Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lomogorov (talk | contribs) at 18:15, 4 May 2020 (→Moving images to common: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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)

    Template:Active editnotice

    I have written permission to use this image from the copyright holder; it's a book cover image. What do I need to do to reinstate the image to the article page? ARD (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @ARynan: Most images used on Wikipedia are hosted on Wikimedia Commons. However, Commons does not accept any content that is copyrighted, even with permission from the copyright holder (unless they agree to release the book cover under a free license, like a Creative Commons license). However, book covers, even when copyrighted and without permission from the copyright holder, can be used on Wikipedia to illustrate the article. I will add a fair use rationale to File:Credence Cover.jpg, assuming that is the one you're asking about, so that you can use it in your article. Best, MrClog (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, thank you! I have one for the Eighteen Straight Whiskeys book article, tool that image was removed as well, and I have the same written permission to use. Could you possibly do the same for that page -- and do I need to re-upload both images again?@MrClog: ARD (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @ARynan: Just FYI: you do not need permission from the copyright holder if you have a valid fair use claim. I have done it for File:Eighteen Straight Whiskeys cover.jpg too. --MrClog (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much; you're a peach for doing that, and I appreciate it. So far the book cover image for The Green Woman hasn't been removed; it falls under the same fair use/permission to use, so I'll keep an eye on it in case someone removes it.
    I also need to update the author's photo on his main bio page and have a new image (with permission) that we want to upload. Do I need to put it on WikiCommons first? I apologize for my ignorance; the photo stuff is very confusing. @MrClog: ARD (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @ARynan: Yes. However, please note that the copyright holder must release the picture under a free license. For an overview of what kind of licenses can be used, see this page on Wikimedia Commons. Regarding File:Green Woman Cover Art.jpg, it says the cover art has been released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. Is that true? If not, you could still use the cover under the fair use doctrine, though the file's page should be updated to reflect that. --MrClog (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I believe that is true, but I think I'd feel safer if I used the same fair use doctrine as the others. Do you have advice on this? Also, I'm currently attempting the Wikimedia Commons upload. Pray for me. @MrClog:ARD (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @ARynan: Are you uploading the biography picture on Commons? Because the cover art cannot be uploaded on Commons, because pictures on Commons are used by websites hosted outside the U.S. (where the fair use doctrine is not part of copyright law). --MrClog (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the photo I want to upload is a headshot of the author/actor (Michael Easton) on his Wikipedia page. The current one is outdated. I have a new photo he's given me to use, with permission, with relevant credit to the photographer. It's a typical headshot; the kind that actors and authors use for press kits. @MrClog: ARD (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @ARynan: I have updated the file page for The Green Woman. Regarding the head shot, it is a good idea to have the copyright holder send an email confirming that they release the picture under a free license. They can use the Wikimedia OTRS release generator to easily create an email that they can send to Wikimedia releasing their photo under a free license. --MrClog (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, I can ask him to do that. Any specific verbage he should use? He usually just writes something like, "I hold the copyright to the image ____ and grant Angela permission to use for Wikipedia (or whatever I'm using it for)". @MrClog:ARD (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @ARynan: If he uses the release generator I linked to, it automatically creates an email with the appropriate legal language. --MrClog (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I just clicked through to see how it worked and saw the language; seems pretty simple. Okay, I'll send him the link and ask him to send it with a photo attachment. Thank you so much for all your help! @MrClog: ARD (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You have to make sure that he OWNS the copyright to that picture, not that he owns the picture or paid to have the picture taken. Normally, copyright in a photo remains with the photographer. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @ARynan and Orangemike: That is true, unless the work is legally seen as a work for hire. That would require the work to be made by an employee in line of their employment, or by an independent contractor in certain limited circumstances (that don't seem to apply here). Besides that, it may be possible that the photographer signed a copyright transfer agreement. MrClog (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    He owns the actual copyright to the photo. But it's good to know the distinctions. Thanks, guys! @MrClog: @Orangemike: ARD (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi ARD. A couple of things just for reference. The copyright holder can uploaded their work to Commons or Wikipedia under a free license like Creative Commons, but it has to be one that the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) accepts as explained in c:Commons:Licesning or c:Commons*Creative Commons. The copyright holder is not reliquishing their copyirght ownership or transfering it to anyone else; they are just making available a freely licensed version of it for others to use. The WMF only accepts licenses that basically pretty much allow anyone anywhere in the world to download or reuse the content in question at anytime for any purpose (including commercial and derivative use); moreover, once the content has been released under such a license there's no real way to cancel the license if there's a change of heart. So, even if the content is subsequently removed from Wikipedia or Commons, it can still continue to be used under the terms of the license by anyone who got it before it was axed or gets it from some archived version, etc. So, the copyright holder cannot try to limit how others reuse the content (e.g. "for Wikipedia use only", "for non-commercial only" or anything like this) except perhaps to require that proper attribution to the copyright holder be given by those reusing the image. If the copyright holder is OK with all of that, then they should upload the file to Commons because it will make it much easier to use on not only English Wikipedia, but also all of the other Wikipedias and other WMF projects.

