Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

(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.

Copyright on drawings etc

What do copyrights entail on drawings, paintings, or pictures? Say for example I see a photo, a picture in a book/magazine can i legally draw it free hand and say post it on an art website as my drawing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.164.26 (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not give legal opinions. —teb728 t c 10:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, this is precisely the point of this page — if we all had your response, there would be no point to having this page. The answer to the question is no: if you make a drawing of a picture you find elsewhere, it's a derivative work of that picture. Unless the picture is in the public domain or available under a license that Wikipedia accepts (both of which are very unlikely, unless the picture is very old), you cannot upload it and allow people to do whatever you want to allow them to do with it. Nyttend (talk) 05:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually the point of this forum is to answer “copyright-related questions about media … uploaded to Wikipedia.” Your reply would be appropriate if the OP were asking about uploading to Wikipedia, but if you look more closely they are asking about a personal website. For such a website the answer would not be so clear-cut, depending on whether creative elements of the original photo were maintained and on whether fair use was applicable. But we are not allowed to give legal advice. —teb728 t c 23:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Newstraitstimes new.jpg

File:Newstraitstimes new.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Is this image eligible for copyrights in Malaysia? --George Ho (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The only way that it could be copyrighted is if the country allowed people to sue you for reproducing the filename, since there's no difference. Nyttend (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

In other words, File:New Straits Times logo 1965–2011.jpg and File:New Straits Times logo 1965–2011.gif are ineligible in Malaysia? --George Ho (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I had just another discussion: commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#File:Newstraitstimes new.jpg and File:New Straits Times.png --George Ho (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Use of old postcard images

Does anyone know what the copyright position is on old postcard images made by companies that are now defunct? I know that old stock is sometimes bought over by another company continuing to trade, but that is difficult to trace. Can anyone give advice on whether it is safe to use such images, and how their licence should be marked for Wikipedia purposes? Kim Traynor 11:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You will have to determine which country they were published in, and what date. Is there a photographer or company marked on it? Is there a copyright mark (particularly relevant if this is USA). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Graeme for your reply. The postcards were originally published in the UK. No name of publisher, nor date given. Also no photographer's name nor copyright mark.They were probably on sale in the 1920s. The licence that refers to them being published in the States before 1923 seems the most appropriate choice, only it is unlikely to be techically correct as I assume they were not in fact published there. Kim Traynor 22:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It might seem more appropriate to use {{PD-UK-unknown}} so long as you comply with the specifics of the template regarding the "reasonable enquiry" you have made. ww2censor (talk) 15:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

That's most helpful, thanks. I wouldn't even know the starting-point for enquiring, as I've no handle on who produced the postcards when, but I see the principle involved. Kim Traynor 10:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Here in the USA, you can sometimes date postcards by their postage statement: some have "Place 2¢ stamp here" inscriptions, for example, and you can check the postal rates for when postcards cost 2¢ to send. If your postcards tell you how much postage is required to send them, you can look up the postal rates in a copy of the Stanley Gibbons stamp catalogue, an edition of which should be at your local public library. Nyttend (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

File:The Guard logo.jpg

Is this image eligible for copyrights? --George Ho (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably not, IMHO. – ukexpat (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

What about Canada? --George Ho (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It's too simple; one cannot copyright two words on a monocolor background. Otherwise, you could be sued for reproducing the filename, since that's two words on a monocolor background. Nyttend (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Discovery images

Are File:Mab moon.png and File:Cupid moon.png definitely in the public domain? I'm not certain. (Even if they are not, they could still be used here as fair use since the moons can't be discovered again.) Double sharp (talk) 12:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

If you can show that NASA produced the images then they would be public domain. The circle is too simple to copyright. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The discoverers (Showalter and Lissauer) created these discovery images. I'm not sure if NASA was also involved in creating them. Double sharp (talk) 12:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Christmas tree decorations

hello,

I uploaded a CC-BY file from flickr depicting several tree decorations, and one of those depicts Charlie Patton. Now I want to have it cropped and then add the pic into the infobox, but that might be a copyright violation. Now I need your help if this is really correct or not. I want to add a new picture without paying anything :/ (the latest was deleted because the copyright holder requested it on OTRS). Thanks.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 18:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

What image are you referring to? ww2censor (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

See the obscure "might be a copyright violation" link. —teb728 t c 21:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

