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)

Railway tickets

Edmondson railway tickets are not eligible for copyright, are they? Just checking that it would be OK to add these Palestine Railway tickets to Commons. Mjroots (talk) 07:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks to me like there might be enough original work in the composition that they might be eligible for copyright; but I don't see a copyright notice. Do we have any idea of the dates? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

That's an interesting question... Is the potential issue that, as printed matter arranged in a certain way, they might be subject to copyright, and that a simple image of them, which contains nothing else, is thus a violation of that copyright? While, by contrast, a photograph of a car is not, because that's a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional design? In any case, would any ticket-related copyright which might have applied to an image of these tickets not have expired, leaving only the question of the copyright on the photo itself? Man, these things really tie my head in knots. Bill Woodcock (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Orangemike: the tickets in question are from 1942/43. Dates are imprinted at left edge but hard to read Mjroots (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Under the copyright rules in place at the time, I believe there would have to be a copyright notice on the tickets for them to be copyrighted. I understand that it is Wikimedia Foundation's position that simple photos/scans of two-dimensional items in the public domain are not separately copyrightable, and constitute fair use. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Using organizational images on Wikipedia

I work for an organization that has image files (mostly of individuals) that could potentially be used for biography pages (e.g. Virginia L. Miller). Since I don't personally own the images, am I allowed to upload them? What sort of copyright notice/permission would be needed? Thanks Geoffhunt3 (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind I just read through the previous comment and got my answer! Geoffhunt3 (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Geoffhunt3. Perhaps you've already reached this conclusion yourself, but if your organization holds the copyright on these images (i.e. they are not images provided to the organization by third-parties) and wants to give its WP:CONSENT (or c:COM:CONSENT) for these images to be uploaded and used, then that would be most appreciated because high quality images are always welcomed. Please note that your organization doesn't need to transfer its copyrights over these images to anyone (i.e. enter into a copyright transfer agreement) per se; it can simply release versions of the images under one of the free licenses the WIkimedia Foundation accepts to make them easier for others (not just Wikipedia) to use with some very limited restrictions placed on such reuses. There are a couple of ways for this to be done as explained here and here. If they do any of those things, then you (or anyone else really) would be able to upload the files to Wikimedia Commons and they could be used by any Wikimedia project (or by any third-party for that matter) without worrying about violating your organization's copyright over the images. If your organization does do this, however, it can't really change its mind later on or try to impose other types of restrictions via the Wikimedia Foundation, but it can at least require others to attribute the organization whenever they reuse the image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for the additional info Marchjuly! Geoffhunt3 (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Is this copyright disclaimer sufficient?

I filed an official information request for images from the New Zealand Police at https://fyi.org.nz/request/17508-photos-of-related-to-protest-march-9-november-2021 with the intent to use them on wikipedia. I specifically referenced the NZ policy recommending that government agencies use CC when releasing content. The police replied, denying any copyright on the images:

To the best of Police’s knowledge, under New Zealand law there is no copyright or other intellectual property rights in these images in New Zealand; and they may be copied and otherwise re-used in New Zealand without copyright or other intellectual property right related restriction. Police will not be liable to you, on any legal basis (including negligence), for any loss or damage you suffer through your use of this material, except in those cases where the law does not allow us to exclude or limit our liability to you. [Text is from FINAL RELEASE LETTER.pdf linked to above.]

Is that sufficient for their use on wikipedia? What license should I tag them with? Stuartyeates (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Stuartyeates, that sounds fishy. There will be copyright by default and it’s up to the copyright holder (presumably the Police as opposed to individual photographers) to release those photos with some suitable license. Victoria is our copyright expert. She’d know. Schwede66 08:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Stuartyeates, The assertion by the New Zealand Police that, under New Zealand law there is no copyright or other intellectual property rights in these images in New Zealand is incorrect. If they were taken by a person, under New Zealand law the images will automatically be in copyright. Even if they were taken by a machine e.g. by a camera detecting movement, copyright would exist. Below is my thinking so far and a few questions:

