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)

Linking to website slideshows

Is it acceptable for articles to link to website slideshows? The article 14th Combat Support Hospital has four external links linking to website slideshows. Three of these are located within the article body, apparently intended to be some kind of inline citation. The fourth is located in the "External links" section. I'm pretty sure the links in the articles are not acceptable per both WP:ELPOINTS and WP:CS#Avoid embedded links, but I'm not sure if they are also considered copyright violations per WP:ELNEVER. I have tagged each of them with {{copyvio link}} and posted my reasons for doing so at Talk:14th Combat Support Hospital#External links, etc.. The slideshows are from www.fortbenningphotos.com, but there is no copyright information provided. The page's description says "This site is run by the Fort Benning and Maneuver Center of Excellence Public Affairs Office to showcase the training, missions, Soldiers and families of Fort Benning." and gives a contact number, but i'm not sure if that is relevant as far as Wikipedia is concerned. I may be completely wrong on this which is I why I'm asking for here for clarification. If, by chance, I am in the wrong place, then I'd appreciate a gentle push in the right direction. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

It appears legit. the 14th Combat Support Hospital is presently based at Ft. Benning, and if you go to the official site, the fortbenningphotos.com site is linked from it's page, so it does appear legit. Now, I'm not sure about what the inline links are doing and that's an issue beyong MCQ, but linking to the site is just fine at worst as an external link. --MASEM (t) 05:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

As always, thanks for the help Masem. Does it make a difference who took the actual photos or is it fair to assume they are OK to use simply because they have been posted on a government(?) website? In particular, I am wondering if any of the "Please note that not all such material is in the public domain, though:" conditions of WP:PD#US government works are relevant here. Not sure if any of that matters because these are just external links to the photos and not uploads of the actual photos. Finally, I'm also not sure if the photos can be considered to be acceptable as inline citations/reliable sources of what is written. I'll ask at WP:RSN about that. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Assuming we're only talking about using the links and not the photos, and the fact the site is officially (as best we can tell) associated with Ft. Benning, then is doesn't matter on the nature of the copyrights of the photos on the site, we can reasonably be assured they are likely taken by members of the base or persons associated with them (family/etc.) It would be a concern if the site was not officially connected and stored a lot of images that likely were not by their copyright, that would be an ELNO due to the copyvio on the external link. But that's very unlikely here. --MASEM (t) 05:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Thanks again. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright of reproductions of 3D images on the Library of Congress website

I was looking at a very nice photograph of a Japanese flute on the LOC website, but for some reason there's no information about the copyright of the photograph. Is anyone aware of the terms for reusing photographs of 3D objects from the LOC? As a US government entity, photographs they take should be free... but it's not clear if the photographs are made by them, or what. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

At the top you can see a link "Rights and Reproductions", which implies the photograph is copyrighted. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Their page about the making of the photographs seems to imply that the photographs were made by employees of the LoC. There is no indication that they are copyrighted. If the photographs had been made by other people, one would expect that it would be mentioned. So, I think you are correct that if they were created by federal government employees they should be in the public domain in the United States. As for the flute, this other page seems to say that the LoC considers that there is no known copyright on it. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

It can't hurt to email and ask them - they have a link about copyright questions on the Rights and Reproduction page. Keep in mind we're looking at the photograph's copyright - the flute, if an early 20th century work, is likely out of copyright (and probably uncopyrightable since it is someone of utility (to make music) and not of creative of expression) --MASEM (t) 19:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• I still have rights over my (CC-BY-SA) images, and there are non-copyright rights, so that header title is not necessarily proof of a restrictive copyright. Thanks for the link to the page on how this was made... looking at the high level of noise in the image, I'm fairly sure that it was not a professional photographer who took these images (supporting the conjecture that it was digitized by LOC staff). I'll send them an email. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Using an image from flickr

I would like to know what steps need to be taken to use this image from flickr.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/108033873@N02/15210399116/in/photolist-ffubaG-ooUGnc-mntY2H-nEc2i8-pb6gJC

As it stands this image can't be used as it lacks an appropriate licence. If you want to contact the copyright holder and ask if they will modify the licence on Flickr to an acceptable Creative Commons licence, either CC or CC-by, and the copright holder agress and does so then it can be used. Nthep (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you meant to write "CC-by or CC-by-sa" :) -- Asclepias (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