In what way is it "obscure"? Regards.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 10:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I called it obscure because it was not obvious that it was a link identifyimg the image. I almost posted the same thing as ww2censor. —teb728 t c 03:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Rather than going off topic, can somebody please help me, because this is pretty important for my future article. Thanks.--GoP_T^C_N 11:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Aside from the Patton image, I think the decorations may be a copyvio as well. The characters in the middle (one of the focuses of the picture) are Muppets and therefore copyrighted designs. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Crisco! Would a drawing of this picture be a copyright violation? Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 10:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Image owned by the subject of the page

I am trying to upload an image of an individual who is the subject of the page. He owns the image. It is of himself.It was taken by a photographer who was employed by the subjects company. The image is in the possession of the subject. He owns it. He paid for it. He has in fact stated that in an email which was sent to you. Yet, you continue to reject the image and remove it. What do I have to do? I obviously do not undertand what you want. Pls enlighten me.Thanks. Recado (talk) 00:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

As I asked you in reply to your post above, #image titled Arnold Leibovit.jpg, “Did the email grant a free license (one that permits reuse by anyone for anything)?” If he granted permission for use only on Wikipedia, that would explain it: Wikipedia does not accept permission for use only on Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 01:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The specific problem with the current version of File:Arnold Leibovit.jpg is that it doesn't have a tag identifying the specific free license which the email grants. —teb728 t c 01:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is : he did not offer a license for this image. To be hosted on a Wikimedia website, this type of images must be licensed for free use. It's good to know that he's the owner of the copyright, but as such if he doesn't offer a free license for its use, it cannot be hosted on Wikimedia. For details about the mission of Wikimedia and about free licensing, please see the pages Mission statement, Commons:First steps/License selection and Commons:Licensing. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Earlier image of Jack Wrangler

The infobox image is a later appearance of Jack Wrangler. Is uploading an earlier appearance of Jack Wrangler all right under WP:NFCC? --George Ho (talk) 08:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The existing infobox image identifying the subject is non-free so replacing it with a different non-free image would be ok, but adding another non-free one would not be ok. However, any free image would trump either non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 16:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

In this case, can an earlier image belong to a section of this article? --George Ho (talk) 23:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No, as mentioned previously, not unless there would be some critical commentary about the image itself that will be supported by some WP:RS, so it would fail WP:NFCC because its only purpose is to identify the subject, which the replacement image would be doing. ww2censor (talk) 23:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Kodak logo 1987.svg

Is this image eligible for copyrights? The background is yellow; text is simple, and font is simple; shapes are kinda simple. Am I missing something? --George Ho (talk) 09:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

In my view that shows elements of creativity, beyond simple text and color, but I'm not an expert, so interested in the views of others. (My crude test; I wouldn't be able to create this myself in a basic image editor, without some guidance.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, it is just two rounded shapes and some text on a plain yellow background. It should be using {{PD-textlogo}} but you could take it to WP:NFCR for more opinions. ww2censor (talk) 16:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Under discussion in WP:NFCR. --George Ho (talk) 23:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Ownership vs copyright of artwork

Let's say, for argument's sake, that I own a sculpture by a living artist. Could I take a photo of that sculpture and upload it to Commons? Does the artist, in selling his work to me, transfer copyright as well as ownership? Let's say in this particular case that the sculpture is located in my home and not on public display (so no freedom of panorama) and that I live in the US (also no freedom of panorama).

Would the answer be any different if it were a painting?

This may seem like a silly question, but it could have implications - were museums to donate images of contemporary art to Wikipedia...

I imagine that museums don't have to pay premiums to living artists when they post images of their work in online catalogs... or do they? And if not, why should it be any different here? Thanks, Lithoderm 17:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If he has clearly signed copyright ownership to you, then you own the copyright and a photo you take, you can release to commons as the copyright owner under a CC-type license.

However, most cases, when you buy a work of art, the artist still owns the copyright on the art. Thus, while you can take a photo yourself, the copyright of the art is by the artist, and most likely can't be used on commons without getting the artist's permission. I would expect contemporary art museums work the same way - they don't have copyright on the art, and thus while they can donate their pictures of the art freely, we're bound by the IP problem. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. This was pretty much what I suspected.

