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)

PD-ineligible-USonly

@Jc86035: I want some opinion on the usage of public domain images ineligible for copyright in the United States but not in their source countries. File:MTR logo notext.svg brings my attention when it is added to {{S-rail/lines}} so the image is embedded in over hundreds of Hong Kong metro station articles. AFAIC, Wikimedia imposes stricter copyright policy to reduce legal exposure. If the media file is not ineligible for copyright in both US and the source country, shouldn't its usage meet our WP:NFCC instead? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Commons has that stricter copyright police; the English Wikipedia doesn't. There is zero legal exposure to an organization established in the US from foreign copyright laws, and to the extent they might have to worry about it, being PD in both the US and the source country doesn't necessarily mean that it will be PD in a third-party country.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean that such media file can be used in all Wikimedia sister projects but Commons without restriction like any fully copyleft material? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

No, each project sets its own rules, and many projects will only accept images that are acceptable in their source nations.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Similarly, {{FoP-USonly}} (used on 368 images, example File:Burj Khalifa.jpg). I've never been comfortable with such licensing. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

By the letter of the Resolution and NFC these would be "free" and have no restriction on usage, and we do have disclaimers for content reusers to check licenses of all images to make sure they can be reused in their country, so there's technically no issue. But I'm in agreement that we really ought to treat these "less than free, but more than non-free"; they need a license tag (duh) and affirmed sourcing to know they were published previously, but I would consider restrictions on non-article space (particularly templates) so that reusers have an easier time using our content if they are in a non-US country. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Restrictions to what? What set of rules do you want? Commons rules hardly solve the problem; there are known problems using images from Commons in Germany and Canada (which has no rule of the shorter term for the US), in France and other nations (which do not treat non-renewal and no-notice works as having expired their term of protection for the rule of the shorter term) and quite possibly in any number of nations that don't use other nations FoP rules. In you want a work to be free worldwide, it's 120 years from creation for anonymous works (US law), both 95 years from publication and 100 years from death (US + Ivory Coast, no shorter term) unless it was published after 2002, in which case it's just 100 years from death (Ivory Coast, no shorter term).--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Which resolution are you talking about? Under wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, files are unfree unless they satisfy Freedomdefined:Definition. Under Freedomdefined:Definition, a file is unfree if it is copyrighted in one or more countries somewhere in the world, unless the file is freely licensed. A file with {{FoP-US}} or {{FoP-USonly}} is unfree in one or more countries (for example Samoa: 75 years p.m.a., no rule of the shorter term, no FOP). A file with {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} is typically unfree in the United Kingdom, and files with {{PD-ineligible}} are typically unfree there too. Thus, wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy stipulates that such files are unfree, and Wikipedia may not circumvent this.

In the Ivory Coast, the copyright term expires at the same time as in the source country (or 99 years after the death of the author if the Ivory Coast is the source country). --Stefan2 (talk) 14:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

If we need to treat files on en.wiki that technically do not fully meet the world-wide free aspects as non-free, we need to do a massive sweep of files using those templates. Most are presented as "free" images and lacking the official non-free rational. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Commons does not follow wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy either by only considering the copyright status in the United States and the source country but not in other countries... --Stefan2 (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

So a fair question is: how does commons consider the handful of images that have limited copyright-restrictions as free within the context of the Resolution? Assuming they have that langauge, we should also adopt similar language for these images if we don't want to tag, say, all PD-ineligible as non-free? I'm sure there's some rationale here for that approach, we just need to identify it. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The Ivory Coast does not have the rule of the shorter term; the footnote at that page says that "This country implements a reciprocity rule rather than a true "Rule of the Shorter Term". A foreign work is protected to the extent this country's work is protected in the foreign country.", meaning that many US works (for example) get a longer time in the Ivory Coast (a full 95 years) then they do in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sameboat: I've removed the logos due to their disputed copyright status Jc86035 (talk • contributions) 10:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Wanted posters

