663:
1278:: 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
73:
93:
1142:
1066:
468:
833:
1042:, 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.
1468:
429:
793:? 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.
53:
66:
915:
394:
1584:
2074:, 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! --
1224:: 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
83:
435:
103:
1048:: 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
63:
440:
555:
113:
283:
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
1189:(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.
751:
2285:
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
2263:
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
1755:
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.),
1744:
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
2451:
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
2098:, 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
683:
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
647:
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.
584:
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
719:
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
2926:
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
2447:
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
823:
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
282:
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
1613:
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
476:
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
2093:
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
2334:
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
535:
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
1262:
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
700:
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
688:
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
678:
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:
1750:
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
1543:
996:
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.
1639:
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
2239:
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.
1037:
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,
2656:
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.
982:
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
2308:
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.
1258:: 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
1242:: 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
2247:); 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
965:
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
278:
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.
106:
2132:(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:
762:"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:
727:
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
799:: 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.
736:
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.
76:
203:. 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.
221:
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
2065:
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
1485:
263:(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.
1005:
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:
2213:
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?
1109:(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.
1271:
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
376:, 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
244:
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
116:
1312:
96:
2717:
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. :-)
2516:
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.
705:
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.
1919:
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.
1236:
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.
218:
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.
824:
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".
609:): 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
2560:
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?
33:
257:(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).
2472:
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.
724:
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.
1497:
1384:
1648:. 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.
1311:
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
2179:
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.
1911:
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
39:
599:): 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.
487:
template, which provides organized source and summary information. This template is not mandatory, however, and the information may be "hidden" within template boilerplate (
2067:
1218:. 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.
2208:
1850:
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.
1590:
1522:
1409:
1352:
2490:. 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".
2011:
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 -
2963:
2942:
2773:
2350:
2229:
2048:
2030:
2006:
1989:
1680:
1532:
1419:
2372:
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?
2321:
2191:
315:
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.
192:
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.
2686:
2666:
2592:
2505:
1527:
1502:
1414:
1389:
783:: Does the image contain metadata? Modern digital cameras tag images with camera type and other technical data. Images taken from websites rarely contain metadata.
2984:
2921:
2848:
2548:
2481:
2404:
2299:
2117:
1934:
1869:
1816:
809:, 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.
2745:
2833:
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.
1558:
2787:
623:): 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.
2487:
1512:
1399:
86:
805:: Does the image have ominous visual cues? Images with watermarks or borders should raise red flags. Additionally, for example, scanned images may contain
1492:
1379:
1252:
copyright tag. These disclaimers are not acceptable, as the source has not fully articulated what "free" means (e.g., whether derivatives may be created).
401:
2651:
2467:
2572:
1801:
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.
405:, 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.
184:"Non-free" images (those with a "fair use" justification) retain restrictions on derivatives, commercial use and permission for use; therefore, they are
2534:
2440:
2707:
2384:
1645:
1448:
1433:
1357:
530:
2563:
I think the accumulation of words like "infringe" and "jurisdiction", which is legal terminology, might trip up some readers, but perhaps I am wrong.
1507:
1394:
1013:: Particularly relevant to images claiming PD due to age, does the image appear appropriate to its indicated time period? For example, a medieval
447:
1641:
1479:
2828:
2422:
2129:
151:
2367:
Works so licensed are still under copyright; their creators have merely waived some, but not all, of the protection that copyright affords them.
1968:
1795:
596:
1901:
2878:
1202:, not truth, is the threshold for inclusion. Without a source confirming the author, this image could just as easily be a contemporary work.
1771:
566:
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
2087:
1840:
3049:
2808:
of works (e.g. buildings and sculptures) permanently installed in public places, even if the works are still under copyright. (my emphasis)
2727:
2256:
2244:
2196:
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 ? :-))
1916:
1663:
962:(i.e. the "necessary details to support ... the image copyright tag")? No, the image only includes a description of the image's subject.
181:"Free" images are in the public domain or are copyrighted but have no restrictions on derivatives, commercial use and permission for use.
900:
The image does not appear posed, to have been taken in a studio or possess other such "professional" traits which would raise red flags.
2903:
167:
2611:
1694:
1607:
894:(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).
2801:
Hi. I previously changed the stress in the "freedom of panorama" section from taking photos to publishing. It's been shifted back:
2279:
2173:
1563:
1703:(WP:IUP) requires an image to have three pieces of information": All images? On Commons and on Wiki? Is there a difference ? --
21:
3025:
2557:
I think the "Freedom of panorama" section might confuse some readers. I think the accumulation of jargon might be the problem.
185:
3020:
3015:
2035:
The 4th Dispatch didn't post til the 9th, so you may have more time. Have fun! I'll read it tomorrow <yawn, bedtime: -->
1782:
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. --
1570:
1439:
1282:
publication. For PD claims based on the date of first publication, the source needs to indicate the actual publication date.
2577:
I wiki-linked "infringe" and changed "jurisdictions" to "countries". Hopefully this will make the section more accessible.
138:
ask for "images and other media where appropriate" and that, as for the use of all images in Knowledge, they should have "
2286:
that's a help. NB we can always save space by continuing to copy-edit your, ahem, sometimes circumlocutious prose ;). --
2255:
are articulated, it seems unnecessary to elaborate further. I'm also trying to avoid re-inventing the wheel; pages like
1074:
714:
147:
56:
948:
copyright tag (note that, unlike the GFDL example above, this "self" variant begins with "I, the creator of this work").
863:? Yes, it asserts "self-made"; the uploader matches the author and a link to the author/uploader's profile is included.
