Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 163: Line 163:


:Presumably yes, if the work the character's signature is in is still copyright. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 05:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
:Presumably yes, if the work the character's signature is in is still copyright. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 05:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

== An article is using an external link which contains copyrighted material used without authorization ==

If an article on Wikipedia is using an external link as a reference which contains copyrighted images used without authorization from the original copyright holder, can I request Wikipedia to remove the reference from the article? [[Special:Contributions/27.251.75.18|27.251.75.18]] ([[User talk:27.251.75.18|talk]]) 14:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:47, 18 February 2013

Template:Active editnotice

    Media copyright questions

    Welcome to the Media Copyright Questions page, a place for help with image copyrights, tagging, non-free content, and related questions. For all other questions please see Wikipedia:Questions.

    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:File 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 an acceptable Creative Commons or other free 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.; {{Cc-by-4.0}}), 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 Publish changes.
    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 start a new discussion" link below.
    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.

    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)


    Jeanne Manford has been awarded the 2012 Presidential Citizens Medal. It is a posthumous award as she died earlier this year. In this announcement at the whitehouse.gov site there is a nice face photo of her, which I think would be good for the article. Does the fact that it is on the white house site with no credit mean that it is a work of the US government and thus public domain? I don't want to upload a copyvio (obviously) but I don't see how I tell what is and is not copyrighted on a US government site like whitehouse.gov. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The US Government tends to be really good at identifying who created official photos in their captions, so if they aren't specified as having been created by a government employee, they probably weren't. These photos look like photos which were provided to the White House by the award recipients and/or whoever nominated them. Nick-D (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. A follow-up, if I may: could I reasonably assert a fair-use upload of Manford's picture for her infobox given that File:Jeanne Manford marching with her famous sign in a Pride Parade in 1972.jpg is copyright and already used? EdChem (talk) 05:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really because there is already a non-free image that identifies her in the article (yes I know the image is small) and WP:NFCC#3a requires minimal use so the new image you point to will essentially only serve the same purpose of identification. We cannot prove the whitehouse image is freely licenced so it would have to comply with all 10 non-free criteria and it can't unless you can prove otherwise. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thanks. EdChem (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Old photos from private family collection, creator unknown

    I want to upload photographs portraying the life of my grandfather. He died in 1967 in India. Many pictures have always been in the family collection, having been passed through 2 generations. These pictures were always private and have never been published. The photographer is in all cases unknown, presumably a family friend or visitor. The first picture is of 1914, the last of 1959. I understand that except for the 1914 picture, all the others are not in the Public Domain. But I don't see that anybody else could or will ever claim copyright on these pictures. I am legally the owner of the photos. So - what is there to be done, if the photographer is unknown and highly unlikely to ever become known? Thanks. Example: File:V. A. Sundaram in the late 1930s.jpg Thanjavoor (talk) 08:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Based on this information you provided above you would probably be best to upload your images to the commons where they have an heirs copyright tag PD-heirs that seems more appropriate. We don't have such a copyright tag here. Just make sue to provide a much information as possible. ww2censor (talk) 09:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That template is irrelevant here - it's for heirs of the copyright owner, (yes, it said "creator", I just adjusted it), not for heirs of the person depicted. As for the copyright status, ownership of the physical photo is meaningless with respect to copyright, though publication status can make a difference. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct Phil. ww2censor (talk) 10:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • These can only be uploaded if you are the legal heir to the photographer, and you wrote that the photographer might be an unidentified visitor in some cases. I assume that the photos are unpublished. In the United States, unpublished anonymous photos enter the public domain 120 years after the photos were taken. If you wish to upload the photos to Commons, then you need to verify that the photos also are in the public domain in India, where photos enter the public domain 60 years after the photos were first published with permission from the copyright holder, with the inconvenient consequence that unpublished photos don't enter the public domain in India at all. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Copyright for news channel with literary work — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.108.83.207 (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't understand what specifically you are asking about. The general answer is that whoever created the content owns a copyright on it; so that in order to use it you need a license from the copyright owner. Wikipedia policy requires that in order to use it on Wikipedia the license must allow reuse by anyone for anything. Is that what you wanted to know? —teb728 t c 07:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Editing image description page

    Hello, I am currently creating an entry for a musical group and uploaded an image in which I did not disclose the copyright status or the source. I know both the source and the copyright status but do not know how to edit the image description page. Where do I include this information? Will I have to re-upload the image under a different file name?

    Thanks!

    Benjips (talk) 06:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    You are asking about File:Lemaitre.png, right? I have provided the basic sections for you. So edit that page, removing the {{di-no source no license}}, filling in the {{information}} parameters, and adding the appropriate license tag to the Licensing section. —teb728 t c 07:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Desperately need instruction

    I find the tagging of pictures to indicate copyright on Wikipedia quite confusing. Currently I have a private picture which illustrates part of an article. I am happy for anyone to use this free of charge.