A recent example of "FBI most wanted" is Eric Frein. His photo is available at http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/eric-matthew-frein and widely distributed in press sources --- nobody, outside Wikipedia, seems to have qualms about reproducing the photo in this case. However, File:EricFrein.jpg was deleted (user didn't specify). A previous case at [1] seemed to get no real definitive response. The FBI/DOJ site itself has a legal notice that is mealy-mouthed. [2] Some other wanted posters have been uploaded though, as government work. [3] Which leaves us in a predicament. I mean, if we go the usual Wikipedia anal-retentive route, then these photos are generally unpublished copyrighted works that we "don't have a right to copy" theoretically. I'm surprised the usual WP:EL fanatics don't block us from linking to Top Ten List entries, because the FBI is violating the shooter's copyright... But is there some loophole written into the law for wanted posters? Or is the whole thing a case of Fair Use? And if it is a case of Fair Use, is it possible that we could write up a boilerplate Fair Use Rationale template that accepts one parameter, the guy's name, and one other parameter, the agency out to get him, and all the rest is pre-filled so the user doesn't have to worry about it? Or something? It's just pathetic when we can't include the images everybody else has without a second thought. Wnt (talk) 02:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The FBI using a copyrighted photo in fair use is not a copyright violation, and thus not an EL issue. Assuming that the person is notable for their own article, and the person is currently on the run, then yes, for identification of that image, the FBI photo from the most wanted list is allowable under non-free (since we cannot expect to find the person to take a free picture of it). --MASEM (t) 03:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The "currently on the run" part bothers me. It would probably be faster to wait by the local police station to take a snapshot of Frein if/when he's caught than to try to arrange a paparazzo photo of many celebrities ... especially one meeting up to Wikipedia's "moral" expectations. And on the other hand, I'd think that the event of actually being put on a wanted poster would be worth covering/memorializing itself. The notion of being able to put up information temporarily not only seems offensive to the notion of making a permanent encyclopedia, but is at odds with the fact that news agencies definitely don't remove such photos from their archives of old news. Wnt (talk) 09:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

But we do allow for the NFCC#1 exception for this, because there's no reasonable expectation that one can take a free image at the immediate time, so a non-free is fine. Further, once caught, the booking photo may or may not be free (depends on where booked), and once incarcerated, is definitely out of the ability to get a free image. Of course, if it becomes a situation where a free image is possible - say, for some reason, all charges against a most wanted person are clearly dropped, and thus the person cannot be "on the run" anymore, then yes, we re-evaluate at that point. I would not say that the act of being put on the most wanted list would merit a nonfree image to show that (since that can be documented with text), but the image used for that can be used for the person's infobox photo. --MASEM (t) 05:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

So, if an actor lives in L.A. and sleeps from midnight to 10 a.m. daily, can we rig up a template that displays a Fair Use image of him for those times each night and put that in an article because we can't expect to take a shot while he's sleeping? There's something cuckoo about the logic here, even before I get into the question of whether you can replace a wanted poster with text and accomplish the same function. No matter whether you're quoting longstanding legal precedent or not, these distinctions are nuts. Wnt (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

No; we do not want people breaking the law (personal or public) in trying to obtain a free image, so trespassing to get such an image is inane. But, unless the actor is well-established to be completely recluse and never going out in public, we can expect that they will be like any other human, out there such that a free shot can be made; one might have to make conscious effort to be at the right place and the right time (such as a red carpet event for example), but we do assume a free image can be taken here. --MASEM (t) 17:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not often discussed, but Wikipedia has precedence for using non-free images of living people on a very case-by-case basis for situations where the person is not expected to be a public figure and there is no reasonable expectation that anyone could get a free photo of them despite their nondeadness, we do sometimes make exceptions. In general, it is important to remember that no rule at Wikipedia is so sacrosanct that we refuse to violate it under any circumstances, the NFCC rules included, and there have been specific cases where the community has allowed non-free pictures of living people. Examples from the past include noted recluses like J.D. Salinger and Thomas Pynchon (see File:PynchonYearbook.jpg for a clear rationale here) and similar, often sui generis situations. Which is not to say that this usage should also be allowable or not; only discussion and consensus will determine that. But the tone of Wnt seems to imply that the rules here would override consensus, should we eventually decide that this one usage should be allowed. Wikipedia has NEVER had that ethos; the rules reflect general consensus about standard practices, and always allow for individual cases to be adjudicated by open discussion, and always allow for the possibility that what is best for the encyclopedia may not always follow the rules. It is quite fine that Wnt doesn't think this picture should be allowed, and he should be allowed to freely express that opinion, but the notion that opposing opinions are invalid because they don't follow the written rules is wrongheaded and needs to be called out. IAR doesn't mean there are no rules, but IAR does mean that sometimes we will all agree to break the rules, and those situations where we agree to do so doesn't invalidate the otherwise useful rule. --Jayron32 13:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

As a 1953 American yearbook picture, I find it stunningly unlikely that Pynchon photo isn't PD, since I don't know that any yearbook got renewed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jayron32: I didn't think I was being that confusing here, but I was actually looking for/expecting a statement that wanted posters would be usable, at least as a Fair Use, indefinitely as they are by news media. I was unsatisfied with the response because it seems wrong to arse around writing up a special six-part Fair Use rationale for each image, then have it on the block for deletion the second whoever it is gets caught. Wnt (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I was confused by the fact that someone told you it was usable, and then you started to disagree with them. Generally, when you seek confirmation of something, and then someone confirms what you wanted them to confirm, you say thank you and the conversation ends. When you then disagree with the person who confirmed your initial question, it DOES get confusing. --Jayron32 12:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Use of Facebook logo

