Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:MCQ)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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
  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 the GFDL, an acceptable Creative Commons 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.; {{GFDL-self}}), 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 purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)


Would a screen grab of the following YouTube video be free from copyrights? It was produced by the candidates political organization in a run for the House of Representatives in 2006.

17:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC) User:G._Moore Talk

Nope, most YT videos are copyrighted, and images out of them would be copyrighted. Some YT videos can be licensed under Creative Commons and thus could be a potential source for images, but this would be explicitly listed in the video's description. --Masem (t) 17:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

NT Newspaper Clipping[edit]

I've recieved a newspaper clipping from the Northern Territory News in regards to the 1995 Arnhem by-election from the Northern Territory Library. It is from 1995. Would it be classified as free work? --AnswerMeNow1 (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@AnswerMeNow1:. Are you asking whether you could citing the clipping as a reliable source for an article or are you asking whether you could upload the clipping as an image file? If you're asking about the former, then perhaps as long as the people itself is considered to be a reliable source per Wikipedia's standards. If, on the other hand, you're asking about the latter, then my question to you would be "Why?". You don't need to upload a newspaper clipping in order to cite it as a source for an article; as long as the source is published, reliable, can be accessed by someone else for verification purposes and you've read it, then it doesn't need to be available anywhere online per WP:SAYWHERE. You can even briefly quote the clipping as long as you do so per MOS:QUOTE.
As for being a "free work" (i.e. not under copyright protection), it's possible depending upon whether the publisher has clearly released it as such; however, most likely a newspaper clipping from 1995 is going to be considered copyright protected unless it can be clearly shown not to be, which means Wikipedia would treat it as non-free content. Uploading pages from newspapers as non-free content is sometimes done (see Category:Fair use newspaper covers), but this is usually only done when there's something about the page itself (it's layout, it's headline, etc.) which can be used for primary identification purposes of the paper itself (e.g. in the main infobox of a Wikipedia article about the paper) or was something discussed other reliable sources so that the context for non-free use is provided. The content in the clipping might be something worth mentioning in an article, but seeing the actual clipping itself might not be something which significantly improves the reader's understanding enough to justify it's non-free use and which may just as easily be achieved through text. Wikipedia generally doesn't prefer images of textual content for the reasons given in WP:TEXTASIMAGES, even if the image is a "free work"; it's generally better to summarize the source in your own words, add that summary to the article in question, and then simply cite it in support of what you added. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
@Marchjuly:. I was talking about the latter- I thought that it may be suitable to upload it because it is not directly available, I had to enquire about it through the library to recieve the clipping. --AnswerMeNow1 (talk) 03:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
You don’t really need to upload an image of a newspaper clipping as “proof” that either the article actually appeared in a newspaper or was about a certain subject. All that is needed is that the article actually was published in a reliable source and is not something someone just made up. If the article can be accessed (even for a fee, and even if it takes a bit of time and effort) by anyone who feels the need to do so for verification purposes, then it should be OK to cite as a source without uploading a file of the clipping. In other words, if someone can go to that library and request the same clipping that you requested, then that’s pretty much going to be considered a published and accessible source. Uploading the image itself to Wikipedia or to some external website and then providing a convenience link won’t necessarily make the clipping “more” reliable or verifiable because there may be questions raised about the accuracy of the upload image itself, etc. — Marchjuly (talk) 05:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Replaceable fair use File:Count Alexander Mohl.jpg[edit]

I had públished this photo on the Wikipedia file and one of the Wikipedia police deleted it claiming...

Thanks for uploading File:Count Alexander Mohl.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text

This template should only be used on file description pages.

below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.

On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable. Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I dont understand the repleacable part....repleaceable by what or whom? Just because he THINKS it has another free equivalant?? Not really..and it is freely licensed...Gzegosh (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gzegosh. File:Count Alexander Mohl.jpg was nominated for speedy deletion by Finnusertop, but the file was actually deleted by an administrator named Explicit. Both are pretty experienced editors when it comes to files, particularly non-free files, which means that it's unlikely that both made a mistake; not impossible, just a little unlikely. Explicit, in particular, is unlikely to have deleted a file per WP:F7 if it had been uploaded under a free license. So, Explicit probably wouldn't have ended up deleting the file if he didn't agree with Finnusertop that this was a case of "replaceable non-free use".
As for the replaceable part, this basically means that it seems reasonable to either find or create a free equivalent image which can serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free one. The free equivalent image doesn't have to currently exist, it doesn't have to be a freely licensed version of the same exact image (it can be a different image as long as it's sufficient to serve the same encyclopedic purpose), and it doesn't have to be found or created before the non-free one ends up being deleted. As long as it's deemed reasonable that a free equivalent may be found or created by someone someday, then that's usually enough for the non-free image to be deleted per WP:FREER. In this particular case though, there are already two freely licensed images being used in Aleksander Piotr Mohl which means that a non-free one is pretty much not going to be accepted unless there's a really good contextual reason for doing so per WP:NFCC#8 and all of the other non-free content use criteria are also satisfied.
The licensing of the two files you uploaded for use in the article (File:Count Alexander Mohl Second Lieutenant 13th Regiment of Wilno Uhlans.jpeg and File:Count Alexander Mohl in Polish Diplomatic uniform 1936.jpeg) seems a bit questionable. You've licensed the files as "self|cc-zero", yet you state that the photo belongs to someone named Gregory Dayton. Unless you are Gregory Dayton, you cannot license these files as your own work (i.e. self); moreover, unless you are actually the person who took the photos, you cannot claim copyright ownership over them even if you are Gregory Dayton. Generally, it's the person who takes a photo, not the subject of the photo or someone who may have the photo in their possession, who is considered to own the copyright over the photo. So, if you can clarify why you think these are "self|cc-zero", then perhaps someone can help sort their licensing out. Maybe there's another more suitable license which can be used instead.
Now, if it turns out that these files cannot be kept because they've been incorrectly licensed or the permission of the original copyright holder cannot be verified as explained in c:Commons:OTRS or WP:CONSENT, then it might actually possible to re-license one of these two files or even have the deleted non-free one restored for use in the article. So, if after reading this, you think that you might've actually mistakenly licensed those two files as "self|cc-zero" when they aren't, then discuss this with Explicit and he will help you figure out what best to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)