769:: Does the image itself contradict the information available? For example, a car reported to have been photographed in
3010:
1719:
1630:
1192:
Without a source, we cannot confirm that the asserted author (Hans Holbein the Younger) is indeed the original author.
1299:
903:
The image is dated September 29, 2007 (i.e. well after the claimed license – GFDL version 1.2 – came into existence).
845:
729:
620:
459:
2886:
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
1154:
1885:
657:
967:
815:: Is the uploader an established Wikipedian or a "drive by" uploader with few or no other contributions. Always
536:"material challenged or likely to be challenged" and, consequently, subject to Knowledge's verifiability policy (
517:
Permission: Who or what law or policy gives permission to post on Knowledge with the selected image copyright tag
2095:
635:
to support the claim. Institutional and research sites (e.g. libraries, museums and archival sites such as the
2824:
2360:
2295:
2169:
2083:
1897:
1851:
1836:
1791:
1175:
copyright tag (claiming the image is in the public domain because the author has been dead more than 70 years).
260:
1847:
1246:
206:
2778:
I just like to second or third the praise...this is great article on an often frustrating topic. Great job!
2633:
What about including something about republication rights and how they sound like "free" works but are not?
2071:
1033:: Is the source reasonably expected to have licensing rights? Imagine, for example, a website dedicated to
696:
Although not mandatory, derivative images will, ideally, have summaries identifying the copyright status of
291:
their country of origin; compliance with Commons policy, however, does not figure in the FA or GA criteria.
3005:
1467:
1205:
927:
349:
17:
1069:
Hard work and diligence like that exhibited by Mackintosh and Spencer-Smith yields soundly-sourced images.
467:
139:
1854:
is better, as the markup helps distinguish the two. Obviously, it will need some refining. (MS Paint?)
1017:
or stained glass window should raise red flags if text therein is in English and not, for example, Latin.
955:? No, there is no explicit assertion of authorship, and, accordingly, no means of contacting the author.
667:
1907:
Yes, they're indeed fine (meaning images so tagged are valid and free). CC and GFDL are introduced as "
305:, for which copyright has expired if the image was first published in the US before January 1, 1923; and
919:
230:; their creators have merely waived some, but not all of the protection that copyright affords them.
171:
143:
2519:
I added "acceptable" and "unacceptable" examples. Let me know whether the addition helps/needs more.
1547:
1130:. Mackintosh and Spencer-Smith were indeed in Antarctica before 1920 (the reported publication date).
870:(i.e. the "necessary details to support ... the image copyright tag")? Yes, the image has a complete
2797:
494:
3. An image summary provides the "necessary details to support the use of the image copyright tag".
241:
1875:
505:
Source: The copyright holder of the image or weblink, published work, etc. from which the image came
2603:"Self-made": What about adding scanned images claiming to be self-made which can be caught through
1233:
1225:
488:
214:
is a legal protection granting the creator of an original work – for our purposes here, an image –
159:
1102:? Yes, a full citation of the published source from which the image originated has been provided.
606:
2452:
is right - that or just upload the damn thing and enter information "manually" once it's there.)
1777:
318:
273:
163:
2980:
2959:
2917:
2874:
2863:
2741:
2712:
2317:
2204:
2187:
2044:
2002:
1964:
1715:
1676:
1626:
1014:
721:
897:
The image contains camera metadata (on the image description page, under the metadata header).
708:
693:
is under copyright – a consideration independent of the copyright status of the image itself.
662:
1881:
1024:
399:
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the
3031:
2996:
1707:
1618:
874:
631:
site, for example, claiming that an image is public domain will probably not be considered
481:
267:
8:
2951:
word; doing something would be helpful, since idiots like me aren't aware of the issue.
2938:
2844:
2769:
2682:
2647:
2625:
2588:
2530:
2501:
2463:
2436:
2400:
2346:
2275:
2225:
2113:
2060:
2026:
2012:
1985:
1940:
1930:
1865:
1822:
1812:
1767:
1688:
1659:
837:
836:
In full compliance with Knowledge image policy and properly licensed, the good people of
819:, but remember that less established users may be unfamiliar with Knowledge image policy.
636:
1136:
651:
2820:
2703:
2662:
2568:
2544:
2477:
2380:
2291:
2165:
2079:
1893:
1832:
1787:
984:
942:
373:
2416:
A public domain image may be used freely and without condition by the public at large.
627:
WP:V notes that "the appropriateness of any source always depends on the context". A
2973:
2952:
2910:
2867:
2854:
2734:
2310:
2197:
2180:
2037:
1995:
1957:
1711:
1669:
1622:
1554:
1324:
1000:
642:
588:
The following are examples of correctly formatted, verifiable and reliable sourcing:
1060:
311:, for which copyright has expired where the creator has been dead at least 70 years.
2804:
Freedom of panorama is a copyright law provision that allows for photographs to be
1601:
1146:
891:
790:
684:
without the consent of both copyright holders: the photographer and the cartoonist.
237:
215:
2909:
OK, still catching up this morning, will ask Elcobbola how he can factor that ...
451:
295:
2898:
2783:
2755:
1346:
1336:
1169:
740:
520:
Other versions of this file: Derivatives of the image, if they exist on Knowledge
393:
155:
758:, the appearance of dots when the image is magnified may be a cause for concern.
195:
Although all Knowledge content is expected to have acceptable copyright status,
2928:
2834:
2759:
2723:
2672:
2637:
2615:
2578:
2520:
2491:
2453:
2426:
2390:
2336:
2265:
2215:
2103:
2016:
1975:
1920:
1912:
1855:
1802:
1757:
1649:
1141:
1089:
1065:
856:? Yes, it asserts that Daniel Case has released the image as GFDL version 1.2.
