
848:
766:
693:
682:
498:), if present at all.
214:Copyright and copyleft
159:be labeled accordingly
2897:is sometimes upheld.
2809:
1477:
1441:← Previous Dispatches
1320:the Commons guideline
1247:Imprecise disclaimers
1219:Copyright subsistence
1213:Common misconceptions
1151:
1075:
1032:Empire State Building
924:
842:
760:
688:
672:
640:sufficiently reliable
235:still under copyright
163:good article criteria
2495:User:Mifter/Signpost
2001:Had me worried :-)
1564:from this article's
1254:Copyrighted free use
1241:contains screenshots
1092:? Yes, it uses the
698:subject of the image
567:This file is in the
193:allowed on Knowledge
2455:started uploading.
1530:Features and admins
1417:Features and admins
927:Japanese Tea Garden
845:Rhinebeck, New York
716:Freedom of panorama
644:Library of Congress
372:A verifiable source
249:a range of licenses
161:." Similarly, the
3004:leave a suggestion
1708:image usage policy
1555:Discuss this story
1540:Arbitration report
1479:
1427:Arbitration report
1235:complaint against
1229:Government hosting
1158:
1078:
992:computer wallpaper
931:
849:
767:
683:
673:This image of the
363:image usage policy
303:several conditions
294:the United States
208:image usage policy
2805:taking/publishing
2342:Awadewit a note.
1922:, but, given the
1731:
1717:comment added by
1642:
1628:comment added by
1606:
1605:
1579:purging the cache
1535:Technology report
1510:Greenspun project
1467:
1466:
1422:Technology report
1397:Greenspun project
1267:legally different
1187:verifiable source
1107:verifiable source
1053:Technical quality
1008:Already published
960:verifiable source
868:verifiable source
824:assume good faith
804:Technical quality
620:is insufficient).
589:
588:
481:
480:
429:
428:
316:unpublished works
26:(Redirected from
3064:
3041:
3006:
2984:
2963:
2942:
2921:
2908:
2903:
2878:
2848:
2773:
2745:
2686:
2651:
2629:
2592:
2534:
2505:
2467:
2440:
2404:
2350:
2321:
2279:
2229:
2208:
2191:
2117:
2048:
2030:
2006:
1989:
1968:
1934:
1869:
1816:
1771:
1730:
1711:
1680:
1663:
1641:
1622:
1593:
1592:
1586:
1582:
1580:
1574:
1553:
1497:
1489:
1482:
1456:Next Dispatches→
1373:
1347:
1340:
1334:
1329:
1323:
1322:for elaboration.
1316:
1310:
1304:
1258:
1252:
1181:
1175:
1154:Emperor Valerian
1101:
1095:
954:
948:
886:
880:
659:Derivative works
610:Published source
585:
581:
564:
563:
557:
493:
487:
477:
470:
453:If this file is
449:
448:
444:
443:
438:
437:
431:
423:
420:
417:
403:
396:
392:
386:
375:An image summary
326:Reviewing images
247:(CC). These are
245:Creative Commons
223:exclusive rights
179:non-free content
177:be provided for
171:copyright status
136:
122:
121:
112:
111:
102:
101:
92:
91:
82:
81:
72:
71:
62:
61:
31:
3072:
3071:
3067:
3066:
3065:
3063:
3062:
3061:
3047:
3046:
3045:
3044:
3043:
3042:
3037:
3035:
3030:
3025:
3020:
3015:
3008:
3002:
2998:
2997:
2982:
2961:
2948:
2936:
2919:
2906:
2899:
2876:
2864:
2854:
2842:
2807:
2779:
2767:
2743:
2722:
2692:
2680:
2657:
2645:
2635:
2623:
2598:
2586:
2540:
2528:
2511:
2499:
2473:
2461:
2446:
2434:
2410:
2398:
2370:
2356:
2344:
2319:
2285:
2273:
2235:
2223:
2206:
2189:
2133:
2123:
2111:
2070:
2046:
2036:
2024:
2004:
1995:
1983:
1966:
1950:
1940:
1928:
1885:
1875:
1863:
1832:
1822:
1810:
1787:
1785:Free / Non-Free
1777:
1765:
1712:
1706:Regarding "The
1698:
1678:
1669:
1657:
1623:
1611:
1590:
1584:
1576:
1569:
1558:
1557:
1551:+ Add a comment
1549:
1545:
1544:
1543:
1490:
1485:
1483:
