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)

uploading IRS Form 990 and other documents legislatively mandated for wide public scrutiny

An image caption

Can I upload IRS Form 990 tax filings and other documents legislatively mandated for wide public scrutiny when they are used as sources to accepted edits? IRS Form 990 filings are collected by numerous websites, but some links moved to behind a paywall, while other websites provide urls to the same documents but that appear to map to an underlying physical storage which does not seem long-lasting.

Once uploaded, how would I link to it? Thanks.Formulairis990 (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

From a copyright standpoint, the original forms are fine, because they're works of the United States government. I don't know about forms that have been filled out. Tax forms, especially filled-out forms, might be subject to non-copyright issues, especially because of the personal finances that would be revealed by a filled-out form. On "how would I link". Enclose the file in double brackets to display the file, or if you want to link the filename, put a colon before the filename. For example, [[File:Name.jpg]] causes Name.jpg to appear near the top of this section, while [[:File:Name.jpg]] produces File:Name.jpg. You can make tweaks: |thumb causes the image to appear as a thumbnail, |250px causes the image to display at a width of 250 pixels (change the number to change the size), |left or |right cause the image to align with the left or right side of the page, and if you have it appearing as a thumbnail, the text after the last | character will become the caption. The lower image in this section has the code [[File:Name.jpg|thumb|right|250px|An [[image]] caption]]. Nyttend (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Engraving from 1819

I came across an interesting engraving from 1819 here. The website claims copyright, however it's from 1819, and so I would have thought the copyright had expired by now. Asked at the help desk, and got directed here. Please advise whether you believe this image to be copyrighted or out of copyright. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

It would be public domain due to age. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed and also I don't think that Look and Learn are claiming copyright over the image - see [1]. Nthep (talk) 11:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

And if it's public domain, it should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons rather than here, right? Joseph2302 (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Correct, All freely licensed images should be uploaded to the commons so they available for all wikis to use, otherwise someone has to move them later. ww2censor (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

That page says that they claim a copyright on the images. Not on the out-of-copyright original works, but on their reproductions. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Under UK law you cannot claim copyright on a simple copy so all they can claim copyright on for images that are already copyright expired is the catalogue data. Nthep (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks all- I've uploaded it now. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

they may be able to claim copyright on the watermark.©Geni (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

File:IE_11_Wikipedia.png

For File:IE_11_Wikipedia.png, the license indicates the following:

you may not use screenshots of Microsoft product boot-up screens, opening screens, "splash screens,"

Is it not the case that this is a "splash screen"? It's very specifically the 'About Internet Explorer' popup, which I understand to be exactly a 'splash screen'. Note that I may well not understand the definition. --Yamla (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC) I left a message for the image uploader at User_talk:Codename_Lisa. --Yamla (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

We do not need permissions for fair use of non-free content. If anything doesn't fall within the scope of Template:Non-free Microsoft screenshot that gives some "extra", though ultimately unnecessary, assurances that our use is fair is in line with our non-free content policy, we can still claim fair use. Template:Non-free software screenshot can be used in such cases. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC) (Modified by – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC))

Hi.

Thanks for your totally misleading answer. Content under the scope of {{Non-free Microsoft screenshot}} are authorized use, not fair use. And I do not mislabel images that I upload.

Now, to the question: No. The "About..." dialog box is not a splash screen. Splash screen is well defined in computing. Internet Explorer 11 does not have a splash screen.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I have reworded my message accordingly, Codename Lisa. The bottom line is that the template gives us "permission" for something we don't need a permission for. It's a non-free license in the free encyclopedia that does not allow non-free licenses.

Fair use is a right. It lets us use content without permission. It's beyond me why we have chosen to waive that right and operate under exogenous restrictions instead. We don't need to do so and gain nothing by doing so. It stupid not to put a right into practice out of fear that a big company will sue us for exercising a right. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Fair use is not a right. It is a privilege. One that can be denied, at the discretion of a judge. Do you notice that the image is deleted even though it was in use on an article? Privilege denial by admin is like that. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Fair use is a right because it's protected by the First Amendment. Insofar as free speech is a right and not a privilege, so is fair use. Or, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg put it, fair use is "a traditional First Amendment safeguard". In other words, fair use exists so as to make the copyright law non-infringing on the freedom of speech.

I support and enforce a non-free content policy on Wikipedia that allows only minimal use of non-free content. It's partly because I support a clear distinction between free and non-free content. That distinction is something that this Microsoft license tries to obscure, but fair use would clarify. With fair use, "permissions" never become restrictions like here. The only restrictions are found in the law and with us (our non-free content policy). Our non-free content policy, by the way, does not allow non-free content that is not fair use: "Non-free content can be used on Wikipedia in certain cases [...], but only within the United States legal doctrine of fair use".– Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC) (modified by – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC))

I do not find the sentence you have quoted.

