Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:MCQ)
    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 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 purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

    R.S. Yeoman[edit]

    I've looked for years for a free image of Yeoman for the article, but I havent been able to find any, so I added a nonfree image. After reading through the policy I believe this is an appropriate use. Coingeek (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    File:RSYeoman.jpeg Coingeek (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You need to add a non-free usage rationale to the file description at File:RSYeoman.jpeg, and it should be cropped to show only the subject of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Coingeek, you also need to correct several things on the nonfree rationale. For example, you list "Coingeek" as the author and source, which is you. If you are actually the photographer, you can just release it under a free license yourself. If you are not, you need to change the "Author" field to say who the photographer was, and the "Source" field to reflect where you found the photograph. Also, the "Respect for commercial opportunities" field just says "No". You need to fill that out with an explanation of how our use of the photograph does not impede or interfere with any commercial use the photo may potentially have. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, sorry, you list "CoinWeek" as author and source, not Coingeek, so I got a bit confused there. Still, without any kind of URL or anything, that doesn't tell the reader the answer to the question "Where is this photo originally from"?. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Centers of Disease Control and Prevention[edit]

    Hello together,

    I found some good images for Wikipedia, such as those on the pulmonary atresia page. I read their disclaimer about the use of Agency Material and learned that most, but not all, of their images are public domain. I'm a bit confused and would appreciate help in determining whether I am allowed to upload these and other images from the CDC to Commons and if I may crop them so that the logo isn't visible anymore. –Tobias (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I wouldn't be quite as sure about the photos, but the diagrams are clearly attributed to a CDC and should therefore be uploadable (ideally to Commons) under Template:PD-USGov-HHS-CDC or its identically-named Commons equivalent. You are free to crop the logo, since the file is in the public domain. Felix QW (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, that was everything I needed. –Tobias (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated addition of a new, allegedly infringing version of a coat of arms[edit]

    The user SecretSquirrel78 (talk · contribs) uploaded a new rendition of the coat of arms of Singapore at File:Singapore_coat_of_arms.svg, replacing File:Coat Arms of Singapore 1965.png at Singapore and File:Singapore_coat_of_arms.svg at Coat of arms of Singapore. It was repeatedly reverted by Vif12vf (talk · contribs), who alleges that the rendition by SecretSquirrel78 is a derivative work of a copyrighted official rendition. I've also nominated SecretSquirrel78's version for deletion at Commons. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 19:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright. The same treatment should be applied across to all. Pls delete the version at UK's page which is declared as his "own work", Malaysia's page, Indian's page as well. SecretSquirrel78 (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Files uploaded to Commons need to be discussed or otherwise sorted out on Commons; so, there's no much anyone can do about them here.
    When it comes to coats-of-arms and Commons, there's some guidance provided at c:COM:COA, but most discussions basically resolve around the copyright status of the blazon and the emblazon. The blazon is the written definition that describes the elements of a coat-of-arms and how they all fit together; the emblazon, on the other hand, is someone's visual representation of the blazon. In most cases, the blazon isn't considered eligible for copyright protection, but in many cases an emblazon is because it represents someone's creative interpretation of the blazon; so, there can be many different eblazons for one blazon, Commons does host many coat-of-arm files for which the emblazon has been released under an acceptable free license by it's creator; in other words, some reads the blazon and creates their own version of it and then releases it under a free license. However, Commons won't host emblazons that aren't 100% the uploader's "own work" (e.g. uploads of emblazons created by third-parties found online that are not released under an acceptable license) or emblazons that are just slavish reproductions of someone else's copyrighted work or are recreations that are so close to someone else's copyrighted emblazon that they're practially identical.
    Finally, for reference, how files are used in Wikipedia articles isn't really a concern of Commons since Commons is mainly concerned with the copyright status of the files it hosts; however, being OK for Commons doesn't automatically mean OK for Wikipedia. The use of a file (like text content) in an article is subject to WP:CONSENSUS which often depends on the encyclopedic relevance of the file to the article's readers. Disagreements over this relevance probably need to be resolved on the relevant article's talk page to see whether a consensus can be established either way. If article talk page discussion has been tried but hasn't gotten anywhere, seeking input at the WikiProject level (e.g. WP:HERALDRY) sometimes helps sort things out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding book cover to book page[edit]

