Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
How to add a copyright tag to an existing image
  1. On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page.
  2. From the page Wikipedia:Image copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag:
    • For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators".
    • For a work downloaded from the internet, please understand that the vast majority of images from the internet are not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. Exceptions include images from flickr that have an acceptable license, images that are in the public domain because of their age or because they were created by the United States federal government, or images used under a claim of fair use. If you do not know what you are doing, please post a link to the image here and ask BEFORE uploading it.
    • For an image created by someone else who has licensed their image under the GFDL, an acceptable Creative Commons license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information.
  3. Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{GFDL-self}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page.
  4. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}})
  5. Hit Save page.
  6. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below.
How to ask a question
  1. To ask a new question hit the "Click here to ask your question" link above.
  2. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end.
  3. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page.
  4. Don't include your email address, for your own privacy. We will respond here and cannot respond by email.
Note for those replying to posted questions

If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template {{mcq-wrong}} and, if possible, leave a note on the poster's talk page. For copyright issues relevant to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally, questions may be directed to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.

Logo copyright[edit]

Hi! I recently uploaded File:Bohol Wisdom School logo.png but I was not able to include a fair use rationale or a copyright tag, and it was already deleted. I need some assistance with the fair use rationale and copyright tag. Thank you! — MG (talk) 06:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

To Marvgabo:
Symbol question.svg Question: It is not deleted, and the rationale seems fine. Was there another problem you had? Anon124 (+2) (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 20:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Anon124! Thank you for your response. I mistakenly uploaded this on Commons, which I had previously used for the article. I realized my mistake only after the file has been uploaded. As of now, I guess the file has been okay, awaiting for a robot to resize its resolution. — MG (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Person who took the photos wants me to upload them[edit]

I have two photos sent to me by a popular music group on Wikipedia, taken by a photographer they hired. I thought I had proper permissions, and uploaded them, but they were taken down. Since then, the photographer himself has emailed me asking why the photos are not on Wikipedia. What do I need to do to "officially" have permission to upload the photos. The artist and the photographer all want the photos here, but for some reason, they were removed. Chas (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

This is easy when you know how. Upload images to our sister project Wikimedia Commons, then they will be available to all our projects. See : [1] in order that we know we have the photographers permission and there will then be no more issues. Just takes an e-mail from photographer to us. See:Email templates Any more questions, then come back here.--Aspro (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Dan the Man might be able to help also, as he has done a OTRS successfully. It appears in the info box for his image under Permission File:Danprestup.jpg. --Aspro (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Placement of attribution and license statment[edit]

Hello: If a book contains several articles from Wikipedia, should the attribution and license statement be placed as a footnote at the beginning of each wiki article, or should all attribution/license statements be placed in a separate section at the end of the book? Prsaucer1958 (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

To Prsaucer1958: Either should be fine; the license Wikipedia uses allows flexibility in this regard. However, you may want to check with a copyright lawyer to be sure. Anon124 (+2) (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 17:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


Hi, I've been blocked on wikimedia because of copyright violation. I was oblivious about it: all images that are available on internet are not free. Would you kindly unblock me?? I want to upload a poster (which is availabe on google image) can I do that without violating copyright?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suman420 (talkcontribs) 13:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest you read and become familiar with Free_content & Wikipedia:Copyrights. Then you should know how to upload images to Wikipedia without violating copyright. Then you will be able to explain why you consider 'this' poster is OK. Then we can reconsider the block.--Aspro (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Is a work for hire authorization to use anywhere the same as relinquishing copyright?[edit]

I'm looking at this picture which apparently was taken by a professional photographer and then uploaded by the subject of the photo. Is the justification presented by the uploader "author photo - hired John to take this picture, i have been authorized to use it anywhere i want to" the same thing as John Geiger, Inc. "waiving all of his or her rights to the work worldwide under copyright law"? --Noren (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

No, the authorisation for one person to use a work for hire anywhere does not equal to the photographer waiving all rights. The main concern here is that this sort of licence only applies to one specific person while others may not use the image at all. In fact this photo appears to be unfree. De728631 (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Two questions[edit]

I have two questions. I was reading User talk:SPECIFICO, where I found a link to User:Steeletrap whose user page links to Low testosterone which in turn redirects to the Hypogonadism article. I noticed that that article includes an image of a man with the text "Mann mit Mikropenis und Hypogonadismus". This is German. I was thinking about changing the text to "Adult male with a micropenis and hypogonadism." but decided to check the German Wikipedia first to see if the material was copied from there. I found out that the material was added by User:Kleinschwanzms on 26 February 2015‎. This editor also added nine images to Wikimedia Commons in 2015. The metadata shows the images were taken in the period March 2010-July 2013. Web searches for the user's nick "KleinschwanzMS" show it is Michael Skotnik (Austrian "Mikropenis Michael"), apparently an exhibitionist. See, for example the not safe for work images here and here. The former states he is a "Bisexual Cuckold-Slave who offers pussy licking, cock sucking, bareback, piss drinking, shit eating and animal fucking". My two questions are: 1. I don't know the policy, do we just assume that whoever uploaded these images as user Kleinschwanzms is indeed the copyright holder, or should he e-mail OTRS? 2. Do any of the person's off-wiki activities in any way impact our decision to keep or remove the images? Note that editors who expressing certain opinions off-wiki can be blocked indefinitely (for example, per WP:CHILDPROTECT, the view that child-adult sexual relationships are not harmful to children). -- (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I use Google Earth maps in accordance with the parameters given by Google to describe what is NOT fair use.[edit]