The Facebook logo uploaded here claims that it's not copyrighted but it is trademarked. However, does this mean it can be freely used in any article? Facebook itself says no: "Don’t Use the Facebook logo in place of the word “Facebook”. I think Wikipedia might be misusing it here:

• 2000s (decade)
• Censorship of Facebook
• Social media
• Template:Free--PublicOnFacebook

Thought I'd get an expert opinion before changing anything. — Brianhe (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The Facebook logo is considered too simple to be copyrighted (eg it fails the Threshold of Originality test due to being just a text logo), so that is why it is considered free. However, we should still respect trademarks, so to use the logo in a disparagingly way would not be appropriate. But in all the cases you have above, the logo use is far from this: for 2000s and Social media, it's an example; it's a reasonable image on Censorship and fine for a template. Reading their brand guide, they're saying that if we used the phrase "Facebook is a social media site", we should not replace "Facebook" in that sentence with the logo, but in the cases here, its being used to illustrate outside prose, so should be fine. --MASEM (t) 05:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

How Do I show Email from Jayaguru Nyati by which he authorised my use of photos and logos which he attached to the Email?

I got an Email authorization from the owner of certain images to use on an article on him [Jayaguru Nyati] and his political party [GUNGA-ISIZWE]. How do I show it to you? Nkoko365 (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials contains some guidance to help you. If you have questions about what you read there, feel free to come back and ask for clarification. --Jayron32 13:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

proper template to include?

I'm the editor of the Massachusetts Review, and I recently changed the cover image on our Wikipedia site, in order to update it to our current issue cover. I'm a real novice at this, so I don't know proper procedures, or which template to add. We hold the copyright to the cover image, though of course covers are also subject to fair use. I'm not sure what template I'm supposed to add, but I'd like to learn, since I plan to keep updating our site as new issues come out (four times a year). Thanks, Jim Hicks P.S. Here's a link to the image:

210px|Fall 2014 cover — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzimhiks (talk • contribs) 20:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I've taken a look at your article and the cover image and it all seems to check out. When the need arises in the future for you to upload another cover, the file upload wizard, should be able to guide you in selecting the proper copyright notice. Hope this helped.Tinss (talk) 05:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Need assistance to get page corrected

Hello All;

I need your assistance to get this page corrected. This is my page: Mobilization Augmentation Command (MAC). Please check to let me know if there is an issue with the references or if more needs to be added. Also, how do I get the question mark message down at the top concerning the inline references? I have created additional references, however, the message remains.

Images: For the images, I will send you all a statement signed by each person on the image that states it is Okay to use their picture at the MAC wiki site and also I will send the copyright template to the email indicated with the images included in the email. Would this be sufficient to keep the images on the MAC wiki site?

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. V/r, Piper Pipercubusa (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks like you're referring to the files deleted at Wikimedia Commons in this discussion. Generally, we do not necessarily need permission from the persons depicted in a photograph but first of all we need permission from the photographer to use their work. For official US military photos this is simple because they are in the public domain by law.

So If you are a member of the MAC or any other US armed forces unit and those photos were taken by you or any other soldier on duty, please feel free to re-upload them with a licence {{PD-USGov-Military}} or similar. But please note the following: If the images have been published before on an official US military page it is sufficient to include a weblink to the relevant website in each file's description (not just army.mil but the page where the image appears). This is also the standard way if you're not the original photographer and just found those photos somewhere online.

If the images have not yet been published, please do send an email as described at Commons:OTRS. This should come from a .mil account where you confirm that you or any another military person took those photos while being on duty.

Concerning the Wikipedia article, the question mark messages and other such tags do not disappear automatically but they can be removed by editing the very first part of the page like this. De728631 (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyright on an image with co-authors

I would like to upload this image for use on wikipedia. However, it has two authors. One is from the USGS, whose content it produces falls in the public domain; so far so good. Problem is, the other author is from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, a private organization whose copyright statement is a lot more restrictive. In this case, which institution's copyright applies?Tinss (talk) 05:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

To editor Tinss: If it combines work from both sources, then both copyrights apply, and permission must be granted from both parties. Permission from USGS is not a problem, but because WHOI's copyright permission forbids commercial usage, this image is considered non-free and so must meet the criteria for non-free content. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 23:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC) Ping Tinss

Can I use this image?