Moreover, I don't concern myself with purely abstract stuff like drawing distinctions. I find Microsoft license useful without caveats. That's all.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 12:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion I was involved in but I can't immediately find now, but in the US, fair use, while a defense to use copyrighted material without a license, is also considered a right when the fair use claim is obvious (in that the justice system will throw the book at copyright claims when the fair use allowance is obvious, eg using a cover of a DVD as part of a review of that DVD.) From en.wiki's side, while the Microsoft license is restrictive, we ignore if the use of the image meets NFCC, as meeting NFCC is generally considered about as getting close to "obvious" fair use allowance as one can get. Trivial uses of such images, however, clearly must be prevented. A windows splash screen on an article on Microsoft, for example, is right out. --MASEM (t) 13:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Masem: Good points as always. Still, I don't upload images that can be speedily deleted as "unambiguous copyright violation"; that much I am certain of my own understanding of rules of work here. (Nevertheless, I haven't had this image in my watchlist for a while.) Can you use your special abilities and see if the file was deleted justly? i.e. something that can definitely not be fixed with normal editing?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: I've taken a look at the image, and there's nothing really out of the ordinary. It certainly doesn't look like an obvious copyvio to me - usually, WP:CSD#F9 deletions are used for images that the uploader tries to pass off as their own work. Is there a reason you didn't ask the deleting admin? —Cryptic 09:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cryptic: Sorry, I always underestimate the rigidness of this rule: Always ask the deleting admin first! And to be honest, asking here seemed like a safe and low-expense action. You see, I was almost certain that the fault is mine and that it was about not observing a yet-to-know law. Then, Masem commented and I thought "Well, here is a well-mannered admin; you can be certain he won't bite." So, I asked. I don't even want this file restored anyway; I uploaded a totally new one. Now, I am not certain. Must I ping the deleting admin and let him know we are talking about his action?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 09:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not a rule, it's just that he's in the best position to know why he did it. —Cryptic 09:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

True. But you know it now that you've investigated. Before this, it was just speedy deletion; how hard knowing it could be? —Codename Lisa (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

You'd have to ask the deleting admin to confirm, as looking at the file history with what I can see, there is no reason F9 should have been used to delete the image. It was tagged all appropriate for non-free as a MS screenshot license. There was no "obvious" reason to delete it per F9 that I can see, unless there was broader discussion of the group of such images. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I've restored the file, as upon further examination it does not seem as cut-and-dried as the others I'd deleted that day. I still feel that this kind of photo adds nothing of substance to the articles, but the fair use claim is not entirely meretricious. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Quite so. According to the deletion log, you deleted File:IExpress on Windows 10.png, File:MSConfig on Windows 10.png, File:System Restore on Windows 10.png, File:Windows Error Reporting on Windows 10.png, and File:Device Manager Windows 10.png that day. They were nominated for deletion and I supported their deletion, and indeed, blatant copyright violations. In the words of Cryptic, "images that the uploader tries to pass off as their own work". There are even more files similar to these: File:Event Viewer Windows 10.png, File:File:Resource Monitor Windows 10.png, and File:Windows 10 Management Console.png.

But File:IE 11 Wikipedia.png is different from all of these, in that it was neither tagged nor nominated for deletion; it has a non-free license tag and two use rationales. So, yes, I am indeed curious to know: What decision-making path did you follow that day that took you to the image, made you decide it is irreparably violating copyright and must be deleted?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

May I use a Wikipedia photo in my doctoral thesis?

Dear Sir/Madam,

There is a great photo on your website created by the following Wikipedia user: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pudelek

Since I'd like to include one of his pictures into my doctoral thesis (published by my home university in Finland), I believe I need to get his permission first to be able to do so. Please correct me if I'm wrong. If not, would you be please kind and help me get in touch with him?

Many thanks in advance for your time and advice.

Cordially, Jelena

Hello, Jelena

You must study the image description page. It will tell you whether you can or cannot. If you give us a link to that image, we can give you a definite answer.

But the link you have provided above is not a Wikipedia link. It is the link to a sister project, Commons. That website only hosts free images that you can use freely. You are only required to give due credit to the author of the image. That's all.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

If you have specific additional questions about the image, that aren't covered on the image description page, you could also try asking the uploader directly at Commons:User talk:Pudelek. They have been active recently on Commons, so will possibly see your message. In general files on Commons are free to re-use, but you should read up on the image's description page and its license information as suggested above. GermanJoe (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Lisa and GermanJoe, Thank you so much for your prompt answers.