So the idea that a photograph of a 3d artwork has sufficient originality (based on choices such as lighting and angle) to be considered a different, copyright-able work only applies to 3d artwork that is already in the public domain? Is that clause even in Bridgeman vs Corel, or is it something we on WP have inferred? Thanks, Lithoderm 20:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It's the line we have drawn based on BvC. Unless the 3D work is barely 3D (like coins) where photographing them is effectively making a slavish, non-artistic copy, a photograph of a 3D work creates a new copyright to the photographer due to the impact of lighting and shadows that comes into play with 3D artwork. Note that BvC doesn't have strength of any SCOTUS case or the like, so it is a guiding line, not an absolute. --MASEM (t) 21:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Commons has deleted a lot of photos of coins; only scans of coins can be kept without permission of the copier. BvC is pretty well embedded into US law, and is based off of Rural v. Feist, which is a SCOTUS case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Images in Stanley Kubrick

I have seen too many images there and wonder if they meet WP:NFCC. --George Ho (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

They have been discussed before but most agree that it is appropriate in discussion of Kubrick's assets as a director in the visual medium. --MASEM (t) 01:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

What about license tags? Are they really "historic images" or something more appropiate, like "non-free fair use in"? --George Ho (talk) 01:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Linda_Parks_head_shot.jpeg

I am a noobi at wikipedia and would like to know what to do. Linda Parks provided the picture and asked me to put this on her page. If she would prefer to not release the copyright, what is the best path to follow? Pmacdee (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's goal for images are to be free. If non-free, see WP:Non-free content. If published as free to share, commons:File:Image-Shelf_cloud_pano_oct07_ver4_edit.jpg can help. Also, go to WP:File copyright tags to see what is suitable for this image. If confused, go to Wikipedia:New contributors' help page. --George Ho (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to add to the above answer, if the copyright owner is not prepared to release the image pursuant to a license acceptable to Wikpedia, then you have fall back on the non-free use content criteria. That image would fail criterion #1 because a free image could be created by someone taking a picture of the subject and releasing it under an acceptable license.--ukexpat (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Fatty Arbuncle mugshot (1921)

Hi, I was wondering if this mugshot of Fatty Arbuckle, taken in 1921, could automatically be assumed to have been published. If so, it should be PD. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. Terms and Conditions could help you decide. Possibly, the mugshot was taken after several arrests, wasn't it? Or maybe taken in 1923. This page doesn't say the year of mugshot. --George Ho (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• If the image is PD, the terms and conditions would be moral rights and not copyrights. Wikipedia doesn't recognize scans as being copyrighted to the scanner. I'll look at Arbuckle's article to see if he was arrested more than once. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• A good direction for research is to discover whether any books, magazines or newspapers published the mugshot before 1923. If so, it's fair game. Binksternet (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• That would be the most definitive, I agree. However, since mugshots are used for police files and whatnot (and often released to the press, for famous cases), wouldn't mugshots automatically be considered published (at least internally)? Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know. Unpublished pictures were subject to state laws before Copyright Act of 1976. Under 1976 Act, anything created yet unpublished is still copyrighted. In this case, only restricted police force has an authority to access police files and mugshots. Permission is needed for non-authority persons to access police files. Speaking of access, I don't know how Dr. Macro obtained that photo. To me, that mugshot was technically unpublished. --George Ho (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• It's everywhere on the web. This supposedly says 1921 (according to Google), but I can't access the site. It's here too, but the author doesn't note where he got it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• The site says photo taken in 1921. It also mentions San Francisco Examiner as sensationalising the story, so that would be the place to look for the image. Arrest was 10 September 1921. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The image must surely have been published around the time it was taken. The Fatty Arbuckle trial received a huge amount of media attention. --Lobo (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Photo for biography

I requested a photograph from the subject of a biographical article (Uri Davis), and he emailed me a photograph. He did not provide (as requested) any copyright information, and I am reluctant to approach him again over this. My experience with previous requests to other subjects has been a failure to understand Wikipedia's requirements, and a reluctance to provide the required information. How can I use this photograph? RolandR (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Basically you cannot, the subject may not own the copyright on the image, and may not know the owner. Since copyright license grant has to be in writing, you have not got permission. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

images on maspedia

hello - there are totally unrelated images on my father's mashpedia page - how do i get the proper images posted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.180.45 (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Mashpedia content is not under the control of Wikipedia or Wikimedia except insofar as they faithfully mirror our content (which our free license allows them to do). If their content is totally or partially different, you could take it up with them at their Contact Us page. —teb728 t c 00:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