1480:
1468:
1382:Also this week:
1356:
1351:
1350:
1341:
1337:
1330:
1326:
1317:
1313:
1305:
1301:
1296:
1256:
1250:
1239:, for example,
1215:
1179:
1173:
1146:
1099:
1093:
1070:
1010:
952:
946:
919:
899:high resolution
884:
878:
837:
755:
750:
724:
718:
667:
661:
652:
583:
579:
540:
534:
491:
485:
464:
446:
441:
435:
425:
421:
418:
415:
390:
384:
369:A copyright tag
359:
328:
310:published works
283:
277:
216:
138:
137:
131:
130:
129:
128:
119:
109:
99:
89:
79:
69:
59:
53:
50:
39:
33:
32:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
3070:
3068:
3060:
3059:
3049:
3048:
3036:
3031:
3026:
3021:
3016:
3011:
3010:
3009:
3000:
2999:
2996:
2995:
2994:
2977:
2976:
2975:
2974:
2973:
2944:
2891:
2890:
2889:
2888:
2863:
2860:
2859:
2858:
2850:
2806:
2803:
2802:
2801:
2800:
2799:
2798:
2797:
2775:
2721:
2720:Great dispatch
2718:
2703:
2702:
2701:
2700:
2699:
2698:
2697:
2696:
2688:
2653:
2638:
2637:
2636:
2631:
2608:
2607:
2606:
2605:
2604:
2603:
2602:
2594:
2562:
2561:
2560:
2559:
2558:
2536:
2521:
2520:
2519:
2518:
2517:
2516:
2515:
2507:
2469:
2452:
2451:
2450:
2442:
2420:
2419:
2418:
2417:
2416:
2415:
2414:
2406:
2369:
2366:
2365:
2364:
2363:
2362:
2361:
2360:
2352:
2334:
2333:
2332:
2331:
2310:
2309:
2281:
2244:
2243:
2242:
2241:
2240:
2239:
2231:
2165:
2164:
2161:
2158:
2155:
2148:
2147:
2144:
2132:
2129:
2128:
2127:
2119:
2069:
2066:
2065:
2064:
2063:
2062:
2061:
2060:
2059:
2058:
2032:
1991:
1963:Unfinished ?
1961:
1960:
1957:
1952:What is this?
1949:
1946:
1945:
1944:
1936:
1884:
1883:here's a thing
1881:
1880:
1879:
1871:
1831:
1828:
1827:
1826:
1818:
1786:
1783:
1782:
1781:
1773:
1754:
1753:
1697:
1694:
1693:
1692:
1691:
1690:
1665:
1610:
1607:
1604:
1603:
1594:
1559:
1556:
1548:
1547:
1546:
1542:
1537:
1532:
1527:
1522:
1520:News and notes
1517:
1512:
1507:
1502:
1496:
1487:11 August 2008
1484:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1460:
1459:
1452:
1444:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1424:
1419:
1414:
1409:
1407:News and notes
1404:
1399:
1394:
1389:
1384:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1370:
1368:
1367:
1362:
1355:
1352:
1349:
1348:
1335:
1324:
1311:
1298:
1297:
1295:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1280:
1260:
1244:
1226:
1214:
1211:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1190:
1183:
1145:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1133:The image has
1131:
1126:The image has
1117:
1110:
1103:
1102:copyright tag.
1069:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1050:
1035:
1025:
1009:
1006:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
995:
994:archive site).
980:
979:
978:
963:
956:
918:
915:
914:
913:
912:
911:
908:
905:
902:
888:
871:
864:
836:
833:
828:
827:
817:
807:
801:
791:
785:
784:license plate.
782:European Union
754:
751:
749:
746:
741:Crown Fountain
717:
714:
660:
657:
651:
648:
632:
631:
624:Author contact
621:
618:The New Yorker
607:
587:
586:
565:
533:
530:
529:
528:
525:
522:
519:
516:
513:
510:
479:
478:
471:
463:
450:
439:
427:
426:
413:
404:
377:
376:
373:
370:
358:
355:
354:
353:
346:
339:
334:ensuring that
327:
324:
320:
319:
313:
276:
273:
272:
271:
265:
215:
212:
197:
196:
189:
139:
127:
126:
116:
106:
96:
86:
76:
66:
55:
54:
51:
45:
44:
43:
42:
37:
36:
34:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3069:
3058:
3055:
3054:
3052:
3040:
3034:
3029:
3024:
3019:
3014:
3005:
2993:
2989:
2985:
2979:Looks good.