Lisa you were so right. I inspected the image details myself and found the following message: "Use my photos, but please mention me as the author and send me a message to Wikimedia Commons or to polish Wikipedia page. If you would like special permission to use, license, or purchase the image please also contact with me. Thank you :)"

So yes, it seems I'm free to publish the photo as long as I cite its author's name and let him know about it. That's a great news!

Best, Jelena — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.252.204 (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

photo of a public artwork

I have a photo of a public artwork.I had put it under a fair use license {{Non-free 2D art}}. It was taken off wikipedia. I am the author of the photo, the copyright to the artwork is held by the artist. I have been told I need two licenses. Can anybody help? Thank you in advance.UBU07 (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Your user contributions page do not show that you have any images uploaded and there are no warning messages on your talk page. I suspect you took a photo of a painting, sculpture or other copyright work and you may have tried to release it as a non-free image but tha was not acceptable. A photo of an artistic work is a derivative work and requires permission of the artist and the photographer. CAn you get their permission? if so have them verify that permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. It really depends on the use but in order to help you better we really need to know what image you are talking about. Was it deleted and which admin deleted it? You may also find it useful to read my image copyright information page. ww2censor (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing the question is about this file, uploaded in 2007 by another account who also claimed it as his own photograph. The file was renamed in 2016. And then deleted. The deletion was discussed on the deleting admin's talk page. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but it is my photograph, taken years ago. Hanska99 uploaded it for me, as a favor. Oy Vey. I forgot, I should have asked her to handle this... I still don't know how to fix this. I can contact the artist via his website to ask his permission. Ok. What license do I need for my photo then? Can you help? I don't think that admin wants to help any more. I thank you both-ww2censor and Asclepias- for any assistance you can give me. UBU07 (talk) 02:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Photographic portraits by named studio

I have portraits of the subject of my article, Theodore Pitcairn. Several of them were made by Bachrach studios. They now belong to Pitcairn's daughter, who has given her permission to upload the images. Is it allowable to upload such a photographic portrait? I understand that the copyright of painted portraits is held by the heirs. I don't know about photographs done in a studio such as Bachrach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rae 3328 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The copyright of painted portraits would always be held by the heirs of the painter and not those of the subject depicted. So for photographs, too, we need to know who took the photos in question. In this case we can assume that they were made by an employee of Bachrach Studios, so as a work for hire, the copyright should still be resting with Bachrach. I'm afraid, but owning the physical copies of the images does not make Mr. Pitcairn's daughter the copyright holder. The only chance for using one of these images was if they were photographs of a very young Pitcairn which were published before 1923. De728631 (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

On a second thought, even if the images are still copyrighted by Bachrach Studios, you can upload a single representative photograph of Mr. Pitcairn here at the English Wikipedia (not at Wikimedia Commons) and claim fair use. Non-free photographs of deceased persons can be used to a limited extent in order to improve the biographical article for that person. So you can upload a digital copy of a photo and use the following templates on the image file page: {{Non-free use rationale biog}} (copy and paste the code snippet from here into the image upload editor and fill in the parameters) and {{Non-free biog-pic}}. De728631 (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

May I reuse parts of my college essay in a WP article?

Do I own the copyright of an essay I wrote as part of a college course or does it belong to the college? There are several passages in one of my essays that I believe would improve a WP article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Unless you have some specific agreement with your college assigning copyright to them (which I suppose is possible, but I've never heard of such a thing), you, as the author, would be the copyright holder and could use it as you see fit. Is there some reason you suspect it's otherwise? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade None of the copious documentation I have received from the university, nor a search of its website, has turned up any mention about the copyright of students' work. Copyright is only mentioned in terms of warnings about plagiarism. So, you're probably right, the essay is mine to do whatever I want with it. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

However, using extracts from your essay in an article will require those statements to be verified by third-party reliable published sources otherwise it will be considered as original research. Unverified statements generally get removed from articles unless they are common knowledge. ww2censor (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Images in an article generated from photographs of oil paintings

I have uploaded images which I mechanically manipulated (reduced to a manageable size and format). These photographs are of four oil paintings, works of art that are clearly the copyright of the deceased artist (Arnolds Mazitis)and his estate. They were given to me in a large file of other materials by one of the artist's daughters for publication online and in Wikipedia.

Is the copyright in this case in her name? I didn't think so. She, or her father, hired a photographer to take the images and the creative content is clearly the original artist's. I do have permission from the family. I also know that the photographer has no copyright claim or has renounced it - one was by someone who bought one of the paintings, another was taken by the Art Academy of Latvia and the file was given to me to use, a third was taken at a private exhibition in Latvia on a mobile phone, the fourth was given to me by a research student who wrote her dissertation on the artist and had permission from the family to share her images.

How should I licence these images on Wikipedia? They add substantive content to the whole article and are proof of the nature of the artist's output.