About using a pdf file from government of india web site

I would like to include following file for improving wiki article Directorate General of Economic Enforcement: http://www.directorateofenforcement.gov.in/Organisation_Setup.pdf Apparently, the web site is in the public domain. However, the web site does have a copyright at the end saying: © 2006 Directorate of Enforcement, Ministry of Finance| All rights reserved worldwide. Can this file be used in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onkarr (talk • contribs) 05:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

What makes you think the web site is in the public domain when there is a clear copyright notice on the main page and you have seen it? Also, commons:Commons:L#India states that Indian government works are copyright for 60 years. You can however use the document as a reference to some prose that it supports in the article but you can't just copy the document. ww2censor (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Ww2censor. Onkar 19:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onkarr (talk • contribs)

File:Time Warner Cable.png

Is this image eligible for copyrights? The eye symbol... is it common? --George Ho (talk) 10:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I would say yes, that symbol is not common. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Changing my username

Can I be able to chenge my username on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruvimbo321 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Changing username. —teb728 t c 23:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Copyright question

I just would like confirmation regarding 2 pictures that state copyright has expired. I want to use both images in a talk that might be shown on YouTube. I included info on both images below. Let me know if you need anymore information. Thank you.

/Desktop/406px-Alois_Alzheimer_001.jpg /Desktop/220px-Auguste_D_aus_Marktbreit.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minalmax (talk • contribs) 22:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Those pictures are on your computer; so we can't see them. Also they are jpg's; so they wouldn't provide copyright context. Can you refer us to a webpage where they are used? —teb728 t c 23:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

One picture is at File:Auguste D aus Marktbreit.jpg which states copyright expired, as published in 1902. THe other File:Alois Alzheimer 001.jpg also taken pre 1915 from unknown photographer, so copyright expired. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Is this a copyright-free logo?

Under WP:Logos, a logo may be considered copyright-free if it consists of a sequence of letters and/or contains simple geometric shapes. Does this image qualify? It would be used here. Randomnonsense (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

This logo is possibly copyrighted in United Kingdom due to lower standards of threshold of originality. File:BBC.svg is possibly copyrighted in United Kingdom. Not sure about United States at first, but the drawing looks very creative and makes the logo non-free. --George Ho (talk) 01:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The thing at the top right is likely a problem. To avoid problems, I'd suggest that you use {{Non-free logo}} with a fair use rationale if you want to use it. As George Ho wrote, almost all logos are copyrighted in the UK, and File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg was ruled copyrightable by a British court last year, but this is an American logo, so you don't need to care about British laws. But as I wrote, the thing at the top right is a likely problem. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

If it is American logo, why is the organization founded in Britain? Would the logo be UK? --George Ho (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I deleted all but the domain name from the URL and found the web site of some kind of organisation in Minneapolis which is in the United States. What I didn't realise was that this appears to be an unrelated organisation. OK, British organisation and definitely not PD in the UK. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. The logo is from a defunct UK charity, which has been expunged from the web so the logo can only be found on unrelated websites. Randomnonsense (talk) 02:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Sketches-of-Rawabi-001.jpg

I copied the picture from The Guardian where it is marked as 'public domain'. The author is surely www.rawabi.ps. Can we use the image under 'fair use'? --Pevos (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I have amended the file information page with an appropriate PD template.--ukexpat (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Pevos (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

promotional picture of band

I want to put a promotional picture of Jupiter One on the Band's page. I dont really how this works with copyright because i have seen this image on plenty of blogs and music websites. I have no idea who the author might be or where it came from.

http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1680&bih=920&tbm=isch&tbnid=mK0v-qzyK1sx_M:&imgrefurl=http://kaceeandnate.blogspot.com/2011/01/day-13-your-favorite-musician-and-why.html&docid=0e-QBfWkXpPr3M&imgurl=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_zaSP1oSgEUY/TT5WAUX3nbI/AAAAAAAAAeY/Rj_uWeFyreo/s1600/telp10202%252B-%252BCopy.jpg&w=750&h=502&ei=7ZZWT5OnEqTf0QHH8eSPCg&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=275&sig=107162122725532733863&page=1&tbnh=109&tbnw=145&start=0&ndsp=45&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:0&tx=63&ty=41

this ok to put up on the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heavy wave81 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

No, not OK. You would need to find the copyright holder and get the copyright holder to agree to license it under a free licence, but it would be hard to do that if you don't even know where the picture comes from. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)