If you are trying to contact the uploader (f.e. on their home website), I'd recommend to ask for a clarification of the image source as well (EXIF-data is incomplete and the linked Facebook page states "Found on feedly.com"). In general, you need to look after 2 aspects: source and author should be as clear as possible, and the image must be released under a free license, as mentioned above. GermanJoe (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Note that the copyright owner is not that flickr user, who copies images from various other sources. So asking that user for a license is not the thing to do. If you search on other websites, you will find that the source of this image is mentioned to be Doris Taylor, of the Texas Heart Institute. Taylor is the director of the department, so that may be the reason she is credited as the source, but the photographer may be someone else and the copyright is possibly owned by the Institute, as one might guess from this marked version of the image. In any case, you should contact someone at the Institute if you want to try to obtain a license for this image. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Using copyrighted image in several articles?

Hi,

I recently uploaded two images I had extracted from a journal paper (Sana'a1 Stanford '07 recto.jpg and Sana'a1 Stanford '07 recto lowertext image.jpg) and used them in the article "Sana'a Manuscript." I wanted to use them in the French & Arabic versions of the same article, too, but apparently this is not allowed. Is there anyway around this? If it helps, the author has himself uploaded the images to a webpage (http://ssrl.slac.stanford.edu/quranleaf), so they are accessible to the public anyway.

Did I make a mistake in saying that the image is copyrighted?

Prima meditationes (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Prima Meditationes

As far as I know the French and Arabic Wikipedia do not allow fair use of copyrighted images. This is possible though at the English Wikipedia whose servers are located in the United States. So you were right to indicate that the X-ray image and the transcription chart are copyrighted and need a fair use rationale.

I think though that this image is not copyrightable because it is a faithful scan or photography of a work that was never copyrighted (written before 671 AD). Such cases are in the public domain and should be tagged with {{PD-art}}. De728631 (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I have now transferred File:Sana'a1 Stanford '07 recto.jpg to Wikimedia Commons. De728631 (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

File:CMFLOGO.jpg

Does this meet {{PD-logo}}? czar ♔ 16:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Certainly in the US but possibly not in the UK however, neither the US nor UK organisations appear to use this logo, so it seems to be a redundant image. Whose logo is it? ww2censor (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Compassionate Mind Foundation—was recently deleted and recreated as redirect czar ⨹ 18:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

It's some text and a bunch of circles. It's a bit more than just a standard text based logo, but probably not enough to meet the threshold of originality. I would say it's a marginal case. If nobody is using it, there probably isn't too much harm in taking it to FFD and see what consensus is. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

wikipedia article Tijuana Cross-border Terminal

I supplied most of the images in the Tijuana cross-border terminal article, which I both own and created as part of the 18 years I worked on promoting this project. There is one image I would still like to add, it is the cover of the Tijuana cross-border terminal brochure that was created while I worked for GAP as the cross-border project manager. I was the author of the brochure which was created to explain the concept and project to U.S. and Mexican officials. Could I include the brochure cover under fair use strictly for the Tijuana cross-border terminal article??? I do not want to upload an image and have it taken down because I failed to meet your requirements. I made that mistake when I first wrote the Tijuana cross-border terminal article, I corrected the problem by ONLY using images I created and then loaded them onto Wikipedia commons, but I did not create the brochure cover, but I was the author of its contents, meaning all the written information and a major portion of the pictures used within the brochure were mine and not the property of GAP. BUT I did not create the cover but I mention and make reference of the brochure in the article and by showing the image of the brochure cover it would help in telling the story of the evolution of Tijuana cross-border terminal over the 18 year period. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Rnieders (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, because you did not create the brochure cover, you don't have rights over it. Only the copyright holder, who may be the author or the organisation that commissioned it, can give a free licence. In most instances books and other publication covers that are copyright can only be used in the article about that specific publication. For instance, author's books are not shown in the author's article but only in the book's own article, or music album covers are not shown in the band's article but only in the album's own article. Likewise in this instance, so I'm sorry to tell you using it under our non-free policy, which is stricter then fair-use, would most likely fail because non-free images must comply with all 10 criteria of our non-free policy. Having given the article a quick look I doubt it is necessary to include such a brochure image because it would most likley not significantly increase the reader understanding of the topic. ww2censor (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for responding and reviewing the article, your explanation was very clear and I finally understand the parameters of fair use. Your examples cleared everything up. Again, thank you for your time and effort. Rnieders (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Telegraph Avenue (novel) song list

In the article there is a section Music Referenced in Novel that consists of a song list taken from an article, explicitly cited, here. That webpage consists of a short discussion, a longer Spotify playlist, then the abbreviated list which was cut-and-paste to the article, with some cosmetic editing.