774:
733:
135:
126:
3043:
2816:
2699:
2658:
2564:
2540:
2473:
2376:
2287:
2161:
2075:
1889:
1828:
1783:
1737:
1700:
816:
632:
562:
495:
380:
355:
200:
196:
2369:- This might bear repeating. It is quite important and often misunderstood.
909:
1286:
1034:
1023:: Does the date seem reasonable relative to the subject? An image of the
541:
1182:? No, a source (e.g. web link or published source) has not been provided.
750:
1214:: To reiterate a concept mentioned above, images with copyleft licenses
1199:
832:
537:
827:
249:(share alike: all derivatives must be published with the same license),
2891:
2779:
2123:
1049:
848:) is in full compliance with Knowledge policy and properly licensed.
755:
524:
415://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License
2264:
expanding the CC licenses is really necessary to do that, then let's.
1302:: "U.S. law governs whether a Knowledge image is in the public domain"
914:
323:
Article reviewers generally need to take into account three aspects:
2719:
1229:
1077:) is in full compliance with Knowledge policy and properly licensed.
745:
628:
577://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-08-11/Dispatches
211:
134:
Knowledge's best articles are often enhanced by images. Indeed, the
2811:
But surely, except in military states, it is always permissible to
2604:
1053:
806:
670:
is a derivative work. The copyright status of the fountain/statue
223:
177:
Images on Knowledge are classified as either "free" or "non-free":
1027:(completed in 1931), for example, should not claim a date of 1920.
226:" licenses – a play on the word "copyright". Copyleft images are
188:
only under the restrictive terms of the non-free content criteria.
458:
The relicensing status of this image has not yet been reviewed.
1644:(which is almost exclusively for copyvio prose) and Commons has
1123:. The image is black and white and generally appears to be old.
2418:- Is it worth noting that public domain images can be altered?
770:
702:
1846:
I like the idea of a screenshot and numbering where to look.
334:
ensuring the claims of the copyright tag are supported by the
1888:. They seem fine to me, but they are neither CC nor GFDL. --
689:
necessarily the case. Reviewers should consider whether the
2733:
Ec, this is a beautiful article. Can we submit it to FAC?
1728:
Yep, all images. WP:IUP is implicitly Knowledge only (i.e.
1365:
1353:
Knowledge talk:Knowledge Signpost/2008-08-11/Dispatches/FAQ
1827:
Some screenshots of image license pages might be good. --
1157:) is in not in compliance with Knowledge image policy.
358:
requires all images to have three pieces of information:
930:) is in not in compliance with Knowledge image policy.
1438:
1373:
511:
Location: The location in which the image was created
2671:
I worked this in among the "Imprecise disclaimers".
1446:
547:
Consider, for example, the following copyright tag:
199:
receive particular scrutiny for compliance with the
2866:after Tony removed and I added back "fair use" ...
1568:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try
1431:
926:The "self-made" image pictured to the right (as of
844:The "self-made" image pictured to the right (as of
540:) and the necessity of utilizing reliable sources (
1756:which would be necessary to substantiate a claim.
1668:OK :-) So, this Dispatch will fill in the gaps.
531:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches
514:Author: The image creator and/or copyright holder
298:. The most common encountered on Knowledge are:
3041:
1642:Knowledge:Spotting possible copyright violations
386:copyright tag, for example, appears as follows:
2636:I'm not sure what you mean; can you elaborate?
2243:Comprehensive this dispatch is not (partly why
1145:Lacking a verifiable source and image summary,
1974:Unfinished indeed. I haven't forgetten . ;)
124:
2486:I think this would be more germane to, say,
2257:Knowledge:Image copyright tags/Comprehensive
2094:available, can be assumed to be reliable).
674:the photograph itself need to be considered.
294:Copyright terms in the US vary according to
990:The image does not contain camera metadata.
452:Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0
2758:may be as close at it could get, if that.
1646:Commons:How to detect copyright violations
1358:Commons:How to detect copyright violations
922:is far more lush than the image's summary.
754:Unless an image is deliberately employing
466:
438:
433:
427:
148:criteria for inclusion of non-free content
2994:Make sure we cover what matters to you –
2947:I was thinking you might work in Tony's
2815:outdoor sculptures and buildings etc. --
1455:
1426:
1368:
1140:
1064:
913:
831:
789:: Does the image have a reasonably high
749:
661:
2754:well. I think the "advice" section of
1880:What about licenses such as the one on
1571:
1335:United States Copyright Office (2006).
1198:Although this is likely public domain,
1073:The image pictured to the right (as of
14:
3042:
554:
1736::IUP). The relevant Commons policy (
732:of an image depicting Jaume Piensa's
2375:Maybe in the common misconceptions?
2143:And the following are unacceptable:
1578:
549:
508:Date: The date the image was created
423:
388:
3050:Knowledge Signpost archives 2008-08
1589:This Dispatch is supplemented by a
1149:is humiliated in the ensuing chaos.
773:should raise questions if it has a
715:Commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama
639:) are generally the most reliable.
27:
1466:
1256:All licenses are not created equal
28:
3061:
2102:that all images thereon are PD).
1952:Image quality, anachronisms, usw.
1553:These comments are automatically
146:images or media must satisfy the
34:Dispatches: Reviewing free images
2750:Ha, I'm sure that would go over
1582:
658:Commons:Commons:Derivative works
553:
450:, it may also be used under the
392:
233:Commonly used licenses include:
111:
101:
91:
81:
71:
61:
51:
2698:I hope these suggestions help.