2978:
2972:
2968:
2964:
2957:
2956:justification
2953:
2952:
2951:
2947:
2943:
2941:
2940:
2932:
2931:
2930:
2926:
2922:
2915:
2914:
2913:
2912:
2909:
2904:
2902:
2896:
2895:justification
2887:
2883:
2879:
2872:
2868:
2867:
2866:
2865:
2861:
2857:
2853:
2849:
2847:
2846:
2839:
2838:
2837:
2833:
2829:
2825:
2821:
2816:
2814:
2804:
2796:
2792:
2788:
2784:
2783:
2782:
2778:
2774:
2772:
2771:
2764:
2760:
2756:
2755:
2754:
2750:
2746:
2739:
2738:
2737:
2736:
2732:
2728:
2719:
2717:
2716:
2712:
2708:
2695:
2691:
2687:
2685:
2684:
2677:
2676:
2675:
2671:
2667:
2662:
2661:
2660:
2656:
2652:
2650:
2649:
2642:
2641:
2639:
2634:
2630:
2628:
2627:
2620:
2616:
2615:
2613:
2609:
2601:
2597:
2593:
2591:
2590:
2583:
2582:
2581:
2577:
2573:
2569:
2568:
2566:
2565:
2563:
2557:
2553:
2549:
2545:
2544:
2543:
2539:
2535:
2533:
2532:
2525:
2524:
2522:
2514:
2510:
2506:
2504:
2503:
2496:
2492:
2491:
2490:
2486:
2482:
2478:
2477:
2476:
2472:
2468:
2466:
2465:
2457:
2456:
2453:
2449:
2445:
2441:
2439:
2438:
2431:
2427:
2426:
2424:
2421:
2413:
2409:
2405:
2403:
2402:
2395:
2394:
2393:
2389:
2385:
2381:
2380:
2378:
2377:
2375:
2372:
2371:
2367:
2359:
2355:
2351:
2349:
2348:
2340:
2339:
2338:
2337:
2336:
2335:
2330:
2326:
2322:
2314:
2313:
2312:
2311:
2308:
2304:
2300:
2296:
2291:
2290:
2289:
2288:
2284:
2280:
2278:
2277:
2269:
2265:
2261:
2257:
2253:
2248:
2238:
2234:
2230:
2228:
2227:
2219:
2218:
2217:
2213:
2209:
2202:
2201:
2200:
2196:
2192:
2185:
2184:
2183:
2182:
2178:
2174:
2170:
2162:
2159:
2156:
2153:
2152:
2151:
2145:
2142:
2141:
2140:
2138:
2130:
2126:
2122:
2118:
2116:
2115:
2108:
2104:
2099:
2098:
2097:
2096:
2092:
2088:
2084:
2080:
2076:
2067:
2057:
2053:
2049:
2041:
2040:
2039:
2035:
2031:
2029:
2028:
2021:
2017:
2016:
2015:
2011:
2007:
2000:
1999:
1998:
1994:
1990:
1988:
1987:
1980:
1979:
1978:
1977:
1973:
1969:
1958:
1955:
1954:
1953:
1947:
1943:
1939:
1935:
1933:
1932:
1925:
1921:
1917:
1913:
1912:
1911:
1910:
1906:
1902:
1898:
1894:
1890:
1878:
1874:
1870:
1868:
1867:
1860:
1856:
1852:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1845:
1841:
1837:
1829:
1825:
1821:
1817:
1815:
1814:
1807:
1806:
1805:
1804:
1800:
1796:
1792:
1784:
1780:
1776:
1772:
1770:
1769:
1761:
1756:
1755:
1750:
1746:
1742:
1738:
1734:
1733:
1732:
1728:
1724:
1720:
1716:
1709:
1704:
1702:
1695:
1689:
1685:
1681:
1674:
1673:
1672:
1668:
1664:
1662:
1661:
1654:
1650:
1645:
1644:
1643:
1639:
1635:
1631:
1627:
1618:
1616:
1608:
1601:
1600:
1595:
1588:
1587:
1581:
1572:
1567:
1563:
1552:
1541:
1538:
1536:
1533:
1531:
1528:
1526:
1523:
1521:
1518:
1516:
1513:
1511:
1508:
1506:
1503:
1501:
1498:
1494:
1488:
1481:In this issue
1476:
1461:
1457:
1451:
1449:
1442:
1437:
1432:
1428:
1425:
1423:
1420:
1418:
1415:
1413:
1410:
1408:
1405:
1403:
1400:
1398:
1395:
1393:
1390:
1388:
1385:
1383:
1379:
1374:
1371:
1366:
1363:
1361:
1358:
1357:
1353:
1345:
1339:
1336:
1333:
1332:17 USC 120(a)
1328:
1325:
1321:
1315:
1312:
1308:
1303:
1300:
1293:
1288:
1284:
1281:
1277:
1274:2.0 as CC-by-
1273:
1268:
1264:
1261:
1255:
1248:
1245:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1230:
1227:
1224:
1220:
1217:
1216:
1212:
1210:
1208:
1207:verifiability
1198:
1197:
1195:
1194:image summary
1191:
1188:
1184:
1178:
1171:
1170:copyright tag
1167:
1166:
1165:
1163:
1155:
1150:
1143:
1136:
1132:
1129:
1125:
1124:
1122:
1118:
1115:
1114:image summary
1111:
1108:
1104:
1098:
1091:
1090:copyright tag
1087:
1086:
1085:
1083:
1074:
1067:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1051:
1048:
1043:
1039:
1036:
1033:
1029:
1026:
1023:
1019:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1007:
1005:
996:
993:
988:
987:
985:
981:
976:
975:example above
971:
970:
968:
967:image summary
964:
961:
957:
951:
944:
943:copyright tag
940:
939:
938:
936:
928:
923:
916:
909:
906:
903:
900:
897:The image is
896:
895:
893:
889:
883:
876:
875:image summary
872:
869:
865:
862:
861:copyright tag
858:
857:
856:
854:
846:
841:
834:
832:
825:
821:
818:
815:
811:
808:
805:
802:
799:
795:
792:
789:
786:
783:
779:
775:
774:Discrepancies
772:
771:
770:
764:
759:
752:
747:
745:
742:
738:
732:
730:
723:
715:
713:
711:
706:
701:
699:
692:
687:
680:
676:
671:
666:
658:
656:
650:Legal nuances
649:
647:
645:
641:
637:
629:
625:
622:
619:
615:
611:
608:
605:
601:
598:
597:
596:
593:
582:
580:Public domain
576:
572:
571:
570:public domain
566:
559:
558:
555:
552:
550:
546:
539:
531:
526:
523:
520:
517:
514:
511:
508:
507:
506:
504:
499:
497:
490:
476:
472:
468:
462:
460:
456:
451:
433:
432:
424:
411:
410:
405:
402:
398:
397:
394:
389:
382:
374:
371:
368:
367:
366:
364:
356:
351:
350:legal nuances
347:
344:
340:
337:
333:
332:
331:
325:
323:
317:
314:
311:
308:
307:
306:
304:
299:
297:
293:
287:
282:
275:Public domain
274:
269:
266:
263:
259:
255:
250:
246:
243:
242:
241:
238:
236:
232:
226:
224:
220:
213:
211:
209:
205:
200:
194:
190:
187:
186:
185:
182:
180:
176:
172:
168:
164:
160:
156:
152:
148:
144:
135:
125:
117:
115:
107:
105:
97:
95:
87:
85:
77:
75:
67:
65:
57:
56:
48:
29:
23:
19:
2955:
2938:
2937:
2900:
2894:
2892:
2869:Copied from
2844:
2843:
2819:
2813:freely taken
2812:
2810:
2769:
2768:
2758:
2723:
2704:
2682:
2681:
2647:
2646:
2625:
2624:
2588:
2587:
2530:
2529:
2501:
2500:
2463:
2462:
2436:
2435:
2422:
2400:
2399:
2373:
2346:
2345:
2275:
2274:
2267:
2259:
2255:
2249:
2245:
2225:
2224:
2166:
2149:
2134:
2113:
2112:
2106:
2077:(also found
2071:
2026:
2025:
1985:
1984:
1962:
1951:
1930:
1929:
1915:
1886:
1865:
1864:
1833:
1812:
1811:
1788:
1767:
1766:
1759:
1748:
1740:
1739::IUP is not
1736:
1719:SandyGeorgia
1713:— Preceding
1705:
1699:
1659:
1658:
1630:SandyGeorgia
1624:— Preceding
1621:tutorial? --
1619:
1612:
1598:
1524:
1500:Growth study
1493:all comments
1447:
1411:
1387:Growth study
1381:
1369:
1338:
1327:
1314:
1302:
1286:
1282:
1275:
1271:
1266:
1262:
1246:
1228:
1222:
1218:
1204:
1193:
1192:Is there an
1186:
1169:
1162:this version
1159:
1144:Flawed image
1134:
1127:
1120:
1113:
1112:Is there an
1106:
1089:
1082:this version
1079:
1052:
1046:
1042:World War II
1037:
1027:
1018:Anachronisms
1017:
1011:
1002:
983:
966:
965:Is there an
959:
942:
935:this version
932:
917:Flawed image
891:
874:
873:Is there an
867:
860:
853:this version
850:
829:
819:
809:
803:
793:
787:
773:
768:
733:
725:
704:
702:
697:
694:
689:
684:
678:
653:
633:
623:
617:
609:
599:
594:
590:
578:
574:
568:
553:
541:
500:
482:
467:You can help
452:
414:
407:
378:
361:Knowledge's
360:
349:
342:
338:are present;
335:
329:
321:
315:
309:
300:
295:
291:
288:
284:
261:
257:
253:
239:
234:
227:
217:
201:
198:
183:
140:
64:PDF download
3039:Suggestions
2617:Good idea.
2546:Excellent!
2266:, although
2163:CC-by-NC-SA
2160:CC-by-NC-ND
2068:LoC example
1948:Provenience
1830:screenshots
1703:inline: -->
1696:Question II
1617:inline: -->
1562:transcluded
1185:Is there a
1168:Is there a
1123:check out?
1105:Is there a
1088:Is there a
1047:prima facie
986:check out?
958:Is there a
941:Is there a
894:check out?
882:information
866:Is there a
859:Is there a
489:Information
173:" and that
169:with their
114:X (Twitter)
2934:workable?
2820:photograph
2103:This image
2075:this image
1889:this image
1525:Dispatches
1412:Dispatches
1121:provenance
1068:Good image
984:provenance
892:provenance
835:Good image
798:resolution
794:Resolution
763:pointilism
720:See also:
663:See also:
536:See also:
279:See also:
52:Share this
47:Contribute
38:Dispatches
22:2008-08-11
3033:Subscribe
2939:ЭLСОВВОLД
2862:FU images
2845:ЭLСОВВОLД
2770:ЭLСОВВОLД
2683:ЭLСОВВОLД
2648:ЭLСОВВОLД
2626:ЭLСОВВОLД
2612:halftones
2589:ЭLСОВВОLД
2531:ЭLСОВВОLД
2502:ЭLСОВВОLД
2464:ЭLСОВВОLД
2437:ЭLСОВВОLД
2401:ЭLСОВВОLД
2347:ЭLСОВВОLД
2276:ЭLСОВВОLД
2226:ЭLСОВВОLД
2137:this edit
2114:ЭLСОВВОLД
2027:ЭLСОВВОLД
1986:ЭLСОВВОLД
1931:ЭLСОВВОLД
1866:ЭLСОВВОLД
1813:ЭLСОВВОLД
1768:ЭLСОВВОLД
1660:ЭLСОВВОLД
1566:talk page
1515:WikiWorld
1402:WikiWorld
1237:Movieland
1119:Does the
982:Does the
950:GFDL-self
890:Does the
887:template.
814:halftones
810:Telltales
753:Self-made
636:Geocities
219:Copyright
134:Elcobbola
3051:Category
3028:Newsroom
3023:Archives
2832:contribs
2824:jbmurray
2763:WP:WIAFA
2707:Awadewit
2666:Awadewit
2572:Awadewit
2548:Awadewit
2481:Awadewit
2384:Awadewit
2303:contribs
2295:jbmurray
2177:contribs
2169:jbmurray
2157:CC-by-ND
2154:CC-by-NC
2146:CC-by-SA
2091:contribs
2083:jbmurray
1905:contribs
1897:jbmurray
1893:this one
1891:or even
1844:contribs
1836:jbmurray
1799:contribs
1791:jbmurray
1727:contribs
1715:unsigned
1638:contribs
1626:unsigned
1609:Question
1450:archives
1448:Signpost
1354:See also
1038:Licensor
788:Metadata
748:Examples
737:revision
729:infringe
592:years).