    I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this but I made a page about a book (Whalefall (novel)). I had added the book cover to the page but someone took it down and said it wasn't a legit use of non-free media. I had thought book covers were ok to use, since most pages for a book have the book cover? Is there a better way to add the book cover? Or maybe because it's not a very famous book it doesn't get a book cover photo? Thanks for your help, sorry I'm new at this. Whatsabar (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Cover art of books is often allowed under our fair use guidelines. In this case, the issue seems to be that your fair use rationale failed to set the "Article" field correctly and so did not link to the article in which the image was used. That lack of a link caused the image to be removed by a bot. It was all automatic. I think I have fixed it now. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Publication in Poland[edit]

    Working through files with unclear URAA status, I came across File:Gela Seksztajn - photo.jpg. As far as I can tell, this image would be public domain in the US only if it can be considered "published" by Polish standards of the time, and either was published without a copyright notice or anonymously, or by a photographer who died in 1943 or earlier. The author given on the file page is in fact the subject, which is implausible as the photographer. Does anyone know what we or Commons usually do with such photos from Poland that come from an archive? Pinging Jarekt and Piotrus for their familiarity with Polish copyright law. Felix QW (talk) 07:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Masur may know. See also my commons:User:Piotrus/PolishCopyright guide. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Felix QW I do not think the copyright status of this image depend on Polish law. I agree that the "author" field is probably incorrect and the photo is de-facto anonymous. Most old anonymous images on Commons use c:template:PD-anon-70-EU license, which states that "work was made available to the public". Since we do not know anything about this photo, it is hard to establish if that statement is true, but that is probably true for most photographs using that license. --Jarekt (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am just not entirely convinced both that it has been made available to the public in the sense of European law and that it is actually anonymous - after all, the archive could well have information that we don't. The only issue that relates this to Poland is that the argument of being public domain in 1996 relies on copyright to have expired under Poland's then-50-year term. Felix QW (talk) 13:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Film depictions of Andromeda (mythology)[edit]

    I created screenshots of the character Andromeda (based on the mythology) from Clash of the Titans (2010) and Wrath of the Titans (2012), but I've yet to upload suitable ones. I have been assuming that free pics of actresses at Andromeda (mythology)#In film would suffice, but one editor would seem happier to use non-free screenshots instead. I honestly have doubts about screenshots' compliance with NFCC.

    Re-reading the passage, as I figured, most readers would already recognize what the passage is describing without non-free content. Furthermore, the "Analysis" section would be already clear to most readers without non-free screenshots. I could be wrong, nonetheless. (I don't wanna say what exact matter is, but I hope it is figured out without me naming or describing exact issue.) The same matter about (portrayal and depiction of) Andromeda herself was discussed at FFD discussion. George Ho (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pikachu virus[edit]

    Advice requested for whether to use a fair use image at Talk:Pikachu virus § Infobox image. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 18:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Mercury Drug LED screen[edit]

    Hello. Is there any potential derivative work problem for Patrickroque01's File:Plaza Miranda Mercury LED billboard (Quezon Blvd., Quiapo, Manila)(2017-12-31).jpg? It is an LED screen that (in ordinary days) broadcasts promotional material and adverts of Mercury Drug found at Plaza Miranda. Unsure if this is OK to be locally hosted here, as U.S. law (which English Wikipedia solely respects) is typically more restrictive in terms of foreign non-architectural works (foreign, that is, non-U.S. works), though I am only familiar with longer U.S. copyright terms for artistic works like public monuments (95+1 years from publication for pre-1978, 70 years after sculptor's death since 1978). I'm not sure for the U.S. copyright terms of non-U.S. audio-visual works like the thing that the LED screen broadcasts). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    La Blouse Roumaine[edit]

