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)

Vintage cigarette commercials

UCSF Tobacco Industry Videos has a lot of cigarette commercials at archive.org. Many may be in the public domain.

https://archive.org/details/WinstonCigaretteCommecial-TheFlintstones It says it is in the "Public Domain".

https://archive.org/details/1956CommercialForKentCigarettes It says "Public Domain Mark 1.0".

I would like to check if these two videos are actually in the public domain. If they are I would like them both uploaded. QuackGuru (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I think both can be uploaded. See {{PD-US-no-notice}}. QuackGuru (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

•  Done - File:Vintage60sTvCommercials-Flintstones-WinstonCig.webm, File:Kent1956 mpg.webm -- Begoon 11:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

File:USPS Pluto Stamp - October 1991.jpg in the New Horizons article

The non-free image of a 1991 US postage stamp is accompanied by a statement claiming that the stamp provided a reason for carrying out the New Horizons mission. This statement does not appear to have any references. In the "Mission profile" section of the article, there is a statement about an instance of the stamp being included among some other items onboard the spacecraft, and that statement does have two references.

If the postage stamp was a significant factor in the decision to carry out the New Horizons mission, then it might be more likely that an image of the stamp would be justifiable in the article as non-free content. In such a case, it could be useful to for the article text about the stamp's role to have proper references. (Though I am not sure, if an article makes a point such as "This postage stamp was a significant reason for carrying out this space mission" and a non-free image is used to help article readers understand that point, then references for the point that the article text is making may be important for justifying the inclusion of the non-free image.) To be sure, there is the question as to whether the image of the stamp could be replaced by a textual description of the stamp (particularly its reference to Pluto and the "Not Yet Explored" message.)

Assuming that the inclusion of the stamp image in the article is justified, there is the question of the image's non-free use rationale. In particular, the "Respect for commercial opportunities" section seems to state that the stamp's commercial market will not be affected by the inclusion of the image in the article because the image itself is not usable as a postage stamp. It might be better to say (or to say in addition) that the article mentions how the stamp was a significant factor in the decision to carry out the New Horizons mission and that the stamp image is included in the article to help readers understand that statement. In addition, it would be useful to state that the usage of the stamp image in that context is different from its original market roles such as decoration, marketing the actual stamp, or illustrating the stamp's subject. --Elegie (talk) 08:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I've been dealing with stamp copyright here and on the commons, for years. This clearly fails WP:NFCC#8 as there is no commentary about the stamp itself justifying reason for including the image and the reader's understanding of the topic is not detrimental to their understanding that could be made in prose but is not even mentioned. There are no sources for the justification within the rationale and I personally doubt there are any such sources. However, if the image is a NASA image in the public domain, then maybe the stamp could be considered too simple to be copyrighted. Where did the Pluto image come from? None of the freely licensed commons images look even close to the one on the stamp. ww2censor (talk) 10:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

If it is not free, the inclusion of this image is not really justified in the article New Horizons. There is no significant commentary about this artwork or about its author. Addition of such commentary in this article would likely be off topic. The inclusion of this image would be more justified in the article Ron Miller (artist and author), as an example of his works as a designer of stamps. As a bonus, three references are already there about a connection with the New Horizons mission. Where the connection is mentioned in the New Horizons article, you can place a link to the article about Ron Miller. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Asclepias, of the 3 sources in the Ron Miller (artist and author) article, one is dead and neither of the other two mention the stamp being the inspiration for the mission, so they are of no use for this use. This stamp is hardly representative of his work, being a planet image with some very simple text. I'm sure there must be better examples of the work he has done as mentioned in the article. The stamp does not even appear in an image search for "Ron Miller space art" in pages of examples. But, I'm sorry, I digress from the main point of this posting. ww2censor (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the stamp image is appropriate for New Horizons until and unless there is some sourced discussion in the article about stamp provided a reason for carrying out the New Horizons mission. So, yank. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Asclepias, Elegie, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and Ww2censor: Hey guys. I'm the person that originally uploaded and introduced the stamp into the New Horizons article years ago. It was originally used to illustrate an expanded "Background" section I had written back in July 2015, a sub-section of which discusses how the stamp inspired the Pluto Fast Flyby concept, the first form of what would eventually become the New Horizons mission. The vast majority of this section now forms part of the Exploration of Pluto article at the will of BatteryIncluded, following a move they made a few months afterward. The stamp was later reintroduced as part of an attempt by Tdadamemd sioz in June 2016 to bring back some of the pre-New Frontiers background of the mission – an attempt questionably denied by Jim.henderson the day after, however Jim had left the stamp in. This is as far as I know the complete relevant story of how the stamp got into the article you see today. Because the content I had written about the stamp itself and the inspiration of Pluto Fast Flyby now exists in Exploration of Pluto, that is where the stamp should be in order to illustrate to the reader the catalyst for what would eventually become New Horizons. I've gone ahead and done this, and updated {{Non-free use rationale 2}} on the file page. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 04:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

