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)

Permission to use image on Wikipedia

I do not understand the permissions info on FAQ. I would like to use an image from the Wikipedia entry for Morganza Spillway in my blog. The image is https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/Morganza_Spillway_Aerial.jpg/300px-Morganza_Spillway_Aerial.jpg , maybe wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/Morganza_Spillway_Aerial.jpg/300px-Morganza_Spillway_Aerial.jpg .

Its Permissions entry in View Image Info, under Load Images, had Use Default checked and Allow bulleted. That seems to indicate permission is granted, but I am not sure of my interpretation.

Thank you for responding and clarifying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunsetc9 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Image info page is File:Morganza Spillway Aerial.jpg which shows that it is in the public domain, and so freely re-usable.--ukexpat (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Association football team images in footer nav boxes

An editor added the copyrighted images to every MLS and a few NASL nav boxes. One such change is here: [1]. I reverted them all because it appears to be a copyright violation. First, no fair-use rationale is provided. Second, I can't see that one would be granted since the navs are used on multiple articles. Was I right in doing so or are this editor's actions acceptable and I should self-revert? I'm not watching this page so please inform me via a talkback template if I need to self-revert. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Non-free images are permitted in article mainspace and must have a fair-use rational for each and every use per 9 and 10c, so you were correct to revert them. ww2censor (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello ww2censor, and anyone who is reading and interested in collaborating. I would like to respond to this conversation. To clarify, the description mentioned by the user above is not accurate. The non-free images have all been previously placed in the proper location with the right description, and have been there for over a year. For instance, in one of the clubs of MLS, we have the Los Angeles Galaxy and their respective page. Their logo is placed on the right of the page which links to the appropriate description and use of the image. This image for instance was placed within a navbox that describes the team. It appeared like this. The navbox is only used within the teams' page and had the image as a form of visual description and association to the team.

The purpose of use for the image is as follows:

The image is used to identify the organization Los Angeles Galaxy, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey.

The image was not used in multiple locations as the previous user might mislead with the wording of his statements. One image and one template for the specific team [see below the main page of the LA Galaxy]. This concept was carried over to other teams in where their logos, which have similar descriptions to that of the LA Galaxy image, were placed within respective navboxes, and visualized only in their pages. [e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc]

If images are not allowed in a navbox, then why do templates exist with this option? The images in question were used appropriately under guidelines available. I would appreciate further assessment on this matter. The previous user took it upon himself to simply revert for the purpose of being right. I'm not interested in glorification. I just want clarity as there is a conflicting issue in this scenario with images allowed in navboxes. Kindly assist. Thank you NYCWikiKid (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Article mainspace rules do not extend to templates.

The image parameter is there for images that have no copyright. You'll notice that the examples are national flags, not copyrighted corporate logos.

Also, there was no fair use rationale on the images for their use in the template and as such had to be removed until the fair use rationale was provide. The rationale would be rejected, of course, for the reasons stated above and the images would once again be deleted from the templates. I wouldn't be the one doing it in that instance, it would be someone from the copyright project rejecting the FUR and then likely a bot removing the image.

And I didn't revert them for the purpose of being right, I reverted them because we could be sued if they remained in-place.

And the templates are used in multiple locations. My example was Template:Vancouver Whitecaps and it is used in the locations listed here: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Vancouver Whitecaps. And as for the Galaxy template, Template:Los Angeles Galaxy, not the team article as you indicate, is linked to even more places: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Los Angeles Galaxy. Yes, templates are used in multiple locations and can be added by simply placing {{Vancouver Whitecaps}} or similar on the bottom of an appropriate page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much WP:NFCC#9. We don't allow non-free images in templates, even if the templates end up replicated in main space. --MASEM (t) 01:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Masem, as I was interested in hearing from other individuals and not the user creating his defense. So Masem, are images allowed in the navboxes, and which type specifically? NYCWikiKid (talk) 03:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not a defence, it's a reason.

Images are allowed, but not copyrighted ones. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

If your concern, Walter, was actually editing, then you would not have commented, as you are only doing so to fulfill some egotistical trip. There are plenty of dedicated individuals who can partake. Your behavior is quite obvious and petty. I have not requested your point of view. And I am not interested in conversing with you. Debate ended! NYCWikiKid (talk) 04:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

As Ww2, Masem, and Walter have said: ONLY public-domain images can be used in templates of any kind. Fair-use exemptions do NOT apply to templates, and fair-use images must be removed immediately if inserted into templates. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

More precisely, any image that we consider free (that is not tagged with a template listed at WP:TAGS/FU) can be used in templates; this includes those in the public domain (which can include plain-text logos too simple to be copyrighted), as well as images that have been tagged with Creative Commons licenses CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, and a few more cases. --MASEM (t) 13:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Orangemike and Masem. Thank you for the information regarding navboxes. I appreciate the assistance that you two have given. I only wanted to hear from others. NYCWikiKid (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyrighted image needs deleting