1852:Image:Rhinebeck screengrab2.jpg
1693:<Question below copied from
1606:<Question below copied from
720:an existing work), it does not
1848:Image:Rhinebeck screengrab.jpg
1564:add the page to your watchlist
1329:
1318:
1305:
1293:
1153:The image on the right (as of
1056:than contemporary photographs.
840:are able to enjoy a sunny day.
502:Description: The image subject
412:GNU Free Documentation License
402:GNU Free Documentation License
261:GNU Free Documentation License
13:
1:
1745:consideration of COM policy).
2421:It certainly wouldn't hurt.
1539:
1121:expected technical qualities
1052:, over-exposed and are less
18:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost
7:
2985:17:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
2964:17:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
2943:17:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
2922:15:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
2904:13:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
2879:15:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
2849:17:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2829:17:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2788:03:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
2774:18:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2746:17:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2728:10:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2708:00:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2687:18:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2667:14:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2652:03:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2593:18:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2573:14:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2549:14:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2535:03:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2506:18:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2482:14:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2468:01:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2441:01:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2405:18:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2385:14:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2351:20:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
2322:20:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
2300:20:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
2280:20:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
2230:20:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
2209:16:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
2192:16:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
2174:16:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
2118:16:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
2088:16:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
2049:03:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
2031:03:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
2007:01:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
1990:01:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
1969:01:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
1339:. Retrieved August 1, 2008.
1276:Creation is not publication
668:Fountain of the Great Lakes
197:featured article candidates
140:acceptable copyright status
10:
3066:
2245:I wanted to split to three
1740:) is stricter, in that it
1592:Frequently Asked Questions
1498:Board Nominating Committee
1385:Board Nominating Committee
712:
655:
528:
498:recommends the following:
341:consideration of possible
271:
253:(no commercial usage) and
2013:there's never enough time
1935:20:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
1902:20:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
1870:16:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
1841:09:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
1817:14:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
1796:08:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
1772:18:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
1681:01:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
1664:01:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
1216:are still under copyright
1128:reasonable subject matter
168:valid fair use rationales
136:featured article criteria
1165:? Yes, it is using the
938:? Yes, it is using the
448:eligible for relicensing
372:1. A copyright tag is a
350:Policy-mandated elements
329:policy-mandated elements
158:require that images be "
2160:Is this a full list? --
1917:sheer and absurd volume
1337:Copyright Office Basics
274:Knowledge:Public domain
2864:User talk:SandyGeorgia
2810:
2361:Comments from Awadewit
1561:. To follow comments,
1471:
1150:
1070:
1015:illuminated manuscript
923:
841:
759:
686:
675:
491:), if present at all.
207:Copyright and copyleft
152:be labeled accordingly
2890:is sometimes upheld.
2802:
1470:
1434:← Previous Dispatches
1313:the Commons guideline
1240:Imprecise disclaimers
1212:Copyright subsistence
1206:Common misconceptions
1144:
1068:
1025:Empire State Building
917:
835:
753:
681:
665:
633:sufficiently reliable
228:still under copyright
156:good article criteria
2488:User:Mifter/Signpost
1994:Had me worried :-)
1557:from this article's
1247:Copyrighted free use
1234:contains screenshots
1085:? Yes, it uses the
691:subject of the image
560:This file is in the
186:allowed on Knowledge
2448:started uploading.
1523:Features and admins
1410:Features and admins
920:Japanese Tea Garden
838:Rhinebeck, New York
709:Freedom of panorama
637:Library of Congress
365:A verifiable source
242:a range of licenses
154:." Similarly, the
2997:leave a suggestion
1701:image usage policy
1548:Discuss this story
1533:Arbitration report
1472:
1420:Arbitration report
1228:complaint against
1222:Government hosting
1151:
1071:
985:computer wallpaper
924:
842:
760:
676:
666:This image of the
356:image usage policy
296:several conditions
287:the United States
201:image usage policy
2798:taking/publishing
2335:Awadewit a note.
1915:, but, given the
1724:
1710:comment added by
1635:
1621:comment added by
1599:
1598:
1572:purging the cache
1528:Technology report
1503:Greenspun project
1460:
1459:
1415:Technology report
1390:Greenspun project
1260:legally different
1180:verifiable source
1100:verifiable source
1046:Technical quality
1001:Already published
953:verifiable source
861:verifiable source
817:assume good faith
797:Technical quality
613:is insufficient).
582:
581:
474:
473:
422:
421:
309:unpublished works
3057:
3034:
2999:
2977:
2956:
2935:
2914:
2901:
2896:
2871:
2841:
2766:
2738:
2679:
2644:
2622:
2585:
2527:
2498:
2460:
2433:
2397:
2343:
2314:
2272:
2222:
2201:
2184:
2110:
2041:
2023:
1999:
1982:
1961:
1927:
1862:
1809:
1764:
1723:
1704:
1673:
1656:
1634:
1615:
1586:
1585:
1579:
1575:
1573:
1567:
1546:
1490:
1482:
1475:
1449:Next Dispatches→
1366:
1340:
1333:
1327:
1322:
1316:
1315:for elaboration.