• Copyright ownership Who took the images? - i.e. were they an employee of New Zealand Police acting in the course of their duties? If so, then copyright will belong to New Zealand Police. I note that your official information request asked for copies of images "held" by the Police. Did the Police perhaps collect these images from anyone else other than the New Zealand Police employees? Did they collect them from news media or others taking photographs at the same time? They could have supplied you content under the Official Information Act request that they had collected and held but was not created by New Zealand Police employees. Can you check the metadata to determine this? If the images were not taken by New Zealand Police employees then copyright licencing becomes significantly more difficult to achieve.
• Copyright duration If the images were taken by employees of New Zealand Police then do they qualify for Crown Copyright status? Under the New Zealand Copyright Act 1994, the Crown is defined as meaning Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand and includes a Minister of the Crown, a government department, an Office of Parliament, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office; but does not include a Crown entity; or a State enterprise named in Schedule 1 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986. The New Zealand Police is a government agency with the Commissioner appointed by the Governor General. The Commissioner is accountable to the Minister of Police for the administration of Police services. So yes this is a government department and works created by employees of the New Zealand Police qualify for Crown copyright.

If the images were taken by employees of the New Zealand Police acting in the course of their duties then Section 26 of the New Zealand Copyright Act applies i.e. Where a work is made by a person employed or engaged by the Crown under a contract of service, a contract of apprenticeship, or a contract for services the work qualifies for copyright notwithstanding section 17(1); and the Crown is the first owner of any copyright in the work. Currently the duration for works qualifying for Crown Copyright is the end of the period of 100 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work is made.

• Copyright licensing So if the images were taken by employees of New Zealand Police in the course of their duties, the assertion the New Zealand Police made in the letter replying to your OIA that no copyright or other intellectual property rights is incorrect. Is the disclaimer a licence? I think not.
• An option for you to consider A mistake is a mistake. In my opinion the mistake the author of the letter has made is not a copyright licence issued by the agency. So, even though you've referred to the New Zealand Government Open Access Licensing Framework in your OIA request and encouraged the New Zealand Police to assign an open copyright licence to these images as part of the OIA process, the New Zealand Police has yet to do so. If I were in your shoes I would follow up with a letter to the Commissioner of Police requesting the New Zealand Police assign a Creative Commons CC BY licence to these images.

Final note: none of this is legal advice, I'm not a lawyer. This is just how I'd approach it if I were in your shoes. Einebillion (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The person who wrote the letter obviously does not understand the basics of copyright law, which is why we cannot accept their statement as it stands. If requesting more details you would also need them to distinguish between those photos acquired from freelancers or other sources that are not covered by their own copyright as opposed to works by their own staff or work-for-hire. ww2censor (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

References

What licence to use on out of copyright images

I have some out of copyright newspaper images, from 1907 for example, I want to use, but what licence should I select when I load them into Wikipedia? I have been given permission to copy the images from a digital source, by the custodian of that source:

The two newspapers articles with photographs you list are out of copyright and the Library, as custodian, has no objection to you using them in the manner you describe [upload to Wikipedia].  When published we ask that you acknowledge the source of the images as detailed on ... Please regard this message as acknowledgement of your intention to publish.

Aoziwe (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

What country is the newspaper from? If the USA, {{PD-US-expired}}; Australia {{PD-Australia}}. Give attribution to the institution in the description page, something like "courtesy of...(name of institution)" - the acknowledgment is reasonable and courteous, but is not a legal copyright restriction. You can add text something like "If reusing, please credit (name of institution)". Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Infrogmation. Sorry, I think I had worked all that out, but which CC licence do I use? (The newspaper is from Australia so I will use both of those templates.) I need a CC licence as part of the upload. Aoziwe (talk) 11:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

You don't need a cc licence if the material is already in the public domain. Cc licences are for permission for others to reuse material that is still copyrighted. Nthep (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

