Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

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 On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page. 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. 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. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}}) Hit Publish changes. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below. How to ask a question To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page. 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 start a new discussion

(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

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)

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)

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)

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)

How does one indicate having copyright permission?

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 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This is File:DarrenEntwistle.jpg, not File:darrenentwistle.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• If it's English make sure the poster art was not the same as the English poster, as the English poster would still be copyrighted. If there is no copyright symbol and explicit copyright notice (Doctor Macro has some which are possibly copyrighted and some which are not), it is fine. Compare the featured picture File:Poster - Island of Lost Men 01.jpg, also from Dr. Macro. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

But if the English poster art is nothing like this, yes it is PD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

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. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

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. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Usfbulls newlogo.png

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

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

Okay, thanks Masem. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

Thanks, that helps a lot. ALH (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Anyone making an accurate standard diagram of those three molecules will produce something exactly like these these images; barring rotation, font changes, and zoom (which aren't by themselves copyrightable), any changes will make the diagram non-standard and/or inaccurate. They're no more original than the formulas themselves; writing "C12H22O11" by itself can't make you a copyright infringer, and neither can drawing a figure like File:Saccharose2.svg. Nyttend (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It all depends on the threshold of originality in the country where you wish to use the images. For example, the images might be protected by a typographical copyright in the United Kingdom, and without a free licence, people in the United Kingdom won't know that they can use the images. Lots of British people use this website, and there is no point in hiding licensing information which those people need in order to use the contents on Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Signature of a fiction character

Does signature of a fiction character have copyright?--Lê _{talk-contributions} 04:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

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

If the signature was published as part of the work of fiction (The Saint comes immediately to mind), there is not only copyright but also possibly trademark registration to consider. If it was made up one day by a fan, then the copyright may belong to the fan, but again the original writer might have some sort of claim as far as impeding his or her right over derivative works. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Why would an (uncopyrightable) name in (uncopyrightable, at least in the US) handwriting get copyright?--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I was taking the original poster's word for it that there was in some way a copyrightable aspect to it. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Given that the fictional character signature may specifically be creatively designed - possibly with the name chosen to make that signature look artistic, we have to assume copyright. Names of characters can be copyrighted - "Sherlock Holmes" for example is still a copyrighted character under the Doyle estate, due to the fact that 10 of 60-odd books remain copyright in the US. --MASEM (t) 01:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

In the US, calligraphy is not copyrightable. The US Copyright Office says right in their FAQ "How do I copyright a name, title, slogan, or logo? Copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases." (Characters can be copyrighted, though Sherlock Holmes isn't since the first books are out of copyright. Things derived from the later works are controlled by the estate, but not stuff from the pre-1923 works.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:52, 20 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? 27.251.75.18 (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

While we cannot give you any legal advise, such an issue may be a legal one between the copyright holder and the person/website hosting the copyright material. We are not hosting anything that is copyright just by having an external link. If they get that taken down then the link will be dead and it will likely be deleted after that fact is noticed. However, if you can find a better link you can always substitute it. Would a link or reference to the original book/website/article really be any different? We have many references to copyright books and newspapers but we don't knowingly host such material and when it is found we delete it. Would you expect the New York Times or any other newspaper would ask us not to link to their stories as references because they hold the copyright? I don't see a problem unless someone else has a better take on this. If you can be more specific we can have a look at it for you. ww2censor (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Arguably a lot of sources we use include images that are presumed fair use for reporting and education but otherwise technically in copyright violation, so assuming that the content on the linked site in question reasonably meets the fair use laws for that country, we shouldn't hesistate to include that. (eg if the site is in the US where fair use is pretty open, and the article uses a few screenshots to discuss a film, for example, that's just fine. On the other hand, I know of fan sites for popular TV shows that have 200+ screengrabs per episode, questionably outside of fair use). But if you know for sure that the site linked is violating copyright (including falsely relicensing images, using obvious press images as their own, excessive images or other media), then yes, it should be removed. A working example of this is YouTube links which per WP:EL we normally avoid as the bulk of the material on YouTube is of questionable legality - But if you can verify that the uploader is also the copyright holder of the work show, then YouTube can be used as a valid link. --MASEM (t) 17:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I shall write to OTRS or to the responsible people to remove it. 27.251.75.18 (talk) 09:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Jeff Buckley Photo