1309:
1303:
1297:
1251:
1245:
1174:
1168:
1147:Emperor Valerian
1094:
1088:
947:
941:
879:
873:
652:Derivative works
603:Published source
578:
574:
557:
556:
550:
486:
480:
470:
463:
446:If this file is
442:
441:
437:
436:
431:
430:
424:
416:
413:
410:
396:
389:
385:
379:
368:An image summary
319:Reviewing images
240:(CC). These are
238:Creative Commons
216:exclusive rights
172:non-free content
170:be provided for
164:copyright status
129:
115:
114:
105:
104:
95:
94:
85:
84:
75:
74:
65:
64:
55:
54:
3065:
3064:
3060:
3059:
3058:
3056:
3055:
3054:
3040:
3039:
3038:
3037:
3036:
3035:
3030:
3028:
3023:
3018:
3013:
3008:
3001:
2995:
2991:
2990:
2975:
2954:
2941:
2929:
2912:
2899:
2892:
2869:
2857:
2847:
2835:
2800:
2772:
2760:
2736:
2715:
2685:
2673:
2650:
2638:
2628:
2616:
2591:
2579:
2533:
2521:
2504:
2492:
2466:
2454:
2439:
2427:
2403:
2391:
2363:
2349:
2337:
2312:
2278:
2266:
2228:
2216:
2199:
2182:
2126:
2116:
2104:
2063:
2039:
2029:
2017:
1997:
1988:
1976:
1959:
1943:
1933:
1921:
1878:
1868:
1856:
1825:
1815:
1803:
1780:
1778:Free / Non-Free
1770:
1758:
1705:
1699:Regarding "The
1691:
1671:
1662:
1650:
1616:
1604:
1583:
1577:
1569:
1562:
1551:
1550:
1544:+ Add a comment
1542:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1483:
1478:
1476:
1473:
1461:
1375:Also this week:
1349:
1344:
1343:
1334:
1330:
1323:
1319:
1310:
1306:
1298:
1294:
1289:
1249:
1243:
1232:, for example,
1208:
1172:
1166:
1139:
1092:
1086:
1063:
1003:
945:
939:
912:
892:high resolution
877:
871:
830:
748:
743:
717:
711:
660:
654:
645:
576:
572:
533:
527:
484:
478:
457:
439:
434:
428:
418:
414:
411:
408:
383:
377:
362:A copyright tag
352:
321:
303:published works
276:
270:
209:
131:
130:
123:
122:
121:
112:
102:
92:
82:
72:
62:
52:
46:
43:
32:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
3063:
3053:
3052:
3029:
3024:
3019:
3014:
3009:
3004:
3003:
3002:
2993:
2992:
2989:
2988:
2987:
2970:
2969:
2968:
2967:
2966:
2937:
2884:
2883:
2882:
2881:
2856:
2853:
2852:
2851:
2843:
2799:
2796:
2795:
2794:
2793:
2792:
2791:
2790:
2768:
2714:
2713:Great dispatch
2711:
2696:
2695:
2694:
2693:
2692:
2691:
2690:
2689:
2681:
2646:
2631:
2630:
2629:
2624:
2601:
2600:
2599:
2598:
2597:
2596:
2595:
2587:
2555:
2554:
2553:
2552:
2551:
2529:
2514:
2513:
2512:
2511:
2510:
2509:
2508:
2500:
2462:
2445:
2444:
2443:
2435:
2413:
2412:
2411:
2410:
2409:
2408:
2407:
2399:
2362:
2359:
2358:
2357:
2356:
2355:
2354:
2353:
2345:
2327:
2326:
2325:
2324:
2303:
2302:
2274:
2237:
2236:
2235:
2234:
2233:
2232:
2224:
2158:
2157:
2154:
2151:
2148:
2141:
2140:
2137:
2125:
2122:
2121:
2120:
2112:
2062:
2059:
2058:
2057:
2056:
2055:
2054:
2053:
2052:
2051:
2025:
1984:
1956:Unfinished ?
1954:
1953:
1950:
1945:What is this?
1942:
1939:
1938:
1937:
1929:
1877:
1876:here's a thing
1874:
1873:
1872:
1864:
1824:
1821:
1820:
1819:
1811:
1779:
1776:
1775:
1774:
1766:
1747:
1746:
1690:
1687:
1686:
1685:
1684:
1683:
1658:
1603:
1600:
1597:
1596:
1587:
1552:
1549:
1541:
1540:
1535:
1530:
1525:
1520:
1515:
1513:News and notes
1510:
1505:
1500:
1495:
1489:
1480:11 August 2008
1477:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1462:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1453:
1452:
1445:
1437:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1417:
1412:
1407:
1402:
1400:News and notes
1397:
1392:
1387:
1382:
1377:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1363:
1361:
1360:
1355:
1348:
1345:
1342:
1341:
1328:
1317:
1304:
1291:
1290:
1288:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1273:
1253:
1237:
1219:
1207:
1204:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1183:
1176:
1138:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1126:The image has
1124:
1119:The image has
1110:
1103:
1096:
1095:copyright tag.
1062:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1043:
1028:
1018:
1002:
999:
994:
993:
992:
991:
988:
987:archive site).
973:
972:
971:
956:
949:
911:
908:
907:
906:
905:
904:
901:
898:
895:
881:
864:
857:
829:
826:
821:
820:
810:
800:
794:
784:
778:
777:license plate.
775:European Union
747:
744:
742:
739:
734:Crown Fountain
710:
707:
653:
650:
644:
641:
625:
624:
617:Author contact
614:
611:The New Yorker
600:
580:
579:
558:
526:
523:
522:
521:
518:
515:
512:
509:
506:
503:
472:
471:
464:
456:
443:
432:
420:
419:
406:
397:
370:
369:
366:
363:
351:
348:
347:
346:
339:
332:
327:ensuring that
320:
317:
313:
312:
306:
269:
266:
265:
264:
258:
208:
205:
190:
189:
182:
132:
120:
119:
109:
99:
89:
79:
69:
59:
48:
47:
44:
38:
37:
36:
35:
30:
29:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3062:
3051:
3048:
3047:
3045:
3033:
3027:
3022:
3017:
3012:
3007:
2998:
2986:
2982:
2978:
2972:Looks good.
