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)

Fair use of logo

Hello,

File:Strømsgodset IF logo.svg has been in use for the page of the sports club Strømsgodset IF and Strømsgodset Toppfotball, citing fair use. User Marchjuly recently removed it from the latter page, and I don't understand why? Strømsgodset Toppfotball is a division of Strømsgodset IF and uses the same logo, in the same way as several Norwegian football clubs, such as Stabæk Fotball and Stabæk IF. Cashewnøtt (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

If they use the same logo and have no logo of their own, fair-use is okay so long as you write separate rationales for both articles on the image description page. Currently, only Strømsgodset IF is covered by one. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 15:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure how to do it. When I try to edit File:Strømsgodset IF logo.svg, I cannot see the existing rationale, it's just a bunch of empty fields.Cashewnøtt (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

No, we generally don't allow the use of parent logos in child organizational articles just because that child organization might happen to use the parent's logo. It is presumed that if the parent/child organizational relationship is defined, that the parent organization will be very clear on the child organization's WP page and the reader can click through the logo to see it in use there. This is to satisfy WP:NFCC#3. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Masem, can you give some examples of acceptable use across many articles? A strict interpretation of WP:NFCC#3a risks it becoming a de facto "one article maximum". Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 16:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• There's a line in the sand stated by WP:NFC#UUI #6, which indicates that if an image has an article about that image, we should link to that article rather than re-use the image. A good example of this type of use is File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg. This file has, in the past, been used on many articles. It is a very iconic image that is emblematic of World War II, the Battle of Iwo Jima, the United States Marines, Rosenthal (the photographer) himself, even as highly iconic of the Pulitzer Prize (which it won). There are few images on the same iconic level, and none (in my opinion) that exceed it. But, there is an article about the image. So, we use the image only on that article, and elsewhere we make links to that article. A counter example, one answering your request, is another highly iconic image: File:Saigon-hubert-van-es.jpg. This image does not have an article strictly dedicated to just itself, yet it is iconic. It is iconic for representing the Fall of Saigon and the building depicted. The building would now be of any interest without the image, and the image became iconic of the entire fall of Vietnam. It could be used in a variety of articles, but is limited to those two. So, that demonstrates a case where an image might be used in more than one place, yet still not fall afoul of #3. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• There's also cases of some types of paintings and other art (like Picasso's) where the painting might have a page itself, it might be considered the strongest example of a certain school of art, and might be considered the painter's most significant work, so multiple uses on three articles can be justified.

The key here, common to both mine and Hammersoft's examples, is that there is a unique rational to each use, clearly satisfying NFCC#8. Logos, on the other hand, only meet NFCC#8 (for the most part, there are common exceptions) through virtue of identification, marketing, and branding, and repeated logo use typically makes the same claim on logo and branding across many articles, weakening the claim of meeting NFCC#8 on each subsequent use. Hence why we strongly encourage avoiding logo reuse. --MASEM (t) 16:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Very well, I agree with the two of you. Naturally, this renders thousands upon thousands of present NFC uses of logos invalid. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 16:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Finnusertop, Masem, and Hammersoft: Thanks for your answers and clarification provided regarding NFCC#10c and No. 17 of NFC#UUI. I hope that sufficiently answers the OP's question. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. I understand now. Cashewnøtt (talk) 08:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Metro Transit logo.svg

IIHO, this should be licensed as {{PD-textlogo}}. Any other opinions? Useddenim (talk) 15:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, its clearly uncopyrightable in the US, and can even be moved to commons. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Ditto. Not original enough. The underlying SVG may be copyrightable as software independently from the image design, though - is that an issue? (If so we'd have to recreate the SVG as an user-made version that imitates the appearance of the official one).Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

