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)

Chemistry Structures

I've been helping move images to the Commons and concerning these images (File:Rebaudioside A.gif, File:Mogroside II E.gif, and File:Mogroside VI.gif), are they complex enough to qualify for copyright or do they still fall under PD-chem? And if they do fall under PD-chem, should I change it from the current copyright when I transfer them to the commons? ALH (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The structure can't be copyrighted, and the representation of that structure is using standard, non-original graphics and text. They would qualify as PD-chem. (As a counter example, protein structures like File:Protein folding.png may be non-copyrightable but the specific graphics approach is far from simple and has originality to it, and thus this specific representation could be copyrighted (in the example, the user put it into the PD). --MASEM (t) 00:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps a lot. ALH (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: Images like those three are not protected by copyright in the United States. However, they might be protected by copyright in some other countries, so any free licences should be preserved so that the images also can be used in those countries. You should not have removed the free licences when moving the files to Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, in the case of File:Rebaudioside A.gif, the user uploaded it under a GNU free license so that shouldn't matter. Again, we are talking about data here with a standard format and representation, so copyrightability anywhere is likely not an issue. But there could be prior case law that I'm not aware of. --MASEM (t) 02:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but ALH (talk · contribs) removed the GNU and Creative Commons licences when copying the images to Commons. Commons users also need to see those licences in case some country grants copyright protection to images like these. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyone making an accurate standard diagram of those three molecules will produce something exactly like these these images; barring rotation, font changes, and zoom (which aren't by themselves copyrightable), any changes will make the diagram non-standard and/or inaccurate. They're no more original than the formulas themselves; writing "C12H22O11" by itself can't make you a copyright infringer, and neither can drawing a figure like File:Saccharose2.svg. Nyttend (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It all depends on the threshold of originality in the country where you wish to use the images. For example, the images might be protected by a typographical copyright in the United Kingdom, and without a free licence, people in the United Kingdom won't know that they can use the images. Lots of British people use this website, and there is no point in hiding licensing information which those people need in order to use the contents on Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Typographical copyright does not apply, it refers to something different. I have no doubt that the above reasoning applies just as well in the UK as it does in the United States. Other countries though I can't speak for and there may therefore be good reasoning keeping the tags. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess I could have worded it better, but my question had more to do with if these particular images could be copyrighted than the tags. I have no objection to changing the tags back, however I do have these three points to make on the matter.
1. In the Wikipedia Manual of Style that I found after I asked the question (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Chemistry/Structure drawing), it states that A) these diagrams should be uploaded to Wikimedia (which isn't the concern here) and B) these diagrams "must have a correct copyright tag: please add {{PD-chem}}" This isn't binding, but it's what Wikipedia prefers with these images.
2. In this case, the images are very clearly in the public domain, which means that adding any tag other than a public domain could be confusing (and downright misleading) to someone who isn't familiar with public domain laws. In addition, any accurate model of these molecules will be highly similar to these images, however there wouldn't be any copyright infringement, simply because the creator of these images can't copyright them.
3. Finally, under 17 USC §506 (c), it is illegal to place "on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false." Now, I do admit it was a little brash on my part to change the copyright tags (and I will go explain to the uploader why I did so and that they can change the tags back if they so choose), however I believe all of my points remain valid. A. L. H. 04:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Signature of a fiction character

Does signature of a fiction character have copyright?--Lê _{talk-contributions} 04:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Presumably yes, if the work the character's signature is in is still copyright. --MASEM (t) 05:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

If the signature was published as part of the work of fiction (The Saint comes immediately to mind), there is not only copyright but also possibly trademark registration to consider. If it was made up one day by a fan, then the copyright may belong to the fan, but again the original writer might have some sort of claim as far as impeding his or her right over derivative works. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Why would an (uncopyrightable) name in (uncopyrightable, at least in the US) handwriting get copyright?--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I was taking the original poster's word for it that there was in some way a copyrightable aspect to it. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Given that the fictional character signature may specifically be creatively designed - possibly with the name chosen to make that signature look artistic, we have to assume copyright. Names of characters can be copyrighted - "Sherlock Holmes" for example is still a copyrighted character under the Doyle estate, due to the fact that 10 of 60-odd books remain copyright in the US. --MASEM (t) 01:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