    Hi there! I'm looking to upload an image for La Blouse Roumaine and I found one listed under Public Domain here. However, when I go to upload the image the only option for Creative Commons 1.0 license is one stating I own the image (which I do not). Am I missing something here? Wormbug (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Wormbug. There might be a problem with the licensing of that Flickr file per c:COM:2D copying and c:COM:LL if the photographed painting itself isn't in the public domain. When someone takes a photo like this of someone else's painting, there is usually not enough creativity involved for a new copyright to be established for the photo itself and, therefore, it's really only the copyright of the painting that matters when it comes to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. Even if the photo was to be considered a WP:Derivative work (i.e. creative enough to establish a new copyright for the photo), the copyright status of the photographed painting would still need to be taken into acocunt. So, I would probably hold off on trying to upload this photo to Commons or Wikipedia until you've been able to clarify the copyright status of the painting at c:COM:VPC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Matisse died in 1954, so life+70 years would be 2024, meaning it should become PD next January but is still under copyright now. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    fantastic, thanks yall! Wormbug (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The only issue would be that, depending on its exhibition or publication history, it may still be copyrighted in the United States until 95 years after publication, so possibly until the beginning of 2036. This is important since Wikimedia's servers are located in the US and therefore the English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons follows US copyright law (in addition to that of the source country, in the case of Wikimedia Commons). Felix QW (talk) 07:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Would his image from https://www.snb.ch/en/media/photos-board be acceptable? I don't know how NFCC applies to it. Nobody (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    He appears to be living so we cannot use NFCC. And the site you link allows only non-commercial use of its content, not sufficiently broad to upload here without NFCC. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @1AmNobody24: David Eppstein is correct in that a non-free image of Schlegel wouldn't be allowed per WP:NFCC#1 given that he's still living and there's no reasonable reason to expect that a freely licensed equivalent image of him could neither be created (i.e. a new photo of him taken and released under an acceptable free license) or found (i.e. an existing photo which is already released under a free license or which can be converted to an acceptable licence), Moreover, given that it's highly unlikely that Schlegel's Wikipedia notability has anything to do with his physical appearance, he would be near impossible that an exception should be made per item WP:NFC#UUI. You could try reaching out to him, his representatives or any copyright holders of images you might find of him per WP:PERMISSION since some users have had success procurring free equivalent images by asking for them; however, there's no image being used in Schlegel's corresponding German Wikipedia article, which could be others have tried this and have been unsuccessful.
    Are you translating content from the German Wikipedia article into English and then adding it to the English Wikipedia article? Just asking out of curiosity. It's OK to do such a thing, but you need to make sure you properly attribute the original source of the content as explained in WP:PATT and WP:TFOLWP.
    Lastly, if, by chance, you're connected to Schlegel in some personal or professional way and are able to use that connection to obtain a free equivalent image, then you could upload that to Commons if you can ensure it meets c:COM:L. Such an image could be used by German Wikipedia too. However, if you do have such a connection, you should carefully read through WP:COI and WP:PAID to make sure you're complying with relevant English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding such things. This doesn't really matter when it comes to Commons, but it does matter quite a lot with respect to English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC); edited 07:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC); [Note: Last paragraph stricken out by Marchjuly per below. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)][reply]
    @Marchjuly The article started as a translation but those edits were revdeld due to other copyright problems. My edits after that weren't translations. I also don't have a PAID or COI with him. Also please don't accuse experienced editors of that unless you have proof.
    I'll probably reach out to the SNB then, to see if they can release a cc-licensed picture of him. Nobody (talk) 06:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't accusing you of anything, I was just asking if, by chance you had such a connection. It was a good-faith enquiry, but I apologize if it seemed otherwise. Maybe, you could've assume that a "more experienced" editor wasn't acting in bad faith by asking such a thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't assuming bad faith. I just believe you should never ask that an experienced editors without reason, no matter how experienced you are. If you disagree then that's fine for me. But asking about wrongdoing without proof didn't even work for Jimbo. Nobody (talk) 06:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think my question and what you've linked to above are 100% equivalent (trying to somehow equate that they are seems a bit of a stretch) since I wasn't going to purse the matter any further and just provided links for reference. You can of course seek formal sanction if you feel what I did rises to same level of what was discussed that in that particular ArbCom case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't exactly the same but similar enough for a reference. Since I know you asked in good faith I don't have any intention of seeking any sanction. That doesn't change the fact that asking me that leaves a sour taste behind. Nobody (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not even close to being "similar enough" even if only for reference in my opinion, but I've stricken the paragraph in question. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The bot deleted the Teto image i put on the 1st article, however its on the 2nd article. This isnt fair? really? Snipertron12 [|User|Talk|Cont|] 13:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Snipertron12 Per en-WP-rules Wikipedia:Non-free content, you can have a non-free pic of Kasane Teto as a WP:LEADIMAGE in the Kasane Teto article. Nowhere else, so it should be removed from the Utau article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Cylotron Project.jpg[edit]