PhilipTerryGraham it's unacceptable of you to remove the template from the image without following the instructions in that template which specifically say NOT to remove it. I've reinstated it because the reasoning for this image failing WP:NFCC remain the same even though you have refactored the information. ww2censor (talk) 08:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: I apologise for that. I will note that the issue addressed in this nomination was resolved and the image no longer fails the non-free content criteria. I’m not sure how one closes this discussion though, which was what I attempted to do when I removed the template. I wouldn’t mind some instructions on that! Haha! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 13:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

PhilipTerryGraham Despite saying that the issue has been addressed, I disagree with you. Because you have moved the image to a different article, I have revised the disputed rational concern. There is really no need for the stamp to convey what is already stated in prose, so adding it is essentially just decorative. ww2censor (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: ...even though it is not decorative, and illustrates an item of significance in the history of the Exploration of Pluto. Your updated argument states "Besides which there is no sourced commentary about the stamp image itself, just about what it is alleged to have inspired." I understand what you're saying here, but you're arguing against a mountain of reliable sources to the contrary. [1][2][3] This includes a November 1994 article by Pluto Fast Flyby project member Robert Staehle, and Chasing New Horizons co-authored by New Horizons Principal Investigator Alan Stern. [4][5] It's obviously an important and well known part of the Pluto story, including among planetary scientists themselves. It should undoubtedly be illustrated for the reader. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 13:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: have you read and do you understand what WP:NFCC#8 actually says? There is no need for a non-free image if the prose alone and the lack of the image is not detrimental to the reader's understanding of the topic. What do you think? do they NEED to see the stamp? Sorry but not in my opinion and this has been argued several times previously over the years for similar situations. ww2censor (talk) 13:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: My previous reply to you was a resounding "yes" to your question, obviously. If we present to the reader what planetary scientists got revved up about in the early 90s, it would allow them to at least better understand the motivations behind Pluto Fast Flyby and its successor projects. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 14:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I would argue, based on the history of the article form PTG above, that I think the New Horizons is just a bit too many steps removed from how the stamp influenced NASA to make it allowable at the New Horizons article under NFC - but 100% okay at Exploration of Pluto. New Horizons does not appear to be lacking (free) imagery so the stamp picture is really unneeded. I would have a more compelled case if the article was wholly devoid of images , no free ones possible, but that's not the case here. --Masem (t) 20:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Labeled as reuse, but may be copyrighted?

Hello, I'm a semi-experienced editor here on Wikipedia, but I am a complete beginner when it pertains to managing files. I was attempting to upload an image to accompany an article; I wanted to make sure that all of the copyright rules were obeyed, so I only searched through the images labeled for reuse on Google. Once I found an appropriate image, I downloaded, but I became aware of something. Just below the image was the line "Images may be subject to copyright". This copyright notice is located beneath every image on Google; however, is it fine if the image is labeled for reuse? Thanks for getting back to this, Utopes (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Find the original source of the image and see what information is there about the copyright. We can't help you more if you keep secret what image it is. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

(Hey, I wasn't trying to keep it a secret, the question just never came up if it mattered).Utopes (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey Utopes. As indicated above, we can probably be more helpful if you link us to the specific image. Copyright and licensing can be extremely complicated, and small details can often make a large difference. But in general, as far as I am aware, Google adds this disclaimer to everything regardless of the license, probably to protect themselves from litigation if someone takes a copyrighted image off of images.google.com and then gets sued over it. GMG^talk 18:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks GMG, it is right here: https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Flive.staticflickr.com%2F1439%2F585268380_1cbb1315fe_z.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fesparta%2F585268380&docid=View7rgs7Z-yeM&tbnid=HD9Pp4HcxcEWhM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwi5ofjwy8HjAhXMX80KHZryDX0QMwg-KAAwAA..i&w=640&h=427&safe=active&bih=524&biw=1215&q=yoli%20soda&ved=0ahUKEwi5ofjwy8HjAhXMX80KHZryDX0QMwg-KAAwAA&iact=mrc&uact=8