I know raw data and sweat-of-the-brow is not US copyrightable, but I am concerned that because the abridged list involved some decision making on the part of the original webpage author (though no reasons were given) the same abbreviated list may involve copyright violation. Choor monster (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Karen 2012b.jpg

This file claims to have permission from the original copyright holder per WP:FDL, but I'm not sure if that means that the file uploader and the copyright holder are the same person. I did a reverse google image search [1] and the image appears to be currently used multiple times on blogs, YouTube as well as some other pages. Is the copyright rationale being used proper or should this be treated as WP:NFC? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The copyright holder and the uploader may be the same but because ths image has been published elsewhere prior to the upload to WP we can't be sure and a request to the uploader to follow the process at WP:CONSENT would be advisable. Nthep (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Nthep. The uploader changed the photo to File:Karen E. Quinones Miller in full white suit.jpg on their own. This one too, however, appears to be being used on multiple websites according to a reverse image check including this one here. - Marchjuly (talk) 10:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The latter image is a direct copy from Miller's website. I have tagged both files for missing evidence of permission and informed the uploader that they need to send an email to OTRS. De728631 (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, a third image (File:Karen E. Quinones at 2012 launch party.jpg) is on her facebook page: [2], [3]. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint, I've now tagged this too. De728631 (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Help with UK potentially PD-old

File:Hardie elect.jpg is marked with "do not move to Commons" because of potential nonfree status in its country of origin. Is there any chance that this is still the case? Published 1895, it's a simple election poster, and advertisements aren't attributed to specific people, so this is clearly an anonymous work; if I remember rightly, the UK has something about "PD after X number of years for anonymous works", but I don't want to assume that I'm right. Nyttend (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

For people who are intent on deleting files, it is easy to show that it is logically possible that the image is conceivably still under copyright in the UK. For example in this case we do not know whether the communication of the photograph to the public was done with the photographer's permission. If was not authorised by the photographer then no account is taken of it in starting the copyright clock. If it remained unpublised copyright would have expired after 70 years. But suppose it was lawfully first communicated to the public in 1960, that is when the 70 year clock would have started ticking.[4][5][6] Now, I am not a laywer so what I say may be rubbish but it is possible that my analysis is correct so there is a legal risk in using the image. And by the way URAA restoration may make the image copyright even in the US. Thincat (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that an elcetion poster for 1895 was used in 1895, so it can be considered as published in that year. Per Copyright rules by territory, per Thincat, 70 years is the important number to remember whether the author is known or not. 1895 plus 70 = 1965. So, in my mind, there is no doubt this is freely licenced. ww2censor (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Also per {{PD-UK-unknown}} anonymous photographs that have been published in the UK before 1944 are PD too. De728631 (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thincat, I agree with you opening sentence but disagree with the rest. Under s9 of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 the identity of an author shall be regarded as unknown if it is not possible for a person to ascertain his identity by reasonable inquiry (s9(5)) - a poster which is a compilation of an image and text would appear to have at least two authors, the text and the image. If there is no identifying labels on the poster then there aren't too many further reasonable inquiries that could be made to ascertain the identities of these two people. The absence in the UK of a copyright repository is either a help or a hinderence here depending on your viewpoint but UK law only requires reasonable inquiry to have been made, not absolute proof one way or the other.

If an identity is discovered then s9(5) then goes on to make it clear that the act must apply as for a work of known authorship i.e. you can't claim continued use of the anonymous provisions because they once applied. So for the example regarding the photographer's permission I would argue that to establish a breach you must be able to identify the photographer first and then establish their copyright has been breached not the other way round due to explicit lack of permission being available.

Section 12(3) covers the duration of copyright for anonymous works and it 70 years following creation, if unpublished; or 70 years following first being made available to the public whichever is the latter expiry date. As this particular image cannot be newer than 1910 (the last election Hardie stood in) then the first leg of s12(3) is going to have been met. There is a debatable point over whether it was published or not but again I would put someone who wished to argue that to establish that the poster was not used during one of Hardie's election campaigns and is only an unpublished master for a poster that was never used. Election posters by their very nature are very transitory and their lifespan very short so I don't think it unreasonable to assume that it was published in which case the second leg of s12(3) is met and the poster is now out of copyright. Publication in UK law is different to US law and being displayed in public meets the definition of s12(5)(b) of what being made available to the public means. This could be as minimal as one copy posted on a noticeboard in a public place as the act makes no definition of how widespread this publication has to be.