In the US, calligraphy is not copyrightable. The US Copyright Office says right in their FAQ "How do I copyright a name, title, slogan, or logo? Copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases." (Characters can be copyrighted, though Sherlock Holmes isn't since the first books are out of copyright. Things derived from the later works are controlled by the estate, but not stuff from the pre-1923 works.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

They also confirm: "A signature is not protected by copyright." (even of signature of a fiction character (in a copyrighted work)).--Lê _{talk-contributions} 00:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Right; cf. commons:Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Photograph used in publication

I processed the first step of a permission statement for File:Mrs. Lyle D. Goodhue testing aerosol spray.jpg, concentrating on the fact that the person filing the request was the legal heir of the photographer.

However after doing do, I realized I wasn't looking at the original photo, but a copy of the photo used in a publication. It seems quite plausible that the publisher of Aerosol Technicomment may have acquired the copyright. I don't think the publication exists and more, but I don't know that that matters. What do others think?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The same file is also on Commons as Commons:File:Mrs. Lyle D. Goodhue, household aerosol spray, 1942.jpg where it is listed as a work by the US government, so something is fishy. Maybe it's better to add the {{OTRS received}} tag there too until this has been sorted out? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to dump the entire verification work to Commons but wouldn't this be CSD F8 anyway? De728631 (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Company sent me photos to use

I'm working on fixing a for-profit company's Wikipedia article. I sent the company's PR department an email asking for some photos of their recent products (products that are discussed in the Wikipedia article), and they sent me back some photos I'd like to use. But, searching around the web, I see that a couple of the ones I want to use have already been published elsewhere (obviously, the company sends these photos out to media as part of a press kit). Can I still use the photos? If so, how do I handle copyright? Thank you. MartinMartin226 (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The owner of the copyright, probably the company, would need to contact the Wikimedia foundation via WP:OTRS and confirm that they want to freely release for everybody the copyright on the images. Specific details are located here Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We can probably use them but that really depends on what licence the company is prepared to release the images under. Assuming they are the actual copyright holder, though that is often the photographer but the copyright of work for hire is usually the person paying for the photos, you need to get the copyright holder to verify a free licence to our OTRS Team by getting them to follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. They also need to understand that, except in special fair-use circumstances, we only accept freely licenced images which means that anyone can use them for anything including commercial use. BTW, you need to edit carefully and with a neutral point of view because it would appear you may have a conflict of interest. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

For clarification, wouldn't these photos that the company sent me be considered publicity photos? Wouldn't that make them eligible for use on Wikipedia under the doctrine of fair use? MartinMartin226 (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but publicity photos are normally still copyright and as such are used under the fair-use exception by the people publishing them. Here, we have much a stricter fair-use policy and don't accept such photos unless they are freely licenced. You may also find it useful to read my image copyright information page. ww2censor (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Very helpful. Thank you so much. MartinMartin226 (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Images of newspaper "letters to editor", where text has been released by original author

In September 1994, a person wrote to the letters page of the Daily Telegraph, and his letter was published. It's possible that the newspaper edited his letter for brevity or clarity, as most newspapers reserve the right to do. In any case, I now have in front of me a hard copy of what the newspaper published (his letter).

It is likely that the person may wish to freely license the text of his letter to the newspaper. If he does so, would it be acceptable for me to upload an image of how the newspaper printed his letter? (The purpose is to represent the sort of correspondence that occurred, in an article section that largely focuses on such correspondence and reactions to it.)