Hello :)

Jeff Buckley

I wanted to let Wikipedia know that the photo of Jeff Buckley is actually a different photo then the source information gives. - Jeff Buckley Current Photo ------ Photo currently in use - Jeff Buckley Source Photo ------ Source Photo

I must tell you that the photo provided with the source is by far a better picture of Jeff Buckley and I highly suggest someone to change the current photo if possible. Some of my friends agreed that he actually looked like he came from prison and that's so horrible for so beautiful man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fannzi3 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Both images you refer to are linked from this website page and we have to assume they are all copyright so we can only use one under our fair-use policy. BTW it is usually best to link to the page images are available from and not deep link directly to the image itself because it is not always possible to find the originating page which may have additional useful information. Perhaps you should discuss which image best represents him on the article's talk page, then upload that one image and get this one deleted as it will then be an orphaned image. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Roch_night.JPG

I would like to know how to obtain the copyright release and high resolution file for the following image: File: Roch_night.JPG Thank you for your time, Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Photomike24 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You are already free to use the image subject to the conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. You can see this if you click through to the image and look at the description page on commons. However if you want to use it in other ways or a higher resolution it is best to ask Phthalogreen. You can use email at commons:Special:EmailUser/Phthalogreen or the talk page at commons:User talk:Phthalogreen. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Linking to YouTube...

YouTube is listed under WP:ELNEVER as a site that may contain copyright-violating material. However, it also has lectures, debates, etc. from respected academics who meet WP:RS. I am asking this here because on the article John 21 I cited a debate involving respected biblical scholar Bart Ehrman as the source for a piece of information I included in the article.[2] However, does WP:ELNEVER actually ban us from linking to YouTube even as a citation when it meets WP:RS? elvenscout742 (talk) 05:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's not that Youtube links are never allowed, just that the majority of them do fail copyright - the account uploading the video has no claim to the video rights. If you think you have a video from youtube that you have reasonable assurance that the video was posted by the account holder that also holds the copyright on the video in question, then it can be used as a valid reference. This does appear to be the case here (the project that hosted this series of debates appears to be the owner of the account that uploaded the video, but this should be double checked), so that video source can be used. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know???

Help Me! I want to upload a photo from Taipei EasyCard Corparation website(http://www.easycard.com.tw/english/index.asp) but I saw they have the Copyright@2013 EasyCard Corparation Can I Still Upload It? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoyomousamerican (talk • contribs) 12:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

No, you cannot simply upload copyrighted material without permission from the author. And fair use would require that the photograph in question helps the reader significantly to understand the Wikipedia article and it can't be replaced with a free image that was taken by someone else. So I don't see how a photo from their website would meet our criteria for non-free use. De728631 (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Google images

How would you go by copyrighting a picture you got from Google on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjryb (talk • contribs) 01:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Most images you find online, from Google or other searches, are copyright to someone, so for us to use them we have to verify they are freely licenced and most are not. There is an advanced Google search "Advanced Image Search" that allows you to choose the type of licencing. At the bottom left there is a "usage rights" section and the sub-menu selection you need to choose is "free to share, use or modify, even commercially". Even then you need to verify the copyright statement as there are also sometimes false licencing. Then look at the webpage where the image is displayed, not just the image itself, and see if there is a statement indicating the image is freely licenced. Many pages will have a copyright notice, but just because there is no copyright notice does not mean an image is freely licenced. If you are not sure just ask someone here to have a look for you. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 04:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)