So I will leave the licence in the upload form as "None selected". Thanks. Aoziwe (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Make sure you have added the US licence and country of origin licence in the information template. Nthep (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Civil War era images

I found an image in a 1959 article published in Oregon Historical Quarterly. The image is of a Civil War officer who served between 1864 and 1866. No information about the image was provided except the name of the officer. He is shown in uniform so the photo was obviously taken between 1864 and 1866. Since virtually everyone who lived through the Civil War has been dead for more than 70 years, is that image now Public Domain? Is there a general rule about how old an image has to be before it automatically passes into Public Domain even when the photographer is unknown?--Orygun (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Orygun US copyright law is based more on date of first publication, although age since death of the author (not the subject) does have some applications. It sounds like you need to check the copyright status of the Oregon Historical Quarterly assuming this was first publication of the photo. There are several possibilities which you can follow by reading c:Commons:Hirtle chart. Nthep (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Orygun A quick search suggests that it doesn't look like copyright was ever renewed on pre-1964 issues of the OHQ [1] in which case the image will now be in the public domain, but you might want to check with the Oregon Historical Society. Nthep (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Doesn’t U.S. copyright law have provision that says if the photographer is unknown copyright lasted 120 years from creation of the photo … so wouldn’t this photo taken ~1865 have passed that mark long ago and now be in Public Domain?--Orygun (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  Only if unpublished which isn't the case here. Nthep (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Ok, thanks! One last question … what if the photo passed the 120-year threshold before it was published. Wouldn’t that make it Public Domain before it was published, so publication shouldn’t be able to turn Public Domain photo into a new copyrighted image … right? In example above, it would be if publication occurred after 1885.--Orygun (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  Correct. I assume you meant to type 1985 not 1885? Nthep (talk) 10:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, 1985. Thanks for following up on my questions!--Orygun (talk) 05:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Copyright status of book published by NASA and its cover art

I've been trying to determine the copyright status of Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication and its cover art, which I've erred on the side of caution by currently uploading as a fair-use image. At a pre-FAC peer review, Sdkb commented the image might be PD as a government work, which is also something I'd been wondering, but neither of us are certain and it seems plausibly made by a contractor or otherwise under copyright. Any help is appreciated. Vaticidalprophet 08:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Baldwin Locomotive Works Edits

I need help on knowing if all of the Baldwin Locomotive Works Drawings From The Locomotive Cyclopedias are public domain or not because I have vectorized most of the drawings and would like to supply them to the world — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjohns19 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Wjohns19: What image are you referring to? I presume you are asking about Baldwin Locomotive Works's drawing. For what reason would they be in the public domain, age, author died long enough ago, no copyright notice or renewal, or US Government works? More info please. ww2censor (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I am talking about the images from the Locomotive Cyclopedias published by Simmons-Boardman Publishing, I know that the 1922 edition is public domain, but was wondering about the 1938 edition.

Also there is the question about the reprints of the Locomotive Cyclopedias reprinted in the Train Shed Cyclopedia Volumes from the 1970s to the 1980s. I did some research and Greyhound Bus Lines ultimate owns what little was left of Baldwin Locomotive Works and put most of the stuff in public domain but not all, that's why I need some copyright help.

Basically I have been vectorizing as many Baldwin Locomotive erecting/technical/elevation drawings from the 1938 Locomotive Cyclopedia in adobe illustrator and cleaning them up, and those vectorized files become a type of file that doesn't lose resolution, i.e. you could make it 1 mile tall by 2 miles long and it wouldn't lose resolution/image quality if you hypothetically wanted to. These files can be used for people to put the images on t-shirts, hats, coffee mugs, reprints, laser engravings, Et-cetera so people can use them and make personal artwork with the drawings. I also wish to upload them to Wikipedia as a resource for people looking for the drawings for free on the internet so that they don't have to do the heavy and difficult research I had to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjohns19 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

File:The Woman I've Become.jpg

It says You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

I got the image from Amazon not sure what tag to use.

