Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LowKey08 (talk | contribs) at 15:42, 9 April 2012 (→‎two of my image files were deleted). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Active editnotice

Skip to the bottom
    Media copyright questions
    Shortcuts

    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
    1. On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}})
    5. Hit Publish changes.
    6. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below.
    How to ask a question
    1. To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below.
    2. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end.
    3. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page.
    4. 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

    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)


    Lancaster Monument in East Sheen Cemetery

    I am interested in doing an article on the Lancaster Monument at East Sheen Cemetery in Richmond, Surrey, England. I have looked in Wikimedia, Wikipedia, and Geograph, but haven't found an image at those locations. Looking elsewhere, the best photo that I have found, with regard to both quality and the possibility of reuse is the one that I located on the Victorian Web at The Angel of Death - George William Lancaster Memorial by Sydney March. It is the image at the top of the page. Near the bottom of the page the text indicates: "Photograph and text by Robert Freidus. You may use this image without prior permission for any scholarly or educational purpose as long as you (1) credit the photographer and (2) link your document to this URL in a web document or cite it in a print one." (1) Is it possible for me to use this image in a Wikipedia article, and (2) what license would I use? Please answer on my talk page, if possible. Thank you. Anne (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The licence is limited to educational and scholarly purposes, so it is not enough. If you live close to the monument, you could visit the monument with a camera and take an own photo of it. If not, you could try to find someone else who could take a photo for you. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The more suitable infobox image of One for the Road (Cheers)

    What are good images for identifying the Cheers episode? --George Ho (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    United Nations

    Hi! I was hoping to add this photograph, from the UN's multimedia gallery, to the article on Hugo Rogers. Wikipedia:Public_domain#Works_of_the_United_Nations states that "documents not offered for sale are in the public domain; other UN documents are copyrighted." I'm not too familiar with copyright rules, so I asked User:Moonriddengirl, who recommended I ask here. She also recommended asking if it would be supported under WP:NFC. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    In the file description? For example, the entry that I'm writing for Emma Ferreira has the three uploaded images, that belong to the artist, under "speedy deletion" because it's missing the tags.

    However, do I put the tag in the image file description? Or do I put the tag in the embedded image?

    It this a correct file description denoting copyright ownership?

    "This image belongs to Emma Ferreira. The art piece is titled "Mon cheri" and also belongs to the artist. {/{/ GFDL-self /}/} {/{/Attribution/}/}"

    Without the backward slashes, of course (I had to put them otherwise the tags wouldn't appear). I'm so confused. Thanks for the help. Yonnivalencia (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Simply put the tag in the image description page, like this. Please note that the image should still be deleted with the current amount of information — when you upload an image and say that someone else has given permission, you need to provide proof. Either you'll need to add a link to a webpage where this permission is given, or you need to forward to OTRS an email with the statement of permission. For "OTRS", look at Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team: the email should be sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Remember that the permission statement (either by email or on a webpage) must explicitly permit the license that you claim that it does. Nyttend (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Portrait provided by subject

    I have uploaded an image, File:James Penton portrait.jpg with the permission (as per the form) stating that evidence will be provided on request. I have now been advised that the image will be deleted if no permission is provided. Jim Penton gave me permission in his email to me with the image, with the words "I'm attaching a picture of me with this email. Feel free to use it." Does that statement meet the requirements for permission? And if I forward that email, will my name and his email address go on display? BlackCab (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    You need to get the copyright holder, who may in fact not even be the subject, to verify their permission directly by sending our OTRS Team an email per the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. The image must be freely licenced which means that anyone can use it for anything even commercial use. The email you quote does not have a clear enough licence stated for us so there is no need to forward it. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Image suitable?

    I have an image from a clothing manufacturer, they say that "This media asset is free for editorial broadcast, print, online and radio use. It is restricted for use for other purposes."