There's no strong case law (though there has been considerations) about SVG (which is XML at its base), as the case law around computer code isn't tight yet. Since most people generate the SVG by manipulating objects in a graphics program, and the program spits out the SVG mechanically, that process itself is not copyrightable. It can't hurt to recreate the logo as a user-made image that is truly under a free license, but its doubtful that this version off the website would be an issue presently. --MASEM (t) 15:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Metro Transit's Logos & Images page doesn't have an .svg version, so the source shouldn't be an issue, as long as Train2104 doesn't have any objections. Useddenim (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

university logo

Hi there, I want to upload our school's logo but everytime I use it they keep on deleting it. Why? What should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idiots1234 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that you uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons, where all content must be licensed to allow reuse by anyone anywhere for anything. Since you are not the copyright owner, you cannot grant such a license. What you need to do is upload the logo to English Wikipedia with a non-free tag {{Non-free logo}} and a non-free use rationale {{Non-free use rationale logo}}. See File:Princeton shield.svg for how someone did it for the Princeton University logo. —teb728 t c 06:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

What is my copyright?

I am trying to upload a photo onto a Wikipedia page. The photo is of the subject of the page. It was taken by a person commissioned by the subject at a show that the subject runs. He pays the photographer to take photos for him to use for promotions and such. The subject has given me this photo to use for his Wikipedia page with his permission. I don't know what to call this in terms of copyright, and am a little at a loss as to how to put it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KyndasCat (talk • contribs) 23:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@KyndasCat: It’s rather complicated, depending on the terms of the contract between DeWolf and the photographer. Ordinarily a photographer retains the copyright but licenses the client to use the photograph. But in the case of work for hire the photographer transfers the copyright to the client. What you need to do is have the copyright owner (either the photographer or DeWolf if it was work for hire) license the photograph as described at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Note that permission for use only on Wikipedia is not acceptable; the license must allow reuse by anyone for anything. —teb728 t c 04:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

If you are in direct contact with the subject, KyndasCat, then the easiest solution may be to take a portrait photo yourself. In that case, you would be the indisputable copyright holder and could upload the image to Wikimedia Commons and add it to the article in a matter of minutes, with the least possible rigaramole. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Photographer okay with Wikipedia using his image, but nobody else

Hello everyone, I've been contacting some photographers about using photos that they've taken in an article I'm building, and in the emails I sent them I used the sample consent letter that Wikipedia provides for copyright owners to send to them. One of the photographers just got back to me and said that while he was willing to let us use the photo he took, he has a problem with the part of the consent letter that says "I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites."

Basically, he'd like to know if there is any way to grant Wikipedia permission, but while still requiring that anyone else get permission before using or altering his photo. I know next to nothing about copyright or licensing, so I don't know what to tell him. Is there any way it could work?

Thanks, Hrboe (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The photographer can grant such permission, but it is useless for us, and we will not use such an image. The idea is that content from Wikipedia is reusable. Also so it can be modified for other uses. Another idea is for the photographer to release a smaller image, perhaps 300x400 pixels under a free license that permits anyone to use of modify it. Then they can retain rights to the print quality image, but one good enough for web use is made available. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Science Journal Photos

When using pictures from scientific papers published in a journal, what is the procedure to get the pictures approved on Wikipedia? Chris.sumner12 (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)chris.sumner12

First you can check if the journal is published with an open license such as CC-BY-SA-3.0, or CC-BY. If so you can use the image and give the correct credit and license.

Second if the journal is old, eg 1932 or before, the images are probably public domain. But I also notice that they are low quality. But they can be used.