For clarity, as far as I can see, the only creative input the newspaper had into the depiction of the letter was their choice of font (which had been standard for a long time and was probably the same in the rest of the newspaper, so not exactly a creative choice), their convention of printing the name of the writer in all upper case, their listing of his address as "London W14" (both of these standards used by their newspaper for decades) and their three-word title to his letter. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

There are two issues as far as I see. One is whether you sign away more than a right of republishing to The Daily Telegraph, one of exclusivity or even copyright incompatible with a free licence. Secondly, in Britain there is a typographical copyright that might extend to the work in question. I don't think the US recognises such a thing, however, so on en.wiki that would probably not be a problem. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

it is not just a choice of font. it is choosing where to break words or where to kern, where to place it on the page, where to break the columns. I am not really sure what a picture of words provides that words alone cannot do.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

New image of an old press release

What is the copyright status of a new photograph of an old (1977) press release? A new editor wants to upload his 2013 photograph of a paper press release from The Kitchen, dated October 6th and 8th 1977. The editor has not uploaded the image yet because I told him I want to check to see if there would be a copyright problem or not. I don't even know if a paper press release (which was sent out to journalists) is a "publication" or not. Invertzoo (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Yup, that's a publication, and fully subject to copyright; taking a photo of it would not enable us to circumvent the copyright involved. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Unless the press release had a copyright notice, which is highly unlikely since that would defeat its purpose, it should be PD, template "pd-pre1978." Press releases were intended to be published freely.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Good point, watcher! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much Wikiwatcher1 and Orange Mike! So it is indeed in the Public Domain, and should be templated as "pd-pre1978" when it is uploaded. Great! Thanks again! Invertzoo (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The editor had trouble getting the Upload Wizard to accept that template. Any idea why? Invertzoo (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The template is case sensitive. Try "PD-Pre1978" with the double brackets on each side.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Justin Jones performing at the ACL Music Festival, October 12, 2012.jpg

I was informed that the photograph on the article I wrote, Justin Jones (American singer-songwriter) has been removed.

Just to clarify, if I get the person who created the file to use the template given on the Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries page and grant us persmission to use the file, will the photograph be put back on the page? Please let me know, thank you. NickV930 (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Just get the copyright holder to verify their permission per WP:CONSENT as you linked above, for a freely licenced image and it will be handled by the OTRS Team. They will restore the image if it has been deleted so make sure to give the exact image name that you had uploaded. Be patient because they are usually backlogged by anything up to a month. ww2censor (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Would this disclaimer allow photos to be uploaded to Wikipedia?

I was perusing the WayBack Machine archive of the Buffalo Bills website, and I came across some photographs with a disclaimer reading:

"This photograph is the property of the Buffalo Bills. Permission for normal editorial use is here-with granted. Permission for reproduction in quantity or for commercial or advertising use must be obtained in writing from the Buffalo Bills Public Relations Department."

Would a photograph unter that disclaimer be eligible for upload under Wikipedia policies? Buffalutheran (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so, because it places restrictions on commercial reuse (ie that additional permission is required) and that is incompatible with our licensing requirements.--ukexpat (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Yankee Doodle Dandy Restaurant

I did a search in Google images and found a drawing of a Yankee Doodle Dandy restaurant. I saved it to my computer, but don't know if it's copyrighted and if it can be used on the Yankee Doodle Dandy Restaurant Wikipedia page.