I was trying to save the Yoli article from AfD, and was hoping that an accompanying image would help it stay in line with the other articles about soft drinks. I did find reliable sources, but wanted to polish it off with this and an infobox. Utopes (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey Utopes. Well, the image on Flickr may be freely licensed, but you still might run into problem with the design of the packing being covered under copyright. But I really don't now very much about the threshold for originality in Mexico, and c:COM:TOO isn't very helpful on the matter. GMG^talk 18:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, I see... how are packaging/logo images usually covered? What should be my next course of action? Utopes (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes in cases like this two file copyright licenses are needed: one for the photo and one for the packaging. If you took the photo yourself, you can (and most likely should) release the file under one of the free licenses found at WP:ICT/FL; you should then add a Template:Information for the photo. If you didn't take the photo yourself, then you're going to need to show WP:CONSENT from the copyright holder to upload the file under a free license. So, if you use the Flickr photo referenced above, you should probably use Template:Cc-by-2.0 for the photo's licensing. It's highly unlikely that a non-free licensed photo taken by a third-party is going to be allowed per WP:FREER, unless it's something from one of the product's official websites.

The product labeling (if subject to copyright protection) can be licensed using a non-free license like one of those listed in Category:Wikipedia non-free file copyright templates (perhaps Template:Non-free product cover would work; you then will need to add a non-free use rationale for the labeling (perhaps Template:Cover rationale). Since part of the file is considered to be non-free, the whole files is going to be treated as such for use on Wikipedia; this means that each use of the file is going to need to meet WP:NFCC. So, if you upload the file and it cannot be used in a policy compliant way in any articles, it will likely be deleted; if some uses are OK but others aren't, it will likely be removed from wherever it's not OK to use. If you want to use the file multiple times, you will need to satisfy WP:NFCCP for each use.

There's one more possibility but it's a bit tricky. Sometimes the license Template:PD-ineligible-USonly is used when something is considered to be too simple for copyright eligibility per U.S. copyright law, but perhaps too complex to be public domain in the country of origin. This is sort of a local English Wikipedia version of Template:PD-logo and enables the file to be treated by English Wikipedia the same way as a public domain file. These files cannot be moved to Commons, but they are typically easier to use than a non-free file since they are not subject to WP:NFCC. You still would need a separate copyright license for the photo.

Just for reference, articles are not really deleted because how many images are being used in them; so, adding an infobox image is unlikely going to have any effect on AfD about the article. You'd be much better of trying to show how WP:NPRODUCT or WP:GNG are met. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Utopes: There's no perfect solution, but if you have access to bottles of the product, one possible solution is that you can yourself take a photo of a whole bottle. Like examples in Commons:Category:Soft drink bottles. Make sure it'a a photo of a whole bottle. Commons usually keeps them by analogy with a case about which a short summary is in this recent discussion. Photos of cans are subject to stricter scrutiny and may require that the packaging works be below the threshold. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Copyrightability of Hill Climb Racing logo

I have been busy lately, working on articles such as Hill Climb Racing, and while I can do major cleanups for those articles while doing investigative research, there is one situation that has me stumped.

On that Hill Climb Racing article, I am considering replacing the icon in the infobox with the logo of the game for three reasons: 1. A trademarked logo is generally more identifiable than an application icon containing copyrighted material from the application. 2. There is a chance that the logo is free (the reason I am here). 3. If so, it could be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and thus be used across other Wikipedias and Wikimedia projects. For your reference, here is the logo in question, on the left side at the top of the page. Since the application and its logo were designed in Finland, I checked this Commons guideline to be on the safe side, but ultimately I cannot decide whether the logo is below the country's threshold of originality. I know that a simple solid-colored checkered flag is considered common property in the US, and so is impact text, but I am not sure whether a checkered flag in this context is considered free in Finland. My best guess is that it is, because a simple checkered flag alone is not particularly artistic, let alone the ubiquity of the pattern.

I am vectorizing the logo for the sake of accessibility, and it would be embarrassing to upload it to Commons only to see it taken down on the grounds of infringing copyrights (and this would not be the first time something like that has happened to me). I do think that the logo is better than an app icon for the purpose of identification, but it would be great if I could get an answer on whether it is in the public domain in Finland in order to be uploaded to Commons. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 03:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

You could upload the logo as non-free without any concerns about the TOO in either the US or Finland, but in that case you probably should only use an official svg released by the copyright holder for the reasons explained in WP:FREER. Another possibility might be to upload the file as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} for local use only on English Wikipedia; this is sometimes done when a logo is likely too simple to be copyrightable in the US, but perhaps is eligible for copyright protection in its country or origin. If, however, you really want to upload the file to Commons, then you can ask for opinions at c:COM:VPC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:NFCC#Request for comment: Clarification of WP:NFC#UUI #17 with regards to football.