2971:
2965:
2961:
2957:
2950:
2949:justification
2946:
2945:
2944:
2940:
2936:
2934:
2933:
2925:
2924:
2923:
2919:
2915:
2908:
2907:
2906:
2905:
2902:
2897:
2895:
2889:
2888:justification
2880:
2876:
2872:
2865:
2861:
2860:
2859:
2858:
2850:
2846:
2842:
2840:
2839:
2832:
2831:
2830:
2826:
2822:
2818:
2814:
2809:
2807:
2789:
2785:
2781:
2777:
2776:
2775:
2771:
2767:
2765:
2764:
2757:
2753:
2749:
2748:
2747:
2743:
2739:
2732:
2731:
2730:
2729:
2725:
2721:
2710:
2709:
2705:
2701:
2688:
2684:
2680:
2678:
2677:
2670:
2669:
2668:
2664:
2660:
2655:
2654:
2653:
2649:
2645:
2643:
2642:
2635:
2634:
2632:
2627:
2623:
2621:
2620:
2613:
2609:
2608:
2606:
2602:
2594:
2590:
2586:
2584:
2583:
2576:
2575:
2574:
2570:
2566:
2562:
2561:
2559:
2558:
2556:
2550:
2546:
2542:
2538:
2537:
2536:
2532:
2528:
2526:
2525:
2518:
2517:
2515:
2507:
2503:
2499:
2497:
2496:
2489:
2485:
2484:
2483:
2479:
2475:
2471:
2470:
2469:
2465:
2461:
2459:
2458:
2450:
2449:
2446:
2442:
2438:
2434:
2432:
2431:
2424:
2420:
2419:
2417:
2414:
2406:
2402:
2398:
2396:
2395:
2388:
2387:
2386:
2382:
2378:
2374:
2373:
2371:
2370:
2368:
2365:
2364:
2352:
2348:
2344:
2342:
2341:
2333:
2332:
2331:
2330:
2329:
2328:
2323:
2319:
2315:
2307:
2306:
2305:
2304:
2301:
2297:
2293:
2289:
2284:
2283:
2282:
2281:
2277:
2273:
2271:
2270:
2262:
2258:
2254:
2250:
2246:
2241:
2231:
2227:
2223:
2221:
2220:
2212:
2211:
2210:
2206:
2202:
2195:
2194:
2193:
2189:
2185:
2178:
2177:
2176:
2175:
2171:
2167:
2163:
2155:
2152:
2149:
2146:
2145:
2144:
2138:
2135:
2134:
2133:
2131:
2119:
2115:
2111:
2109:
2108:
2101:
2097:
2092:
2091:
2090:
2089:
2085:
2081:
2077:
2073:
2069:
2050:
2046:
2042:
2034:
2033:
2032:
2028:
2024:
2022:
2021:
2014:
2010:
2009:
2008:
2004:
2000:
1993:
1992:
1991:
1987:
1983:
1981:
1980:
1973:
1972:
1971:
1970:
1966:
1962:
1951:
1948:
1947:
1946:
1936:
1932:
1928:
1926:
1925:
1918:
1914:
1910:
1906:
1905:
1904:
1903:
1899:
1895:
1891:
1887:
1883:
1871:
1867:
1863:
1861:
1860:
1853:
1849:
1845:
1844:
1843:
1842:
1838:
1834:
1830:
1818:
1814:
1810:
1808:
1807:
1800:
1799:
1798:
1797:
1793:
1789:
1785:
1773:
1769:
1765:
1763:
1762:
1754:
1749:
1748:
1743:
1739:
1735:
1731:
1727:
1726:
1725:
1721:
1717:
1713:
1709:
1702:
1697:
1695:
1682:
1678:
1674:
1667:
1666:
1665:
1661:
1657:
1655:
1654:
1647:
1643:
1638:
1637:
1636:
1632:
1628:
1624:
1620:
1611:
1609:
1594:
1593:
1588:
1581:
1580:
1574:
1565:
1560:
1556:
1545:
1534:
1531:
1529:
1526:
1524:
1521:
1519:
1516:
1514:
1511:
1509:
1506:
1504:
1501:
1499:
1496:
1494:
1491:
1487:
1481:
1474:In this issue
1469:
1454:
1450:
1444:
1442:
1435:
1430:
1425:
1421:
1418:
1416:
1413:
1411:
1408:
1406:
1403:
1401:
1398:
1396:
1393:
1391:
1388:
1386:
1383:
1381:
1378:
1376:
1372:
1367:
1364:
1359:
1356:
1354:
1351:
1350:
1338:
1332:
1326:
1325:17 USC 120(a)
1321:
1314:
1308:
1301:
1296:
1292:
1281:
1277:
1274:
1270:
1267:2.0 as CC-by-
1266:
1261:
1257:
1254:
1248:
1241:
1238:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1220:
1217:
1213:
1210:
1209:
1203:
1201:
1200:verifiability
1191:
1190:
1188:
1187:image summary
1184:
1181:
1177:
1171:
1164:
1163:copyright tag
1160:
1159:
1158:
1156:
1148:
1143:
1129:
1125:
1122:
1118:
1117:
1115:
1111:
1108:
1107:image summary
1104:
1101:
1097:
1091:
1084:
1083:copyright tag
1080:
1079:
1078:
1076:
1067:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1044:
1041:
1036:
1032:
1029:
1026:
1022:
1019:
1016:
1012:
1009:
1008:
1007:
998:
989:
986:
981:
980:
978:
974:
969:
968:example above
964:
963:
961:
960:image summary
957:
954:
950:
944:
937:
936:copyright tag
933:
932:
931:
929:
921:
916:
902:
899:
896:
893:
890:The image is
889:
888:
886:
882:
876:
869:
868:image summary
865:
862:
858:
855:
854:copyright tag
851:
850:
849:
847:
839:
834:
825:
818:
814:
811:
808:
804:
801:
798:
795:
792:
788:
785:
782:
779:
776:
772:
768:
767:Discrepancies
765:
764:
763:
757:
752:
738:
735:
731:
725:
723:
716:
706:
704:
699:
694:
692:
685:
680:
673:
669:
664:
659:
649:
643:Legal nuances
640:
638:
634:
630:
622:
618:
615:
612:
608:
604:
601:
598:
594:
591:
590:
589:
586:
575:
573:Public domain
569:
565:
564:
563:public domain
559:
552:
551:
548:
545:
543:
539:
532:
519:
516:
513:
510:
507:
504:
501:
500:
499:
497:
492:
490:
483:
469:
465:
461:
455:
453:
449:
444:
426:
425:
417:
404:
403:
398:
395:
391:
390:
387:
382:
375:
367:
364:
361:
360:
359:
357:
344:
343:legal nuances
340:
337:
333:
330:
326:
325:
324:
316:
310:
307:
304:
301:
300:
299:
297:
292:
290:
286:
280:
275:
268:Public domain
262:
259:
256:
252:
248:
243:
239:
236:
235:
234:
231:
229:
225:
219:
217:
213:
204:
202:
198:
193:
187:
183:
180:
179:
178:
175:
173:
169:
165:
161:
157:
153:
149:
145:
141:
137:
128:
118:
110:
108:
100:
98:
90:
88:
80:
78:
70:
68:
60:
58:
50:
49:
41:
23:
19:
2948:
2931:
2930:
2893:
2887:
2885:
2862:Copied from
2837:
2836:
2812:
2806:freely taken
2805:
2803:
2762:
2761:
2751:
2716:
2697:
2675:
2674:
2640:
2639:
2618:
2617:
2581:
2580:
2523:
2522:
2494:
2493:
2456:
2455:
2429:
2428:
2415:
2393:
2392:
2366:
2339:
2338:
2268:
2267:
2260:
2252:
2248:
2242:
2238:
2218:
2217:
2159:
2142:
2127:
2106:
2105:
2099:
2070:(also found
2064:
2019:
2018:
1978:
1977:
1955:
1944:
1923:
1922:
1908:
1879:
1858:
1857:
1826:
1805:
1804:
1781:
1760:
1759:
1752:
1741:
1733:
1732::IUP is not
1729:
1712:SandyGeorgia
1706:— Preceding
1698:
1692:
1652:
1651:
1623:SandyGeorgia
1617:— Preceding
1614:tutorial? --
1612:
1605:
1591:
1517:
1493:Growth study
1486:all comments
1440:
1404:
1380:Growth study
1374:
1362:
1331:
1320:
1307:
1295:
1279:
1275:
1268:
1264:
1259:
1255:
1239:
1221:
1215:
1211:
1197:
1186:
1185:Is there an
1179:
1162:
1155:this version
1152:
1137:Flawed image
1127:
1120:
1113:
1106:
1105:Is there an
1099:
1082:
1075:this version
1072:
1045:
1039:
1035:World War II
1030:
1020:
1011:Anachronisms
1010:
1004:
995:
976:
959:
958:Is there an
952:
935:
928:this version
925:
910:Flawed image
884:
867:
866:Is there an
860:
853:
846:this version
843:
822:
812:
802:
796:
786:
780:
766:
761:
726:
718:
697:
695:
690:
687:
682:
677:
671:
646:
626:
616:
610:
602:
592:
587:
583:
571:
567:
561:
546:
534:
493:
475:
460:You can help
445:
407:
400:
371:
354:Knowledge's
353:
342:
335:
331:are present;
328:
322:
314:
308:
302:
293:
288:
284:
281:
277:
254:
250:
246:
232:
227:
220:
210:
194:
191:
176:
133:
57:PDF download
3032:Suggestions
2610:Good idea.
2539:Excellent!
2259:, although
2156:CC-by-NC-SA
2153:CC-by-NC-ND
2061:LoC example
1941:Provenience
1823:screenshots
1696:inline: -->
1689:Question II
1610:inline: -->
1555:transcluded
1178:Is there a
1161:Is there a
1116:check out?
1098:Is there a
1081:Is there a
1040:prima facie
979:check out?
951:Is there a
934:Is there a
887:check out?
875:information
859:Is there a
852:Is there a
482:Information
166:" and that
162:with their
107:X (Twitter)
2927:workable?