File:Mo_Yaqub_in_action_for_St-_Mirren_2013-09-06_12-25.jpg is clearly copyrighted, can somebody with the relevant permissions at Commons please delete it? GiantSnowman 11:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Have added a copyright violation template (works like speedy deletion here). It might be faster for you do it on your own next time (and a lot simpler) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• There was no 'edit source' option for me - only 'create source' - and no 'delete' button either. GiantSnowman 12:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• You have to open the Commons page (use the Commons logo in the upper-right corner or the link under the image) first. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Which I did do, but it didn't recognise {{db-filecopyvio}}. GiantSnowman 12:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Missing children poster

I would like to add an image to Casitas del Sur case. I am thinking of contacting the author of this picture on Flickr to ask him to release the picture under a cc-by-sa license. As can be seen, the image is a picture of a missing children poster that has pictures of the children. Assume the author does release the image under an acceptable license, can it be used on Wikipedia? Ajax F¡ore_talk 00:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, I have answered my own question. The picture is a derivative work and therefore not allowed on Wikipedia. Ajax F¡ore_talk 22:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Photo being removed, but not clear why

This is in reference to File:Giant Hula half.jpg.

On the Talk tab of an article that includes this picture (Ashrita Furman) it states "Thank you for uploading Image:Ashrita-hula.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page."

However, the image description page includes the following text:

Licensing:

After reading through the relevant material on Wikipedia Commons, I still cannot understand what is missing.

I'd be grateful if someone could help me figure it out.

Thanks

There is a link at File:Giant_Hula_half.jpg to the discussion page. Go there and explain that you took the photo and release the rights to it. RudolfRed (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Ordnance Survey map extract

The copyright justification for File:Saddleworth Moor-Section of OS map region 8.JPG says "This work is in the public domain because it is an Ordnance Survey map over 50 years old." The map is clearly not over 50 years old. I'm not sure if it's the copyright notice that needs to change, or whether the graphic needs to be removed, but something needs to be done... Dave.Dunford (talk) 08:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't look to be over 50 to me and I suspect it's part of the 2004 series. Either have a word with the uploaded or list it at WP:PUF for review. NtheP (talk) 08:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The map is an extract from the OS Landranger 1:50,000 series. It cannot be any older than 1974. A 50 year old map exactly (ie: 1963) would still use the One Inch Seventh Series, which had black gridlines, not blue. It's a blatant copyright violation of the Ordnance Survey, and I have nominated it for speedy deletion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Sayyid Shamsullah Qadri.jpg

Good Morning ,

I have loaded a family picture which are my personal belonging File:Sayyid Shamsullah Qadri.jpg and many other historical pictures related to famous academics of South India . Now i want to know how i can get copyright of 50-60 years old photographs for the personal family picture . ( (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)), please need help .

The photographer or their heirs would own the copyright. If you are the heir, then you can grant the license. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Rotating_Legionary_2.gif

Hello, please see this question on the Reference Desk about the two images https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rotating_Legionary_2.gif and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rotating_Legionary.gif

The questioner is concerned by a historical error in the depiction (and note on the talk page for the image another user brings up a second factual error), but I am bringing it here because the person who answered the question said The "author" probably didn't get permission to use the model from its creator.

Is this then a copyright issue? 184.147.119.141 (talk) 11:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

If the original model isn't the work of the editor uploading the image, then we have two problems:

• The licensing for the image is wrong. It doesn't credit the model author or the source.
• (possibly) the model's licence must also permit a derivative work like this, for such derivative images to be distributed, and it may also specify what licences such derivatives could use.

It's possible that this image can still be used, if the model has a suitable licence and if we update the image licensing appropriately. It's unlikely that the image can be used as is with the current licence (only if the model had a very free licence indeed not even requiring attribution, which is unlikely).

Obvious next step is to ask the image author and uploader where they got the model and to sort this out.

NB - are we sure where the model came from? Adding an assertion that it's originally someone else's work is easy to do, but such claims aren't always correct. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll copy here the rest of Sleigh's comment on authorship. I should have copied it all, instead of just the sentence that I understood! Hope it makes more sense to you. Model is from an Autodesk 3DS Max file from Rome Total War mod called Roma Surrectum II. The "author" probably didn't get permission to use the model from its creator. 184.147.119.141 (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I've left a message for the image uploader here (sorry I can't figure out how to do it in diff form since it's the only edit to their talk page). Please let me know what to do next. 184.147.119.141 (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Logos of Colleges

Can Logos of Colleges be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons?If no free version exists,can a free version be made?What about examples like File:Calcutta National Medical College LOGO.png, File:Ucms.gif, File:Delhi University's official logo.png. It seems that the uploaders do not know that the logos of colleges are copyrighted.Guru-45 (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The first two appear to be copyvios and I have tagged them for deletion as such. I guess for the third one, we have to accept the facts presented as to its date of first publication and that therefore it is now PD in India.--ukexpat (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)