Third, most journals are not either of the above, so you cannot copy the image. Journals are very unlikely to grant a free license. If it is clear that the author of the journal holds the copyright, then you can ask the author to release rights for a CC-BY-SA license. I have succeeded in asking an author to supply another photo that has not been published, and supply the right kind of license. Otherwise I recommend that you draw new diagrams yourself. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to upgrade the logo on our school website

File:Woodstock School logo.png Wooodstockwiki (talk) 09:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

References

• Are you yourself the creator or copyright holder of this artwork? If not it can probably be used under fair use and uploaded to English Wikipedia. if you are the copyright holder then we will need more evidence that you are. I have updated the Woodstock School article for you. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Carl Linneus

Should I find the copyright owner of the image of Carl Linneus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Linnaeus)? if I want to use this image in a book? Or it is enough to publish the link to the page next to the image? Juli506 (talk) 11:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)juli506

The image is in the public domain as it is over 200 years old. You can see who painted it on the file description page: File:Carl von Linné.jpg. This means you can use the image freely without credit or links. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Liquidated company logo still copyrighted

If a company is liquidated by a court, is it's logo still protected by copyright? I'm asking specifically about this logo which belongs to a football club that was wound-up by the Northern Irish High Court but is still listed on Wikipedia as being copyright protected. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is still copyright protected and illegal to reproduce. Perhaps intellectual property of the club was transferred to another entity, which could grant licenses for use. Or perhaps no one can give permission, but also no one may sue for infringement either. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Previously unpublished Photo

I uploaded a photo that had previously never been published before. It was part of the media materials from the 2015 Portland Film Festival, but it's never been used. How do I verify that the creator of the work has agreed for it to be used on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thechaosfactory (talk • contribs) 16:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

This means that its first publication is here. Any way an email from the 2015 Portland Film Festival to WP:OTRS team can prove the license granted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Logos

Hi,

Im new to editing wikipedia article and I had a question about the logo for the school I go to. It was recently updated on wikipedia The file is File:Woodstock_School_logo.png and it has been uploaded to wikipedia commons while the old logo was uploaded under a fair usage policy File:Woodstock_logo.png . My question is has the new logo been uploaded incorrectly, if yes how can it be fixed, if no then can you explain to me how a Creative Commons License is the same as a fair usage policy on an Image.

Thank you, Tanujbagaria (talk) 10:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tanujbagaria. In most cases, school logos like the one which was uploaded to Commons are copyrighted and the copyright holder is typically the school itself. I think the person who uploaded the logo and claimed it as their "own work" did so in error since it is very likely that they did not create the logo or are the copyright holder. Simply downloading an image from the Internet may be "free" (i.e., not cost any money), but it doesn't mean there has been a transfer of copyright.

Since Commons does not accept non-free content, which the logo likely is, I have tagged it for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. The logo is used on the school's official website which clearly states at the very bottom that the school is the copyright holder. So, it will never be acceptable for Comomns unless the school/copyright holder agrees to freely license it. It may, however, be acceptable to upload as non-free content to Wikipedia, but each usage of it has to satisfy all 10 non-free content criteria. It should be OK to use in the infobox of Woodstock School, like it currently is, but probably is not going to be acceptable for use in any other articles. If you decide to upload the image to Wikipedia as non-free, please make sure to provide a proper non-free use rationale; Otherwise the file is likely to be speddily deleted for one of the reasons listed in WP:CSD#Files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Tanujbagaria: I wonder if Woodstockwiki may be a represenative of the school, given that they asked here about updating the logo on "their" school. Maybe they could ask the school to license the logo in question.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Wooodstockwiki.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Copyrighted Photographs

Hi there. I've recently had multiple pictures deleted due to what was called "obvious blatant copyright infringement", despite the fact I followed all guidelines I possibly could for files which have uncertain copyright licensing, including a Source website and a photographer for each one. I would like to know how to keep this from happening again, as many websites have no sourcing information and/or have vague copyrighting (ex. All Rights Reserved, or © 2008-2015). Now, I know you would normally suggest simply finding a photo with a more clearly defined copyright license. However, this is a case in which the topics represented by said photographs are sparse on the internet and there are few if any photographs of the actual place, person, etc. whose licensing is clearly or even vaguely defined. Please help me sort this out, if there is a way at all. I am aware that if I do this again that I may lose my posting privileges, so I am being VERY cautious with this situation. Thank you so much, for your understanding.
Ben Fishman - Dunedin High School, Florida 17:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)