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:NFCC#Request for comment: Clarification of WP:NFC#UUI #17 with regards to football. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Template:Z48

File:McKay with the Durham Bulls.jpeg

Is GFDL (v. 1.2+) acceptable as the only license to use for self-made files in English Wikipedia? Wikimedia Commons no longer accepts GFDL for newer photos licensed on or after 15 October 2018, especially if files are to be transferred there. George Ho (talk) 05:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems like any of the Creative Commons licenses that Wikipedia (or Commons) accepts should be OK to use, but I'm not sure anyone but the copyright holder can just change the license. It also seems like this file should've been uploaded to Commons instead of Wikipedia. The file's uploader UNC2 appears to be a fairly new editor and might've just chosen the GFDL license at random after receiving this notification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, GFDL-only is still acceptable for new files on English Wikipedia. Chosing a license at random is just as legally effective as putting lots of thought to it. If the uploader doesn't want to reconsider, the file will stay with us and not Commons. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Aamir khan signature.jpg

Does this non-free image of Aamir Khan's signature really need to be licensed as non-free? c:COM:SIG seems to indicate that it might be OK to covert this to {{PD-signature}}. It seems unlikely this would be eligible for copyright protection in the US, but I'm not sure about India (where Kahn is from). If this does need to be non-free, then the reason for using it given in the file's non-free use rationale is not accurate at all since it's not needed at all for primary identification and "This is just to show real signature" sounds totally decorative as ooposed to contextual. Is there typically a bit of leeway given for non-free signature files used in main infoboxes? Otherwise, I don't see how this can be kept per WP:NFCCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Marchjuly, the Commons copyright page on Indian law doesn't specifically cover signatures, but it does state that Indian law is modelled on UK law, and in the absence of any specific case law to the contrary it is reasonable to assume that the rules will be similar. The page you cited on signatures specifically does indicate that signatures are likely subject to copyright under UK law. Given that, I think in the absence of specific evidence to the contrary, it would have to be presumed that signatures could be copyrightable under Indian law. Since we cannot show it to be free and the article already has a free photo of the individual himself as identification, the signature fails NFCC #1 and #8 and I've removed it. If someone who knows more about Indian law specifically could show evidence that signatures cannot be copyrighted in India, we could use it as PD-signature. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this Seraphimblade. —- Marchjuly (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Protest poster

I have a photo (my own) of a protest poster used in the early 90s in a squat defence campaign in Germany. The poster itself has no indication of the publisher, printer or any other information. I believe that it was produced by the squatters themselves, and used widely as part of their campaign. Can this be used in the article about the squat? What information would I need to provide in order to upload this? RolandR (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

RolandR, you might find this page helpful to determining if the poster would be copyrightable under German law. If so, you may need the permission of the person who made it to release the content of the poster under a free license, before you could release the photo under one. If the poster is not something copyrightable under German law, or would under that law count as a de minimis part of the shot, that would be different, but if the poster was a main focus of the photo, the copyright status of that poster matters a great deal. It looks like German freedom of panorama law only covers photographing works found permanently in a public place, but since a poster is only temporarily found there, that wouldn't apply in this case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't really help. There is nothing on the poster to identify its creator - probably a German anarchist activist nearly thirty years ago. In fact, it is very unlikely that the creator would be able to establish their rights to this image, even if they cared to do so. RolandR (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Then I'm afraid it sounds like the answer is likely to be no, it would not be usable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

How to access the online library of congress photographs for boxers, or other individuals

Can anyone help with this question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcw2003 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

You can go to any page on their website and enter your keywords in the searchbox. E.g. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/ Use keywords that are specific enough. If you type the name of an individual, it should get you results, if they have photographs of this person. If you type boxers, the results will probably not be very useful. They have search tips there: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/help/ Was that your question? -- Asclepias (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Auctioned documents and testimony re Buzz Aldrin's historic activities on Apollo 11

I want to put photographs of a historical document relevant to the material re the Apollo 11 flight in the Buzz Aldrin article. This consists of the front and verso of a 3" x 5" card that Aldrin prepared and used on the flight when giving publicly broadcast messages to the Earth. As the original document of these historic public activities, it provides valuable evidence to assist in understanding Aldrin's mind and actions. It is also in itself a unique document in human history, being the only religious liturgy used in the only religious service on the Moon (Aldrin is a Presbyterian elder). This document was sold at auction in 2007, but photographs of it, Aldrin's letter of authenticity, and a personal testimony regarding the historic events are present on the auctioneer's website.[1] Can I upload images of these materials under Fair Use or some such policy without receiving prior approval? If necessary, how would I receive approval for use of their images of the historic documents? Olorin3k (talk) 12:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)