If the point about publication is accepted then URAA restoration is not applicable here as one of the preliminary tests is that anything published anywhere in the world prior to 1 January 1923 is not copyright in the US and this absolute and unchanged by URAA restoration.

I am not a lawyer either and I do not think that your opinions are rubbish but I do not think that there is a legal risk here and that this image can be licenced with the UK licence {{PD-UK-unknown}}. Should someone by enquiry manage to establish the identity of someone involved in the creation of poster or that it was never published then that licence would cease to be valid and re-examination take place and a different conclusion reached. Nthep (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't clear enough. I do not accept my argument for one moment. I suggested it as the sort of argument that is used to get images deleted. A crucial aspect of the argument was that we do not know whether whoever stuck up the poster in 1895 was committing a copyright violation. If it was established that they were (a logical possibility) then the the poster was not published in 1895 for purposes of establishing copyright at law. "... but in determining generally for the purposes of that subsection whether a work has been made available to the public no account shall be taken of any unauthorised act".[7] Thincat (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't having a go at you but at the deletionist's argument. The last words of s12(5) that you quote about unauthorised acts is very germane and the point is that the unauthorised act has to be shown to have happened and the assumption is not to show that one hasn't. Nthep (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Question about image on my userpage

I have an image on my user page of Basil Hallward, from whence I derive my username. I asked a question about it at Johnuniq's userpage and NeilN referred me here. The image says it was found on MSNBC, but I seem to remember it from an old edition of The Picture of Dorian Gray. Neil said this was the place to bring up the fact that I think this might be a very old image that might now be in the public domain, so I'm doing so with this post. Hallward's Ghost (talk) 03:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The question is whether File:Doriangray.jpg if allowed on a user page. If the "This work is copyrighted..." box is correct, the answer is no per WP:Non-free content criteria. I do not know if the box is correct, but they usually are. I put a similar reply at my talk. Johnuniq (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The source [8] does mention that it is from the book, but it does not mention what edition or the name of the illustrator. Corbis claims a copyright on it for some unexplained reason. But other sources can be found easily that document the illustration as from the first illustrated edition, published in 1910 in Paris, and credit it to Paul Thiriat, artist, and Eugène Dété, engraver (examples: [9], [10]). The date printed in the book is 1908, but it was actually published in 1910 [11]. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking--early 1900s. Doesn't that make it public domain now? Any copyright claim from a modern source like Corbis would seem to be nonsense. Hallward's Ghost (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, Wikipedia would probably accept it with the templates PD-US-1923-abroad and if necessary PD-art-US. You could also try to find a reproduction from the book from another source. If you find the years of the deaths of the authors and find that they are before 1937, you could probably also transfer the image to Commons. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Eugène Dété died 1922, according to several reliable-looking Google hits. No idea about Paul Thiriat though. He was still active in 1917 as "Special Artist with the French Army, for The Graphic Newspaper", depicting WWI scenes, but after that I found no further info. GermanJoe (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't really know much about how to put a new version of the image on here. Do you think one of you guys could help get that done? I'd really like to be able to keep it on my userpage, as my username is sort of incomprehensible without it. Also, it irks me that Corbis is claiming a copyright on an image that should be free. Thanks, Hallward's Ghost (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I can do it in a few hours, if Asclepias or someone else isn't faster ;). It can simply be re-uploaded as "new version" under the same filename. Of course license tags and info needs to be corrected too. I would use the image from [12] and keep it on en-Wiki only, as the French copyright is not 100% clear. But it's PD in the US and OK for en-Wiki, as mentioned above. GermanJoe (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help, everyone--it's amazing to see how quickly Wikipedia responds to stuff like this. Hallward's Ghost (talk) 05:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

OK done - see changes at File:Doriangray.jpg. GermanJoe (talk) 06:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Joe. When Neil told me that someone was claiming copyright on that picture, it didn't sound right. He pointed me over here, and you guys have been fantastic in getting it worked out--thanks again! Hallward's Ghost (talk) 13:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

:File: B Kaulbach circa 1930.jpg.

Hello, Please help me with the copyright of this image. The original photo was provided (via a scan) by a grand daughter of B Kaulbach (she is also a relative of mine). We don't know who took the photo. Would she be the copyright holder ? or is it out of copyright because of it's age? Do I have to state her name and address as it's in her possession?

Thanks Glou784 (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)