    What I desperately need is instruction on how to upload and label a picture. I have no idea where the copyright tags go. Help please, with my apology for not undwrstanding what might be obvious to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purge Watcher (talkcontribs) 07:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The first thing you need is a free license (one that allows anyone to reuse the picture for anything). If you created the picture by yourself without basing it on any other work, you are the copyright owner, so you can grant any of the licenses at WP:ICTIC. Unless you prefer a different license, I recommend Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License.
    If you did not create the picture yourself or you based it on another work, you have to get a free license from the copyright owner. See WP:COPYREQ for how to handle permission.
    When you have a license, you put the license tag on the image description page. For example, for the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License, you use {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}.
    Without a free license a picture can be used only under the restrictive Non-free content criteria. (Among the restrictions, non-free content is allowed only if the use significantly increases reader understanding.) For non-free use you use a non-free use tag instead of a license tag; the tag to use depends on what kind of picture you are using. In addition you must provide a Non-free use rationale.
    You haven't told which of these categories (own work, licensed work of another, non-free) your picture is in; so I can only answer generally. —teb728 t c 09:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to expand a little on what teb728 has said, while we do prefer the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License, you should be aware that this allows anyone to take your picture, modify it (such as taking a composite and merging it with another photograph as a montage, for examples), and sell those modifications to others. However, it's the easiest licence to run with here, as all you need to do is :
    1. Click on "Upload file" on the left hand menu from here
    2. Select "Click here to start the file upload wizard"
    3. Ensure "This is a free work" followed by "This file is entirely my own work" are checked
    4. Fill out the remainder of the details, which should be self explanatory. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Screenshots from episodes

    Is there any tag for screenshots from television episodes paralell to {{Non-free film screenshot}}? If not, we should either create one, or change the wording in this template to include episodes; otherwise, files like this one will have a tag which looks inappropriate. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    There is also {{Non-free television screenshot}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    assessment in the classroom

    assessment in the classroom by Salvia/ Ysseldyke & Bolt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.155.196.123 (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    What is your question about media copyrights? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Removal of Lemaitre Photo

    Hello,

    I have explicit permission from the group Lemaitre to use this image for their Wikipedia page I am creating and permission by the author, Johannes Greve Muskat, to use, change, and attribute this to him (Creative Commons License 3.0). I have the message they have sent me for verification if the need to provide it is required. Please let me know what the problem was.

    I downloaded it directly from Lemaitre's Facebook page as they themselves linked it to me. I can find it on a different website if that is the problem. Please let me know what I can do to fix this issue and prevent this or any other issue to happen again. Here are the steps I took when uploading the picture:

    1. Name 2. Provided Author's name and link to Author's work 3. Provided Source and Source link 4. Provided License Information

    Let me know if the above is insufficient to satisfy the copyright criteria.

    I'd like to also know how I can get the image from the copyright owner. Suppose the owner has poor knowledge of Wikipedia and cannot upload the picture? How are they to do this? How can I make sure it comes from the copyright owner? I would like to avoid this issue next time I upload a picture.

    Thank you so much!

    Benjips (talk) 03:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Please review the instructions at WP:CONSENT. Basically, we need to have the copyright holder (not you) send an email message to our OTRS to affirm the Creative Commons license, after which it will be fine. --MASEM (t) 04:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You should also be aware that Wikipedia is not a promotional facility per WP:NOTPROMOTION and articles about groups must have proven notability. Also of you are doing work for them you will likely have a conflict of interest and should edit appropriately. Currently the image File:Lemaitre.png is not used in any articles and has no source or licence information. As stated above we need the copyright owner's WP:CONSENT to be verified. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 07:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize for how I may have come across but I want to make clear that I am not doing work for them; I am doing this by myself but have asked several separate sources for an appropriate image to use. I will contact the sources to see if they can provide consent for the picture's use. The article also satisfies the notability criteria but would like to have it verified before hand. Is there a manner through which I verify if my article satisfies notability per Wikipedia standards? Thank you for your help! Benjips (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, the photographer Karen Mackenrot has allowed for this file to be used File:darrenentwistle.jpg but it is currently marked for deletion. What are the tags/format needed to indicate its legitimacy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamptonpl (talkcontribs) 23:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This is File:DarrenEntwistle.jpg, not File:darrenentwistle.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The facebook image you have linked to does not show it to be freely licenced so you will have to get the copyright holder to verify the permission your claim that the photographer is giving by having them follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. ww2censor (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Image tags- Tampa Bay Tritons

    For the Tampa Bay Tritons logo image, im not to sure what tag to use. Could i please get some help? Thanks. NHCLS (talk) 07:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've added an appropriate rationale and licence for you. ww2censor (talk) 07:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    US Poster for A Stranger Came Home (1954)