Princessfourever (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no reason to believe an image on the Amazon.com website is in any way licensed or public domain, so this would probably be a copyright violation. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Ancient Aliens logo.svg

Uploaded an SVG for television series, File:Ancient Aliens logo.svg. I chose 'non-free logo'. Was this the correct option? Thosbsamsgom (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

It's a US logo so I would say it falls under pd-textlogo. Two typefaces and a diving line isn't copyrightable. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

What changes do I make to the upload? Thosbsamsgom (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Women's uprising protest in front of Potala March 1959.jpg

File:Women's uprising protest in front of Potala March 1959.jpg, I wanted to add this image to the article Dalai Lama's escape from China, but it was taken away as it does not meet the criteria to be used there. I actually wanted to upload and use a second one where the Dalai Lama is seen himself while during the escape, but now I am doubting on what the correct way to upload and use an image is. Could someone help in adding an image?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Photograph of AP-BBF on Wikimedia Commons

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AP-BBF - PIA F27.jpg

This image is cited as Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International but there's no justification for this. The image source does not say anything about licensing and the home page (aparm.net which is also quoted on the image) specifically states that nothing from the site is to be used without permission.

The Wikimedia description of the photograph says the author is Abbas Ali.On the image itself are the words Abbas Ali Collection. Abbas Ali was a 19th century photographer so it seems unlikely that Abbas Ali was the author of this photograph taken in 1984.

The image is included on two Wikipedia pages (en and ru) which is how I noticed it in the first place. I don't see any evidence that this photograph is free to use and there's no justification on the Wikimedia page.

Am I missing something simple? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AkaSylvia (talk • contribs) 16:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

This is really a discussion for commons, where the photo is hosted, as only they can decide whether to keep or remove the file. While I can see nothing on aparm.net indicating that the photo has a free licence, the website does claim to be run by Abbas Ali - it is quite possible that the creator of this website has the same name as the 19th century photographer - they don't have to be the same person.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Fits NFC?

• File:Hits FM Music Awards 2068.jpg
• File:Home 2005tour ad.jpg

Definitely not suitable for commons but am unsure if it fits NFC criteria. Can someone please check and relicense them accordingly? --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

can we use images from wikipedia

I was wondering if we can use the images from wikipedia on our own sites? I have reference at the bottom of my site that most pictures are from wikipedia. thank you— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.156.195 (talk) 05:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

It varies, see Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content#Images_and_other_media. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Many files used on Wikipedia are actually files that were uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. So, you might also want to look at c:Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia for additional information. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

File:The Double Life of Mr. Alfred Burton (novel).jpg

It seems like File:The Double Life of Mr. Alfred Burton (novel).jpg might not need to be licensed as {{non-free book cover}} since The Double Life of Mr. Alfred Burton (novel) states the book was first published in 1913. The source given for the image is this and a enlarged version of the image can be seen here. It looks like the file uploaded to Wikipedia was cropped to remove the side binding, but I don't think that would be sufficient to establish a new copyright per se for the crop per c:COM:2D copying. If, however, the cropping is considered creative, the file would still fail WP:NFCC#1 because an uncropped image could be unploaded and used instead. The only things that might be an issue are c:COM:United Kingdom because the book seems to have been published first in the UK and the description given for the file that states it's the cover of first U.S. edition. The book's author E. Phillips Oppenheim died in 1946 which means that the 70 p.m.a. requirement for ordinary copyright on a work with a known author would be met (I think) under UK copyright law. The book appears to have been reprinted a number of times over the years, but this particular cover would most likely be {{PD-US-expired}} if it was first published in the US prior to 1927. I found this online which seems to suggest that the entire book is PD in the US. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 and cropping

I've updated the article about Chinese diplomat Zhang Ming, and I'd like to add a photo of him. I've found one on Flickr, licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0. My questions are:

1. Can I upload this photo to Wikipedia? It seems the answer is yes, but I want this confirmed by experienced editors.
2. Can I crop this photo and upload the cropped photo to Wikipedia? This question is trickier. The CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 license says: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. This suggests that changes such as cropping are allowed if they are indicated in the metadata. But the license also says: NoDerivatives — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material. Obviously, simple cropping is not "remixing" or "building upon the material", but I'm not sure about "transforming". This page claims CC ND does not allow cropping, but I thought providing excerpts from CC ND works is allowed, and isn't cropping an image the same thing as providing an excerpt from a text? — UnladenSwallow (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@UnladenSwallow No, you cannot upload the photo to Wikipedia or Commons. Commons only accepts files that allow commercial use, which NC-ND specifically prohibits. As the subject of the article is a living person, it means that uploading the image locally under fair-use won't apply either. In the case that it was allowed, the ND part of the license would mean you could not upload a cropped version. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Berrely: Thank you for your detailed answer! I understand that I can't use the photo because of the NC restriction and because Zhang Ming is alive, but I still wonder about cropping. Suppose the photo was BY-ND. Creative Commons FAQ says:

The NoDerivs licenses (BY-ND and BY-NC-ND) prohibit reusers from creating adaptations. What constitutes an adaptation, otherwise known as a derivative work, varies slightly based on the law of the relevant jurisdiction.

Incorporating an unaltered excerpt from an ND-licensed work into a larger work only creates an adaptation if the larger work can be said to be built upon and derived from the work from which the excerpt was taken. Generally, no derivative work is made of the original from which the excerpt was taken when the excerpt is used to illuminate an idea or provide an example in another larger work. Instead, only the reproduction right of the original copyright holder is being exercised by person reusing the excerpt. All CC licenses grant the right to reproduce a CC-licensed work for noncommercial purposes (at a minimum). For example, a person could make copies of one chapter of an ND-licensed book and not be in violation of the license so long as other conditions of the license are met.

There are exceptions to that general rule, however, when the excerpts are combined with other material in a way that creates some new version of the original from which the excerpt is taken. For example, if a portion of a song was used as part of a new song, that may rise to the level of creating an adaptation of the original song, even though only a portion of it was used and even if that portion was used as-is.

It seems to me that a fragment of an ND-licensed image is "an unaltered excerpt from an ND-licensed work" and thus (assuming there was no NC restriction) could be incorporated into an article as long as the article could not "be said to be built upon and derived from" the original image (it isn't). In a different section, the FAQ says:

Generally, a modification rises to the level of an adaptation under copyright law when the modified work is based on the prior work but manifests sufficient new creativity to be copyrightable, such as a translation of a novel from one language to another, or the creation of a screenplay based on a novel.

An act of cropping does not seem to me to be manifesting sufficient new creativity, although it may certainly change the meaning of an image. Yet another section of the FAQ says:

You must also indicate if you have modified the work—for example, if you have taken an excerpt, or cropped a photo. (For versions prior to 4.0, this is only required if you have created an adaptation by contributing your own creative material, but it is recommended even when not required.)

I'm reading this as excerpt-taking and photo-cropping being examples of modification but not adaptation. Is there a page on Wikipedia that explicitly states that cropping is considered an adaptation and thus CC BY-ND works can't be cropped? — UnladenSwallow (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@UnladenSwallow I can tell you that almost any modification/adaption, especially cropping counts as a derivative work. In the terms of BY-NC-ND it says that "abridgment [and] condensation" count as derivative works. Whilst slightly technicised, condensation is the reduction or shortening of a work, which cropping falls under. I am not aware of any specific page that discusses this, c:Commons:Derivative works may be of use. (I too hate copyright) — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 18:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Berrely: Turns out, all ND images (even uncropped) are forbidden on Wikimedia Commons: c:Commons:Licensing § Forbidden licenses. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Prince logo.svg

It is believed that File:Prince logo.svg is copyrighted. However, it is very simple and therefore I believe that it is way below the threshold of originality. The file is in the public domain because it is too simple.--Alex Mitchell of The Goodies (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)