    Is this photo valid for use in Wikipedia? Newpaper photo from 1938 or 1939 published in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (no longer in print, currently on-line only.) No other information about the picture is available. Photo is copied from a newspaper clipping in a family scrapbook. JHMoyer (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @JHMoyer, you state 1928 or 1929 on the file page, which is it? This goes for US: "Works published before 1929 are in the public domain. For works first published before 1964, copyright lasts 28 years after publication, and is therefore currently expired unless the owner filed for renewal during the window between 27 and 28 years after publication." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I think you might have misread the OP's post. What you posted is correct, but the OP posted Newpaper photo from 1938 or 1939 .... -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marchjuly Yes, but like I said, at File:Cylotron Project.jpg OP says the other thing. "Which is it" meant 1938 or 1939 or 1928 or 1929, that wasn't very clear. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies Gråbergs Gråa Sång. I guess today's been kind of a bad day for me. I hope nobody takes my picture. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The caption says the two people are "Dr. Donald H. Loughridge (right) and Burton Moyer". Donald Holt Loughridge (Q102115511) was Burton J. Moyer's PhD advisor, and the apparatus in this photo is likely related to that graduate work prior to his 1939 degree (note only Loughridge is titled 'Dr.' here). All of that is more consistent with a 1938/1939 photo than 1928/1929 (Moyer looks more like 27 years old than 17). DMacks (talk) 09:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for mislabeling. The correct date for the photo is 1938 or 1939, just before Moyer was granted his PhD in 1939. Thank you for your help with this issue. JHMoyer (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake. Sorry. Picture is from about 1938-1939.
    JHMoyer (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @JHMoyer: For future reference, it's generally better to ask questions before uploading any files whose provenance you're not sure of. Files need two things: a description and a copyright license. Uploading a file without either of the two (particularly without a copyright license) almost ensures that the file is going to be tagged (perhaps almost immediately) for speedy deletion. Moreover, the burden typically falls upon the person uploading the file to provide these two things (at least to their best of their knowledge) and not just hope that someone else will do so later. Given that you seem to be sure the file comes from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, it would be really helpful if you can clarify the date of the issue in which it was published. If you can do that, then perhaps someone else can work out which copyright license is needed.
    In addition, to expand on what Gråbergs Gråa Sång has already posted above, photos appearing in newspaper articles from that particular period of time weren't required to have individual copyright notices but instead were covered under the copyright of the publication itself (which almost always had some notice somewhere in the issue). The file is attributed to a "Post-Intelligencer Staff Photographer" which means it's a "work-for-hire" and the paper would own any copyright over it. If the photo was taken prior to January 1, 1929, it would be within the public domain and OK to license as {{PD-US}} under US copyright law; if it was taken between January 1, 1929, but before January 1, 1963, it could still be within the public domain as {{PD-US-not renewed}} or {{PD-US-no notice}}, but more information about the issue it appeared in would be needed. You mentioned that the newspaper is currently available online; so, if you can find a link which shows the photo published in the paper (perhaps in the paper's archives or newspapers.com), then perhaps someone can help figure out its copyright status. Whether the paper no longer exist isn't really relevant when it comes to intellectual property rights since such rights are assets that can be sold or otherwise transferred to other parties. Whether a copyright notice can be found or whether copyright was renewed though does matter a lot because US copyright law at that time was different back then, and it required formalities that are no longer required today. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The UPenn database at least states that issues of the Seattle PI have not been renewed, although some individual contributions have. Felix QW (talk) 09:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Mugshot/ police images in Australia[edit]

    Hello, I came across this image (File:Goussis.jpg) and used the same rationale to upload File:Matthew Charles Johnson.webp. Just wondering if this fair-use rationale is appropriate or not. GMH Melbourne (talk) 06:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]