Thanks,

Leonard — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItlnGuy99 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

99.99% of the images you find on the internet are copyrighted by someone (even though they may not have a copyright notice), and unlikely to be usable on Wikipedia.--ukexpat (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Religious idol: Sagar karnataka jpg

This picture File:Sagar karnataka.jpg appears to be identical (same reflective dots) to the one on Flickr taken by Ravindra H on 27 February 2011, http://www.flickr.com/photos/14071985@N00/5519004975/, © All Rights Reserved. I'm not sure how this should be addressed. --Bejnar (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this. Deleted (together with another one by the same uploader). Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Bhuvanaika Bahu - One massa.png

I received a message for the following files that the copyright licensing tag was correct but that there is no proof of permission. However permission is granted for use in wikipedia and other educational links over the internet at the bottom of the main page here. How can I show permission is granted for the use of these files?--Blackknight12 (talk) 04:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• File:Bhuvanaika Bahu - One massa.png
• File:Sahasamalla - One massa.png
• File:Dharmasoka Deva - One massa.png
• File:Vijaya Bahu IV - One massa.png
• File:Lilavati - One massa.png

Permission for "use in wikipedia and other educational links" is not sufficient. We need permission for all purposes including commercial reuse, see WP:PERMISSION. If such permission is not forthcoming, then the images will have to be deleted unless they can be used pursuant to the non-free content criteria.--ukexpat (talk) 04:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ill see what I can do.--Blackknight12 (talk) 05:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair use of career images vs. post-retirement images

In adding a fair use image, where the only free image of a person available shows them in their later years after retiring, is it acceptable to include one showing the person working during their career as fair use?

Some examples might be sports figures, actors, or military notables. I assume that NFCC #1 is the most relevant criteria: Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.

Since in order to be included in WP, someone must be notable, it follows that the person's notability relies on what they did during their career. Hence, a photo of them during their career actively engaged in some profession, has value independent of and probably more important than a free, but recent image when they're retired. I'd like to know if those factors have been covered before? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

A while back, I floated the idea of making a specific policy allowing this. The basic response I got was that our policy already does for the reason you stated. Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 9#Allowing non-free images of people in their prime. Ryan Vesey 05:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The argument for their use has to start with how much the visual aspect of the person was during the time of their career. This would be arguable for people like actors and possibly sport figures, but not for people like authors, scientists, etc. --MASEM (t) 05:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I just read through the Village pump discussion, but I didn't see that they came to any clear decision. I guess a theoretical example, but relevant to countless notables, might help, so here goes:

Joe DiMaggio played baseball for about 15 years of his 84 years of life. Let's assume this is 1999 and he is still alive, and someone added a free image of him at some event when he was 84. Like many notables now, assuming it was the only free image, it would probably be his lead image. But what if someone found another published photo of him taken 50 years earlier while he was actually playing. My understanding, and experience, found that if the non-free photo was uploaded, it gets deleted due to NFCC#1 (being that he was still alive.)

It's not simply a matter of them being in their "prime" or how important their "looks" were to their career. One image shows them in retirement at a podium, while the other shows them doing what they are notable for, and what got them an article in WP. To me it seems logical, if not almost mandatory, to allow fair use images in those cases. And there are photos of writers, like Hemingway and Shaw, at work writing. There are photos of actors acting and scientists at work. So it's not just a matter of showing their face, or how they appeared, but of showing them in action, doing what they are notable for. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation.

This file is shown as being the creator's own work with a copyright notice allowing free use. The picture is in fact a frame grab from somebody else's work. The original video can be found on You Tube, here. I B Wright (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

This image is on Commons, so questions are better asked at Commons:Commons talk:Licensing. That being said, it's definitely a copyvio, so I've tagged it for speedy deletion. Nyttend (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Update: I take part of it back, the You Tube video referenced above is not the original video. There are several videos on You Tube uploaded by different people showing the same sequence. I have tracked the sequence back to an instructional video on cathode rays produced by (and showing a copyright notice dated 2008 from) Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (En: Federal University of Rio de Janeiro). The original video does not seem to be available on the Internet. I B Wright (talk) 15:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

what tag should be used

Hie,

I am not sure of which tag should be used to describe my picture. I am writing an article on behalf of a solicitor whose picture needs to be uploaded on wikkipedia. I got an error message stating that proper license tag has not been described. I am not sure which tag is appropriate for this type of image.

Image description: Portrait of a person showing his full face. Source is his website and author is himself.

Thank you