    Is it suitable for Wikipedia? TheBigJagielka (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Can't imagine what else one would do besides broadcast, print, online, and radio (how does one send an image over radio, anyway?), but because they don't say what "free" means, you don't have a guarantee that they permit both commercial use and derivative works. As a result, the image is only suitable for Wikipedia if you can find a way that it qualifies under the non-free content criteria. Nyttend (talk) 02:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Is editorial broadcast different from other kinds of broadcasts? --Stefan2 (talk) 12:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    David Domoney Image - Permission Email sent

    I am writing with regards to the image File:David Domoney.jpg. I would like to confirm that an email has been sent to the permission email address illustrating the photographers permission. Please do not delete the image. Bobby987 (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I have added {{OTRS pending}} to the file info page.--ukexpat (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Ward Building 060527.jpg

    I would like to use this image in a publication I am distributing to ~1000 college new graduates. The publication is free for the recipient but there was revenue earned on the sale of advertising space. I would like to know if I can use this image on the front cover. I have reviewed the image data and understand I need to site the author of the image. Thank you, Jen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teinedex (talk • contribs) 15:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Cite, not site! The image is hosted on the commons and has clear instructions on how to attribute the image under the creative commons licence; "© Jeremy Atherton, 2006". You should quote the source url and type of CC licence given. ww2censor (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    photo

    Hi There

    I recently helped create a wiki page for a department of a university. We have been blocked and I would like to have them removed but the process is a little confusing.

    1. Photo as tagged for deletion We used a photo of our building but the review said we need to get permission to use it. There is no one to give us permission as it is our photo. What should i do?

    2. The site is tagged as promotional Well that is true since we made the wiki so people can know who we are in the world we work in. But we are not selling anything or asking people to do anything. We are a not for profit attached to a university. What can i do?

    Best regards

    Clay Braziller — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.116.36 (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Please do not attempt to restore it. You may not get around a block by logging out as you have just now done, and companies that provide marketing, business development and product strategy services are not welcome to contribute here because of our policies on conflicts of interest and promotional editing. Nyttend (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Changing non free photo for deceased person

    Would like to change the present non-free photo to a different non-free image as I've just found one which shows the person at work. The article has text & refs regarding the work he did. Am I able to change the photo and ask for a speedy deletion of the replaced photo? Thanks, We hope (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Please provide a link to the article or to the image that's already online; we can't answer you properly otherwise. Nyttend (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Due to the nature of the image as a press photo, I doubt that a fair use claim would stand up. However, I note the date of 1977: this might qualify under {{PD-US-no notice}}. You'd need to investigate if the photo were published by itself or if it were published as part of something else: it doesn't have a copyright notice in its form on eBay, but you'd need to find whether it might have been published by the Tribune in some other context first. Nyttend (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure if that's able to be done; the photo was taken by Chicago Daily News. Less than three months after the photo was taken, the paper was no longer in business. Have gone through copyright.gov and found original copyrights for the last 2-3 years for their daily editions while the paper was in business, but no renewals for those original copyrights. The company who owned the paper at the time it was shut down, Field Enterprises, folded in 1984. What else I did notice on a second look at the back of the photo is that the section for the edition it appeared in is blank. We hope (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Oops, you're right, it's not the Tribune. Nyttend (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Any ideas on whether this is doable at all since both the paper and its former owner are defunct? We hope (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My only suggestion is to try contacting the eBay seller for more information about the image; they might have a good idea of its provenance. Nyttend (talk) 11:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    State geology report

    I'm looking to use this picture of a quarry which can also be seen on page 79 of this 1897 report from the State of Michigan. This page describes them as publications, so am I safe to assume that this report was published in 1897? Chris857 (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    See the citation given on "this page" — the answer is not necessarily published in 1897, but the only other option is publication in 1898. You can see the same publication in a list here. Nyttend (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#World Map North South Divide 4.png that makes me want to check our bases are properly covered. The actual example given there isn't a good case because the changes made are not copyrightable, but suppose the following:

    • Original user has an image with specially generous license terms, such as making the file officially public domain.
    • Subsequent user uploads a new version making no special statement. (For argument, suppose this is a copyrightable amount of effort)
    • What is the status of the resulting revised document? Is it still officially public domain as the annotation page below reads?