    Wikipedia does allow copyrighted content to be uploaded locally as non-free content, but such content needs to satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. This might be a good option for things like copyrighted book covers, etc. per item 1 of WP:NFCI, but it's usually doesn't work to well for copyright images of still living persons. The long-standing consensus is not to allow non-free images of still living persons per non-free content use criterion #1 because it's almost always considered reasonable to expect that freely licensed equivalent image can either be found or created to serve the same encyclopedic purpose as any non-free one. Such a free equivalent doesn't have to be a free version of the same exact image and it doesn't have to even currently exist; it just has to be sufficient enough to serve the same encyclopedic purpose of primary identification and be capable of being created by someone, not just the subject of the photo.

    Finally, some more things that might apply here are Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Ownership of content. Subjects of article have no editorial control over article content and don't have any final say over what to leave in and what to leave out. So, while image copyright is really important and Wikipedia will be happy to have any freely-licensed high quality images the copyright holder wants to upload for use in the article, whether they will end up actually being used might end up being determined through Wikipedia:Consensus. It seems highly unlikely that anyone will dispute the adding of image of the author to the article, but if that does happen then Wikipedia:Dispute resolution should be used to try and resolve things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    That makes sense, and I think it SHOULD be okay, but I'll keep track and make sure. May I message you in the future if I need help or clarification? @Marchjuly and Marchjuly: ARD (talk) 02:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this PD-text? File:Never Have I Ever Title Card.png

    This image consists of yellow text on a red background. Does this make it {{PD-text}}? Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 05:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Qzekrom, yes, {{PD-simple}} applies here, as a few words in a fairly standard font isn't original enough to qualify for copyright protection. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 08:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Qzekrom: Yes, it fails the treshold of originality. It only exists of text in a certain font and colours. Neither are eligible for copyright protection on themselves, and neither are a combination of the two sufficient. --MrClog (talk) 09:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I imported the image to Commons. --MrClog (talk) 09:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Audio

    What is the WP-position on linking to this [1] audio in an article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Gråbergs Gråa Sång. I'm not sure if there's a WP position per se other than it would depend on whether the audio is copyrighted and whether it has been released under a free license if it is per WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files. Audio files can be uploaded as WP:NFC per WP:NFC#Audio clips and WP:NFC#Multimedia, but these generally only tend to be very short clips whose non-free use is considered to meet the all ten WP:NFCCP. A freely-licensed or PD audio clip could probably be uploaded to Commons per c:COM:CB#Music and c:COM:Hirtle#Sound recordings, but it seems unlikely any of that would be OK for a podcast from 2007 or even for an original work from 1947. A copyrighted podcast could possibly be cited as a RS and even linked to in the citation if there were no problems with WP:ELNEVER, but it can still be cited as a RS per WP:SAYWHERE without a link to the podcast itself. Even if the podcast was freely licensed, it still wouldn't really be appropriate to embed a link to it in the body of the article per WP:CS#Avoid embedded links and WP:EL#cite_note-7, but it could be added to the "External links" section or maybe even added by using {{External media}} as long as ELNEVER isn't a concern. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Marchjuly, I should have been more specific. EL is what I had in mind in an article about the work. Since this is originally from Decca Records, is it reasonable to consider it a European sound recording and so in the public domain? I don't think Brexit has changed that, at least not yet. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevermind, I found an alternative. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    File:MusqueamPark.jpg

    While I am definitely not sure if this is necessary on Wikipedia (and only saw it because I was browsing files with no license information and decided to actually make an account), the license is a derivative of the OGL 2.0 for BC for all data in the vanmap property viewer. Unfortunately, the last time I've actually dug into WP was many many years ago, so I can't figure out how to actually provide that information on the file itself. Given it's due for deletion today/tomorrow, if someone could at least rectify this (so I can come back and see how it's done!) I'd appreciate it. Berchanhimez (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Air Senegal Logo.svg

    Would like some input on this file's licensing? If File:Air Senegal logo.png is {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} because it falls below c:COM:TOO#United States, then a svg version of basically the same logo should also be "PD-ineligible-USonly". The svg does have some additional text added, but text is generally a non-copyrightable element for logos such as this and the primary imagery is the same per c:COM:2D copying. Now, if the only reason that the svg is licensed as {{non-free logo}} is because the file is in svg format and the uploader is claiming copyright over that, then the file would fail WP:NFCC#1 (per WP:FREER and WP:NFC#Multiple restrictions) and it cannot be kept since anyone could create a svg of the same image and uploaded it under a free license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Marchjuly, perhaps you are right, maybe the logo should be {{PD-logo}} and {{Trademark}}. The reason I tagged it as non-free when I uploaded it was because I thought the icon might just have passed the threshold of originality, but I wasn't sure. I definitely didn't create the logo, I extracted it from a PDF with Illustrator, which I can't claim copyright for. Maybe it's too simple? — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 06:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Berrely and Marchjuly: I'm inclined to say that there is reasonable doubt as to whether the logo meets the TOO. Specifically, the shading that gives the work a "3D look" combined with the geometric shapes in different colours, may be the minimum amount of creativity necessary for copyright protection. I would say it should be kept as a non-free file, because its states with regards to the TOO is unclear. See also this ruling by the US Copyright Office. MrClog (talk) 08:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Moving images to common

    Hi everyone! The following images are in public domain and marked as candidates for Wikimedia Commons. Why are they not copied to Commons yet? Can I copy the images? --Lomogorov (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EllaEwing2.JPG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EllaEwingPoster.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EllaEwing3.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EllaEwing1.jpg[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions&oldid=954865189"