The following image is of the three living recipients of the Param Vir Chakra, whose official photographs were taken down. For entire discussion, please refer to WP:NFR for entire discussion and to Yogendra Singh Yadav, Sanjay Kumar and Bana Singh for the articles in question.

I have found the following image posted by a journalist named Shiv Aroor. This is an image of Shiv Aroor with the three PVC awardees [4] posted on his twitter page. Here is a link on his blog [5] where he states, "Use of photographs by me is permitted without prior approval, but needs to be carried always with a credit and backlink."

Does this satisfy Wikipedia's requirements? Myopia123 (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Also note that this author is a noted defence journalist with significant Military and Journalistic connections, which is why he was able to get into a room with all three of them. In my opinion, it is highly unlikely that such a good opportunity will ever present itself to obtain images of these war heroes, which satisfy Wikipedia policy in my opinion, again. Myopia123 (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

No. This turns on precisely the same issue as Masem pointed out to you at the NFCR discussion you refer to above. Permission to reuse is not sufficient without permission to modify, or without permission to create derivative works. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

You are making it impossible to create a proper article. Ordinary civilians do not have easy access to these individuals. While it is theoretically possible to obtain free images of them, it is not practically possible and these rules you hold so dear have been violated in the past, using WP:IGNORE. Such as J.D. Salinger's article. Myopia123 (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

And I still have not been given a specific example of what kind of release you require so badly. I would be more than happy to email this journalist and ask him for permission but I do not want to run the risk of incurring wrath from The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) again - Myopia123 (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is it "not practically possible"? If it is just because they are in India and not where you are, that's not a reason - we have English speaking editors that live there that also may be able to help. --MASEM (t) 18:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I am pretty sure if he agrees by email through WP:ERFP then the matter is closed. Honestly, sometimes you guys really turn being an editor into an extreme hassle. You guys are extremely unhelpful and behave like bullies to someone who is only seeking to improve wikipedia and the articles within it.Myopia123 (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as your question about where I live: Sir, mind your own damn business. Myopia123 (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

If it really were as simple as you make it out to be, I would not be wasting my time on this page.Myopia123 (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually it really is quite simple and we don't try to make life especially difficult for you but copyright is a serious concern to us, so you need to follow the policy. So, to put it simply, the copyright holder, who is usually the photographer and not the person in the picture, must verify their permission for us to use their image under a free licence. You must also note that the blog specifically states that some of the material is not theirs but copyright to other people. The copyright holder can verify their permission by following the procedured found at WP:CONSENT. If they are not prepared to release their image as freely licenced, then unfortunately you are out of luck but remember that it is not necessary to have an image of an individual to have a good article about that person. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Received permission. Sent email to OTRS. While I personally think this obsession with copyright is misplaced outside of the US, you do what you gotta do. Kthnxbai. Myopia123 (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• So Shiv Aroor from Live Fist Defence recently emailed his OTRS permission to use this image [6] to the permissions email account on commons. The image is to be used on the pages of the three living PVC recipients. However, the images I uploaded on commons have all just been deleted. What now? Do I need to reupload it with the ticket number or what? Myopia123 (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Assuming the OTRS email has the image names then the OTRS team will restore the images and attach an OTRS ticket to each image when they are happy with the permission. Please be aware that the OTRS team are often very busy and it can, on occasions, take up to a month to process some emails especially if they have to do some back and forth emails to clarify matters. Good luck and be patiently. ww2censor (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Bangladeshi-model-actress-Nusraat-Faria-Mazhar-25.jpg

How can I add this image to an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadman Sakibzz (talk • contribs) 09:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you provide an active link to this image? Often such images are copyrighted and can not be uploaded to Wikipedia. But without the image it's hard to tell for sure. GermanJoe (talk) 10:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

If the source website is Bangladeshi Entertainers (www.bdentertainers.com), their content is apparently watermarked and copyrighted (see images and website footer). GermanJoe (talk) 10:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Talkpage and WP:LINKVIO?

WP can make me so confused. Is it really a violation of WP:LINKVIO to link to copyrighted image on a talkpage just to make a comparison of locations? Is it really such a big violation that all other points made are blank and void and doesn't matter at all? I do know the show and the image is copyrighted, but it was the first image I found doing a quick search. And the only reason I added it was to make an attempt at making the other person see the obvious similarities in locations. Would it had been a non-violation if I had spent more time and found the same picture on the producer's or distributor's or similar homepage? Could someone please explain this to me in a way that won't get me too annoyed at WP bureaucracy and pedantry. -Hekseuret (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)