    I don't see anything about accepting the existing licensing terms on the upload page. [1] Nor does the file annotation say specifically that the revised versions are subject toe the same license.

    We should have better clarity so that reusers like this one are not confused or at risk. Wnt (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    If something is in the public domain, other people can come along and modify it and place the modification under any license they please.
    If something is under a license which requires Attribution but not ShareAlike, I'm pretty sure that as long as the attribution is followed that someone can still come along and modify it and place the modification under any license they please.
    If something is under a license which requires ShareAlike, then someone cannot release their modifications under copyright. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm, your last statement is quite wrong: if you make a derivative work from a CC-by-sa work and claim to release it into the public domain, you're violating the original author's copyright by ignoring the attribution requirement of the original work. Nyttend (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the image in question, while you may make any stipulations you want with a derivative work of a public domain image, you actually have to make those stipulations. The uploaders of later versions would have had to change the license template instead of leaving it as PD-self if they wanted to claim copyright. Nyttend (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you confident that the uploader receives proper notice of the less-restrictive license? When submitting a new version, I don't see anything prior to the "upload file" that tells me it will be public domain, apart from carefully viewing the original image and surmising that this license will apply. It worries me as a potential vulnerability. Wnt (talk) 14:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    They saw the description page before reuploading; for legal purposes, we assume that the presence of the message below the edit window ("By clicking the "Save Page" button...") is sufficient for granting consent, and the PD-self template is far more prominent on the description page than this message is on the edit window. An uploader who wished to retain copyright could have either changed the permission template or uploaded under a different name. Nyttend (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you're right - it seems a little shaky to me. The upload page just says "Provide copyright information for the upload, either from the dropdown menu or from the lists at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. If you can't find anything appropriate, please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions before uploading. " I don't see where it says you must irrevocably yield your copyright to the file. And the PD tag says "I, the copyright holder of this work" ... is the uploader of the changed version supposed to be sure that that refers to him, not the original author? Wnt (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't understand your questions. You don't need to yield your copyright, but if you make modifications to a page marked as public domain without changing the tag, you're releasing your changes the same way the previous author(s) did. It's basically like editing http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:PD_help, a group of PD text pages, with the sole difference being that you're allowed to change the license tag for image uploads here but wouldn't be allowed to change the license format for the PD help pages. Nyttend (talk) 12:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding photo of Malcolm Forbes

    I found a photo of him: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/it_end_of_an_error_cTvwRi1rTGgWU2Cm8hS7EJ

    However, the source says: "Getty Images". Is this image good as a "bio-pic"? --George Ho (talk) 03:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    No. It fails WP:NFCC#1 (person still alive) and WP:NFCC#2 (Getty Images). --Stefan2 (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops... wrong name.. should be Malcolm Forbes, not Michael Forbes. --George Ho (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    USS Pueblo

    I would like to add at least one image from this webpage to the article USS Pueblo (AGER-2), but the original sources (1968 North Korean press releases) do not seem to be anywhere online or catalogued at any particular libraries. Lacking those, how can I know which sources are closest to the government-issued originals and OK to use? Thanks! -SaaHc2B (talk) 06:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Kyōdō Tsūshinsha

    Are there WP:NFCC#2 issues with images from Kyōdō Tsūshinsha? It is a news agency just as the Associated Press and similar agencies, but the article about the agency states that it is non-profit which might change things. I'm wondering because I just saw File:0329007-thumbx300.jpg being uploaded and am trying to figure out whether it fails WP:NFCC#2 or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Right now File:0329007-thumbx300.jpg fails NFCC because there is no fair use rationale of any find but even if there were one I suspect that it would more likely fail WP:NFCC#8 because there does not appear to be any reason to show a non-free image of the perpetrator just to understand the article Shimonoseki Station massacre. NFCC#2 may be an issue but I see other issues before that one. ww2censor (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that there are other issues with the image, but it would be useful to know whether WP:NFCC#2 is an issue with Kyōdō Tsūshinsha or not, given the non-profit statement. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be a major issue. Non-profits can hold copyrights and protect them fiercely, just like anybody else. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Taken to FfD so that this can be sorted out. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Program's logo v. public domain