As an expedient - apologies but my aim was to facilitate a quick launch of the page, knowing what I know about the origin of the material - I declared the images 'Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license'. I have clear permission to reproduce them for public use (simply requiring attribution). The family wishes to share these images online within the parameters of the CC licence - should I provide written proof to Wikipedia of this fact?

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David V. Edgeworth (talk • contribs) 19:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I presume you are talking about the four painting images and the portrait in Arnolds Mazitis that were uploaded to the commons. Firstly, except for the portrait, which was taken by a photographer who might be you, the images of the paintings are not your work as claimed in the image pages. They are the work of the artist and in general a slavish copy of a 2D artwork does not attract a new copyright by the person who happened to copy it. The artist died in 2002 so his work is copyright until 2073. So, while the heirs can agree to freely licenced images of his work, they need to specifically give a free licence, not just agree to inclusion on wikipedia. You cannot just select any Creative Commons licence we allow on the basis that you suspect they agree to it but the {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} is acceptable if they agree which means that anyone can use the image for anything including commercial or derivative use. The heirs need to verify their permission by following the procedure found on the commons at OTRS. Who is the photographer of the portrait? It looks like it came from a website because there is no metadata and it is a low resolution image. The copyright holder, who is usually the photographer, needs to also verify their permission unless it was in fact your photo. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

This and other licence and copyright discussions have been helpful. I have just started as a contributor and there is a lot to learn about the process. I am in discussion with the artist's family regarding the origin of all of the images and it is likely that they'll use the process described in OTRS link to contact Wikipedia directly.Their intention is to make the material public domain and add it to the Commons in one way or another, so my uploads so far have been consistent with their wishes, but a little weak on the process side. I'll put that right asap.David V. Edgeworth (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Please credit VINCENT ANTON for FLIPPER'S GONE FISHIN' ALBUM - Vincent Anton — Preceding unsigned comment added by VASPhoto (talk • contribs) 09:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

photograph

The photographic image of Theodore Pitcairn that I have uploaded was taken by a friend and parishioner of Rev. Pitcairn, George A. Salverian, who is now deceased. His wife says the photograph was never copyrighted. It has not been published anywhere. It was loaned for scanning purposes by Pitcairn's daughter, Eshowe Pitcairn Pennink. I have designated it as "public domain." This was the only portrait I felt could be used since the others were professional photographic portraits taken at the Bachrach studio, contract re copyright unknown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rae 3328 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Rae 3328: I understand what you are trying to do and you would think this would be simple but US copyright law is complicated and uploading images is fraught with difficulty. The issues here are:

1. It is less than 70 years since the creator of the image died
2. The image has not been published previously

If it had been previously published then the licence you have used would be valid but that licence only applies to images that have been published so your admission that it hasn't been published makes the licence invalid.

There is one option and that is if the current owner of the image will either grant a licence for its use or place it into the public domain. The current owner will either be the person to whom the photo was bequethed by Dr Salverian or all of his heirs if the estate we split between several people without specific bequests. If they wish to donate the image they can do as long as they all agree. An email from all the heirs following the wording at WP:CONSENT will do this. I know this sounds overly-complicated because it is but we have to abide by the various copyright laws. Nthep (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Mickey Mouse logo

The logo is just simply black and nothing else. It's based on Mickey Mouse, but there is no face or anything like that. Just plain simple. It's been used frequently. You get the idea, right? Is it free to use or non-free? --George Ho (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Which logo? The figure probably is still copyrighted, wasn't one copyright law named "Mickey Mouse Protection Act" because it appeared to be aimed specifically at extending the copyright on it? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
• This one, I assume. I normally wouldn't hesitate to tag something of similar complexity {{PD-logo}}, but I'd fully expect Disney to bankrupt me if I tried it here. I'm amazed there's been neither a deletion discussion nor takedown demands. —Cryptic 20:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • It's technically three black circles. If it were any other company in the US, it would fail the threshold of originality, and I don't Disney is that powerful to nullify that. It still has trademark protection, and because Disney has many many facets, no one is likely able to use that for any type of commercial aspect without running into that trademark, but we on en.wiki don't worry about that as long as we are using it appropriately and without clear misrepresenation (eg slapping that unnecessarily onto an article like child labor where it has absolutely zero reason to belong). --MASEM (t) 20:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

New File Labeling Assistance

Hello —

I received the message below from Sfan00 this morning.

I was given express permission by both the photographer of the image in question and the company to which it belongs (Ballets with a Twist) to add this file to the Wikimedia Commons under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. The only request from the sources was that I attach the language "photo by Nico Malvaldi for Ballets with a Twist" to the file.

If any further action is needed to prevent deletion, please send specific instructions as I am not a certified Wiki Magician :)

Thanks —

MF

Message from Sfan00: Thank you for uploading File:Marilyn Klaus Headshot.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)