461:license.
381:template
231:copyleft
151:Non-free
104:Facebook
94:LinkedIn
84:Mastodon
20: |
2983:Georgia
2962:Georgia
2920:Georgia
2877:Georgia
2744:Georgia
2320:Georgia
2207:Georgia
2190:Georgia
2047:Georgia
2005:Georgia
1967:Georgia
1920:WP:TLDR
1679:Georgia
1279:sight."
628:example
614:example
604:example
600:Weblink
577:years.
496:example
2907:(talk)
2759:really
2396:Done.
1916:Common
1760:is not
1307:WP:IUP
1270:CC-by-
1177:PD-art
778:Boston
710:Batman
532:Source
503:WP:IUP
343:source
167:tagged
124:Reddit
74:E-mail
3018:About
2981:Sandy
2960:Sandy
2918:Sandy
2875:Sandy
2787:Erudy
2742:Sandy
2318:Sandy
2268:quite
2205:Sandy
2188:Sandy
2143:CC-by
2045:Sandy
2022:...)
2003:Sandy
1965:Sandy
1745:COM:L
1677:Sandy
1602:page.
1294:Notes
1097:PD-US
1061:sharp
1057:sepia
551:).
549:WP:RS
345:; and
16:<
3013:Home
2988:Talk
2967:Talk
2946:talk
2925:Talk
2901:Tony
2882:Talk
2852:talk
2828:talk
2791:talk
2777:talk
2749:Talk
2731:talk
2727:seav
2711:talk
2690:talk
2670:talk
2655:talk
2633:talk
2619:Done
2596:talk
2576:talk
2552:talk
2538:talk
2509:talk
2485:talk
2471:talk
2444:talk
2430:Done
2408:talk
2388:talk
2354:talk
2325:Talk
2299:talk
2283:talk
2258:and
2233:talk
2212:Talk
2195:Talk
2173:talk
2135:Re.
2121:talk
2087:talk
2079:here
2052:Talk
2043:...
2034:talk
2010:Talk
1993:talk
1972:Talk
1938:talk
1901:talk
1873:talk
1840:talk
1820:talk
1795:talk
1775:talk
1749:also
1723:talk
1684:Talk
1667:talk
1634:talk
1615:this
1028:Date
925:The
820:User
705:both
545:WP:V
416:GFDL
388:GFDL
292:both
157:and
2107:not
1956:FoP
1741:COM
1233:FTC
679:and
575:100
296:and
132:By
49:—
3053::
2990:)
2969:)
2927:)
2884:)
2834:)
2830:•
2793:)
2751:)
2733:)
2725:--
2713:)
2672:)
2621:.
2614:?
2578:)
2554:)
2487:)
2432:.
2390:)
2327:)
2305:)
2301:•
2260:ND
2256:NC
2214:)
2197:)
2179:)
2175:•
2131:CC
2093:)
2089:•
2054:)
2012:)
1974:)
1907:)
1903:•
1846:)
1842:•
1801:)
1797:•
1737:WP
1729:)
1725:•
1686:)
1640:)
1636:•
1458:)
1287:is
1276:SA
1272:NC
1257:}}
1251:{{
1180:}}
1174:{{
1100:}}
1094:{{
953:}}
947:{{
885:}}
879:{{
492:}}
486:{{
391:}}
385:{{
262:ND
258:NC
254:SA
181:.
149:.
3007:.
2986:(
2965:(
2923:(
2880:(
2826:(
2789:(
2747:(
2729:(
2709:(
2668:(
2574:(
2550:(
2483:(
2386:(
2323:(
2297:(
2210:(
2193:(
2171:(
2085:(
2050:(
2008:(
1970:(
1899:(
1838:(
1793:(
1721:(
1682:(
1632:(
1583:.
1573:.
1495:)
1491:(
1454:(
1443:)
1439:(
977:.
626:(
612:(
602:(
469:.
352:.
229:"
30:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.