    The File:F@H Logo 2012.png is a logo of a program, though its page states it is licensed under CC0. As I wasn't sure whether the claim about CC0 was true (as the author was working for the organization behind this software), I contacted the organization and received the reply that CC0 use was approved. As I believe my concern to be pretty valid, I wanted to ask, how can I document the response from organization on the file's page? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    You should forward the reply to OTRS, see instructions at WP:CONSENT and Commons:COM:OTRS. Then mark the file information page with {{OTRS pending}} to prevent file deletion until the e-mail has been handled. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
     Done, thanks! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Google Earth/Map images in Wikipedia

    I seems from "Google Maps and Google Earth Content Rules & Guidelines" that when screenshots are used for academic purposes then it may be acceptable. Can I make a screenshot from Google Maps and upload it to Wikipedia (such as found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Google_maps_screenshot.png), and then use it in a Wikipedia article on geological matters? RudiBosbouer (talk) 08:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    No. Google screenshots are not free for any purpose and are replaceable. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Free content probability

    What is the probability that a published work (found anywhere, either on the Internet or as physical form) is licensed under a free license? 123.24.83.96 (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC) More explicitly, what is the ratio of the number of freely licensed works against the number of all published works? For the following licenses:[reply]

    For the following categories:

    Please list explicitly, the percentage of the licenses in each type of work (the percentage of each kind of license against all licenses, and the percentage of each free license type against all free licenses). 123.24.83.96 (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Perez Celis Elevar el pensamiento.jpg

    This image is used in Perez Celis. Does use of this image meet WP:NFCC? --George Ho (talk) 06:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It sounds reasonable to illustrate the style for the artist, however there should be more commentary on the image in that article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Wrong license tag?

    File:Tak Flag.jpg is tagged as being PD, yet has a non-free use rationale. I don't believe the claim that this image is PD is valid. How should I proceed? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 08:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I tagged it as "no permission". It says that it is PD, so I suppose it should be treated as a PD file. It is also used in many articles without any FUR for those articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no evidence the image is PD and no source to verify the claim. As a non-free image it must have a FUR for each and every use. Between Jan 2008 and Feb of this year it had {{non-free logo}} attached but still only one FUR. I suggest reverting and adding FURs if they are appropriate or remove the image from those articles where there is no fair-use justification. ww2censor (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Cheers cast 1982 bw.jpg

    This image is used in "Give Me a Ring Sometime". Does this image meet WP:NFCC? --George Ho (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Image of Beretta 86

    I would like to upload it:File:Beretta_86_c1.jpg to Wikimedia Commons to use on this WP page. The source page indicates that the license, while valid in Italy, may be controversial in other countries, and that one should check before uploading. I'm checking. TIA for helping a novice. Truthskr (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It would be better to ask at the commons not on the enwiki as they have somewhat different criteria. Try here commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. ww2censor (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    two of my image files were deleted

    Choky_Ice_image.jpg

    Choky Ice as JimmyNichols for Playgirl.jpg


    These two image files were deleted today and I want to know why? I provided proof that these files were my own creation.. a scan and snapshot I created by MY OWN..Its only purpose was was to give an image of who this person is CHOKY ICE! These two files do not exist outside of Wikipedia therefor it is not violating any copyright laws

    Can you please undo and post them back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LowKey08 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The fact that the images appear to have a watermark/logo on them immediately calls into question of them being your photos. You can't scan someone else's work and claim it as your own. --MASEM (t) 14:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    The snapshot I made DID NOT have any LOGOS or watermarks whatsoever, that TOO was deleted! Why has that deleted then?

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions&oldid=486446286"