    I wanted to replace the en.wiki-uploaded poster at A Stranger Came Home with a high-resolution copy found at this location (large file). (Note that the film was released as The Unholy Four in the US.) There is no copyright on the poster, except for a phrase that stops me in my tracks: "Property of National Screen Service Corp., licensed for display..." on the very bottom right. Is that a form of a copyright notice? According to Creative Clearance, this lobby card is basically free of copyright and I can go ahead and upload it to Commons. I just wanted to double check before doing so. Thanks so much! – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 01:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    But if the English poster art is nothing like this, yes it is PD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thank you, I will go searching for the English poster of the movie. (Hopefully I can find it.) But now you have me really worried about two other images—I'll put them in a level-3 header below. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 04:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • My above comment was related to posters, although film stills also may be copyrighted. I said "possibly copyrighted" as the posters' copyright may not have been extended. I've uploaded something like 20 posters from Dr. Macro, although I downloaded over 100 looking for the free ones. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    A Stranger Came Home publicity photographs

    Crisco 1492, thank you for your advice above. If the English poster for this title is still under copyright (is this a URAA thing? I have a difficult time understanding all the rules), then what would be your opinion on these two images of Paulette Godard, #1 and #2? The film was produced by the British Hammer Film Productions, in association with the American company, Lippert Films. So I have no idea what country these photographs were taken in (and I'm only assuming they're even from 1954 because they were labeled as such by the Dr. Macro submitters who scanned them). There's no copyright information on the photographs anywhere... but it sounds like I may be misunderstanding the copyrights for English products here. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 04:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • If these pictures were first published in Britain with a copyright notice, then they would have had their copyrights extended by the URAA in the US; in Britain they'd still be copyrighted. If they were published without a copyright notice (you need to see the backs to be sure), they would be PD in the US but not Britain — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • So either way, they're PD in the US, then? I had no idea how difficult this would be. The only way to check the backs of the images would be to find out who scanned them and contact them, asking them to check, I suppose. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 19:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • This poster is only in the public domain in the United States if it was first published in the United States. If it was first published in the United Kingdom, then it is not in the public domain in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • So presumably the same thing would apply for the publicity photographs of Paulette Goddard? As for the poster, I can't prove the poster was published first in the US, although it's for the US-titled movie (it changed titles), so maybe it was first published in the US. But I have no way of figuring out how to prove it, so I'm dropping the poster for now. But I'm really interested in keeping the images of Paulette Goddard, which I've already uploaded to commons (#1 and #2). I emailed Dr. Macro in hopes of finding out if these images have a copyright notice on the back, but I'm not really hopeful of a reply. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 22:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Does this image meet the threshold of originality for copyright protection? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 10:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Arguably yes. That's beyond simple text and shapes. --MASEM (t) 00:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Very simple screenshots in non-articles

    I'm writing a user page about my library for accessing the Wikipedia API. I would like to add screenshots from Microsoft Visual Studio showing how autocompletion works with the library, e.g. [1]. The screenshot is quite simple and I belive most of its elements are not copyrightable. Would it be okay if I uploaded it to Wikipedia or Commons? According to Wikipedia:Software screenshots, it probably wouldn't. Does that also apply to screenshots that are this simple and don't contain pretty much any copyrightable design or text? 20:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

    Chemistry Structures

    I've been helping move images to the Commons and concerning these images (File:Rebaudioside A.gif, File:Mogroside II E.gif, and File:Mogroside VI.gif), are they complex enough to qualify for copyright or do they still fall under PD-chem? And if they do fall under PD-chem, should I change it from the current copyright when I transfer them to the commons? ALH (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The structure can't be copyrighted, and the representation of that structure is using standard, non-original graphics and text. They would qualify as PD-chem. (As a counter example, protein structures like File:Protein folding.png may be non-copyrightable but the specific graphics approach is far from simple and has originality to it, and thus this specific representation could be copyrighted (in the example, the user put it into the PD). --MASEM (t) 00:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that helps a lot. ALH (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarification: Images like those three are not protected by copyright in the United States. However, they might be protected by copyright in some other countries, so any free licences should be preserved so that the images also can be used in those countries. You should not have removed the free licences when moving the files to Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, in the case of File:Rebaudioside A.gif, the user uploaded it under a GNU free license so that shouldn't matter. Again, we are talking about data here with a standard format and representation, so copyrightability anywhere is likely not an issue. But there could be prior case law that I'm not aware of. --MASEM (t) 02:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but ALH (talk · contribs) removed the GNU and Creative Commons licences when copying the images to Commons. Commons users also need to see those licences in case some country grants copyright protection to images like these. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Signature of a fiction character

    Does signature of a fiction character have copyright?-- talk-contributions 04:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Presumably yes, if the work the character's signature is in is still copyright. --MASEM (t) 05:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    An article is using an external link which contains copyrighted material used without authorization

    If an article on Wikipedia is using an external link as a reference which contains copyrighted images used without authorization from the original copyright holder, can I request Wikipedia to remove the reference from the article? 27.251.75.18 (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]