That is, I deliberately abstained from doing what they said was unacceptable. I tried to find a descriptor for what that entails in wiki code, but found not, so I gave a long, and precise description of how I believed I had complied with Google's Fair Use policy. Unfortunately, a machine read my writings, and was incapable of understanding the English I had used. The machine should then have invoked a HUMAN BEING to interpret my writings. Here is your rebuke to me, and my responses, the first of which was not referenced, possibly not seen. My response to your failure to respond then follows. Sic scribsi:

Speedy deletion nomination of File:BeforeTheAtlantic600.jpg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:BeforeTheAtlantic600.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Eeekster (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I did as you said, but you totally ignored my response. I have opened a blogspot on Google, with the script copied from what I posted on Wiki, including the map mosaioc which you found objectionable, and there has been no official response from Google rebuking me for using their copyright material in this way. I think you have been overzealous, but that is your problem. Below is a copy of the Google hits for a search, entered with quotes, thus: "Unzipping the Atlantic Ocean"

Unzipping the Atlantic Ocean 1 day ago - It has not been recognised officially yet, but there are what might be fossil remains of an enormous impact crater centred on a point a few miles ...

Unzipping the Atlantic Ocean: Introduction 1 day ago - It has not been recognised officially yet, but there are what might be fossil remains of an enormous impact crater centred on a point a few miles ...

Unzipping the Atlantic Ocean: February 2015 1 day ago - It has not been recognised officially yet, but there are what might be fossil remains of an enormous impact crater centred on a point a few miles ...

Dave at 168 00:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveat168 (talkcontribs)

  • Hi Daveat168. I can't see what was deleted, but is File:BeforeTheAtlantic.pdf equivalent to the jpg that was deleted? I see one issue with the pdf right now, which is you say above that you are trying to comply with Google's fair use policy (more on that in a moment), but you also release this file into Public Domain. "Fair Use" means you recognize and acknowledge that the work is copyrighted to someone else, or in this case it is a derivative work of copyrighted material, but that using it here meets certain specific criteria for usage. To do that, you put some Fair use declarations on the image, but you can't release it PD unless you own every bit of it, and it is not a derivative work.
  • Google maps terms of service however specifically state in part: "Unless you have received prior written authorization from Google (or, as applicable, from the provider of particular Content), you must not: (a) copy, translate, modify, or make derivative works of the Content or any part thereof".[2]. What this ironically means is that you might be ok using the original image under Fair Use if it meets all criteria, but you could not use an image you made yourself based on the Google image.
  • Copyright is one of the few parts of Wikipedia where very little leeway can be given, as it could have real-world legal consequences for the Wikimedia Foundation, so we have to address those quickly. It's usually preferred to explain the often-complicated copyright policy when so doing, and if that didn't happen here, that is regrettable. I will be happy to help out, either here or on your talk page, to sort through all of this. CrowCaw 00:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Daveat, I checked the file page for File:BeforeTheAtlantic600.jpg and found your original description:
"This is a photomosaic derived from Google Earth images. All Google decals have been left in situ, and only duplications have been deleted. This complies with what Google describe as reasonable use, but Google policy is not to give permissions, only to describe what is not reasonable use. I believe I have complied with their implied conditions."
This did neither qualify for any free licence nor for our requirements for fair use. E.g. one of the main requirements for fair use images at Wikipedia is that they cannnot be replaced by a free equivalent. In case of Google Earth maps though, there are certainly free alternatives of mapping software that could be used instead. And what is most important, all fair use images must have a rationale as to why the image serves to improve a specific article, and this was equally not present in your file. So the speedy deletion of this image was actually justified. And by the way, Eekster is not a machine, nor is RHaworth who deleted the file. De728631 (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your speedy response, and my apologies to people I accused of being robots. There do arise here, a couple of points.

1/ the tessalations used to construct the photomosaic are not altered in any way, other than the position s of the 'cut' boundaries. everything inside the cut boundaries is as original, except where it contains text which is, or will be duplicated elsewhere on the assembled mosaic. So the derivative aspect of this work is strictly limited to the positions of the cut boundaries, and the assembly of the complete mosaic from the tessalations. Scale, and Rotation angle was retained as downloaded. Only the boundaries or the tessalations were softened, where they disturbed the eye, that is, mainly in the oceanic depths, where there was a pronounced colour change, due to the fact that all the maps on Google Earth were not photographed under identical conditions.

2/ for the purpose of searching for impact crater remains, there is no resource better than Google Earth, because sections of the Earth can be selected, as I selected them, and assembled so, to reverse continental drift. This is essential when looking for seriously ancient crater remains. A rough sketch will absolutely not do.

So the aspects I used, and the 'modifications' of the images were essential to the description, which is why I was CONSTRAINED to use them.

Because of this, and the importance of finding these ancient crater remains, it is essential that this usage be allowed.

Google will not talk to me about copyright, but on the account that I have 'committed the same crime, and posted it on their doorstep", and they have not responded negatively, suggests that they might agree with me that what I have done is to use their material within reason.

You can see what I put on their doorstep by googling, with the quotes, as shown here:

"Unzipping the Atlantic Ocean"

You will in it find, at a larger scale, the image you found disturbing.

I agree that there is a copyright point here, but I further believe, that for the importance of this project, special arrangements need to be made, but Google will not talk to ME on the subject. They might talk to YOU.

Best regards, and Thank you. Dave at 168 09:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Nyana kakoma.jpg[edit]

I uploaded the photo. But did not tag the license. The image was provided by the uthor. They are yet to respond releaseing copyright. the image will be deleted after March 6th if not tagged. help me tag. --Faintsmoke (talk) 13:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)