2813:photograph
2096:This image
2068:this image
1882:this image
1518:Dispatches
1405:Dispatches
1114:provenance
1061:Good image
977:provenance
885:provenance
828:Good image
791:resolution
787:Resolution
756:pointilism
713:See also:
656:See also:
529:See also:
272:See also:
45:Share this
40:Contribute
31:Dispatches
22:2008-08-11
3026:Subscribe
2932:ЭLСОВВОLД
2855:FU images
2838:ЭLСОВВОLД
2763:ЭLСОВВОLД
2676:ЭLСОВВОLД
2641:ЭLСОВВОLД
2619:ЭLСОВВОLД
2605:halftones
2582:ЭLСОВВОLД
2524:ЭLСОВВОLД
2495:ЭLСОВВОLД
2457:ЭLСОВВОLД
2430:ЭLСОВВОLД
2394:ЭLСОВВОLД
2340:ЭLСОВВОLД
2269:ЭLСОВВОLД
2219:ЭLСОВВОLД
2130:this edit
2107:ЭLСОВВОLД
2020:ЭLСОВВОLД
1979:ЭLСОВВОLД
1924:ЭLСОВВОLД
1859:ЭLСОВВОLД
1806:ЭLСОВВОLД
1761:ЭLСОВВОLД
1653:ЭLСОВВОLД
1559:talk page
1508:WikiWorld
1395:WikiWorld
1230:Movieland
1112:Does the
975:Does the
943:GFDL-self
883:Does the
880:template.
807:halftones
803:Telltales
746:Self-made
629:Geocities
212:Copyright
127:Elcobbola
3044:Category
3021:Newsroom
3016:Archives
2825:contribs
2817:jbmurray
2756:WP:WIAFA
2700:Awadewit
2659:Awadewit
2565:Awadewit
2541:Awadewit
2474:Awadewit
2377:Awadewit
2296:contribs
2288:jbmurray
2170:contribs
2162:jbmurray
2150:CC-by-ND
2147:CC-by-NC
2139:CC-by-SA
2084:contribs
2076:jbmurray
1898:contribs
1890:jbmurray
1886:this one
1884:or even
1837:contribs
1829:jbmurray
1792:contribs
1784:jbmurray
1720:contribs
1708:unsigned
1631:contribs
1619:unsigned
1602:Question
1443:archives
1441:Signpost
1347:See also
1031:Licensor
781:Metadata
741:Examples
730:revision
722:infringe
585:years).
454:license.
374:template
224:copyleft
144:Non-free
97:Facebook
87:LinkedIn
77:Mastodon
20: |
2976:Georgia
2955:Georgia
2913:Georgia
2870:Georgia
2737:Georgia
2313:Georgia
2200:Georgia
2183:Georgia
2040:Georgia
1998:Georgia
1960:Georgia
1913:WP:TLDR
1672:Georgia
1272:sight."
621:example
607:example
597:example
593:Weblink
570:years.
489:example
2900:(talk)
2752:really
2389:Done.
1909:Common
1753:is not
1300:WP:IUP
1263:CC-by-
1170:PD-art
771:Boston
703:Batman
525:Source
496:WP:IUP
336:source
160:tagged
117:Reddit
67:E-mail
3011:About
2974:Sandy
2953:Sandy
2911:Sandy
2868:Sandy
2780:Erudy
2735:Sandy
2311:Sandy
2261:quite
2198:Sandy
2181:Sandy
2136:CC-by
2038:Sandy
2015:...)
1996:Sandy
1958:Sandy
1738:COM:L
1670:Sandy
1595:page.
1287:Notes
1090:PD-US
1054:sharp
1050:sepia
544:).
542:WP:RS
338:; and
16:<
3006:Home
2981:Talk
2960:Talk
2939:talk
2918:Talk
2894:Tony
2875:Talk
2845:talk
2821:talk
2784:talk
2770:talk
2742:Talk
2724:talk
2720:seav
2704:talk
2683:talk
2663:talk
2648:talk
2626:talk
2612:Done
2589:talk
2569:talk
2545:talk
2531:talk
2502:talk
2478:talk
2464:talk
2437:talk
2423:Done
2401:talk
2381:talk
2347:talk
2318:Talk
2292:talk
2276:talk
2251:and
2226:talk
2205:Talk
2188:Talk
2166:talk
2128:Re.
2114:talk
2080:talk
2072:here
2045:Talk
2036:...
2027:talk
2003:Talk
1986:talk
1965:Talk
1931:talk
1894:talk
1866:talk
1833:talk
1813:talk
1788:talk
1768:talk
1742:also
1716:talk
1677:Talk
1660:talk
1627:talk
1608:this
1021:Date
918:The
813:User
698:both
538:WP:V
409:GFDL
381:GFDL
285:both
150:and
2100:not
1949:FoP
1734:COM
1226:FTC
672:and
568:100
289:and
125:By
42:—
3046::
2983:)
2962:)
2920:)
2877:)
2827:)
2823:•
2786:)
2744:)
2726:)
2718:--
2706:)
2665:)
2614:.
2607:?
2571:)
2547:)
2480:)
2425:.
2383:)
2320:)
2298:)
2294:•
2253:ND
2249:NC
2207:)
2190:)
2172:)
2168:•
2124:CC
2086:)
2082:•
2047:)
2005:)
1967:)
1900:)
1896:•
1839:)
1835:•
1794:)
1790:•
1730:WP
1722:)
1718:•
1679:)
1633:)
1629:•
1451:)
1280:is
1269:SA
1265:NC
1250:}}
1244:{{
1173:}}
1167:{{
1093:}}
1087:{{
946:}}
940:{{
878:}}
872:{{
485:}}
479:{{
384:}}
378:{{
255:ND
251:NC
247:SA
174:.
142:.
3000:.
2979:(
2958:(
2916:(
2873:(
2819:(
2782:(
2740:(
2722:(
2702:(
2661:(
2567:(
2543:(
2476:(
2379:(
2316:(
2290:(
2203:(
2186:(
2164:(
2078:(
2043:(
2001:(
1963:(
1892:(
1831:(
1786:(
1714:(
1675:(
1625:(
1576:.
1566:.
1488:)
1484:(
1447:(
1436:)
1432:(
970:.
619:(
605:(
595:(
462:.
345:.
222:"
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.