Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:MCQ)
Jump to: navigation, search
Click here to ask your question
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
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 Save page.
  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 ask your question" link above.
  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.

pulivoy village,uthiramerur taluk,kanchipuram district[edit]

Question regarding upload of an Image[edit]

I need to give the copyright status. I am ready to give the copyright status, but don't know the format to enter these details. I am ready to give the details such as where the image came from, who created it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lujojoseph (talkcontribs) 08:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about File:Krishna-Praba.jpg. Unfortunately this image looks like a professional portrait, so unless you are the actual photographer and own the copyright, you cannot add the details necessary, otherwise verify your permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. Besides which the image is found on several websites, such as this one, so it looks like you just copied it from the internet and the copyright is owned by someone else. ww2censor (talk) 08:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I understand the fact. I am going to remove the image soon. If I have an original image with me that is never used elsewhere, what's the format to show my ownership. What are all the details that I included in its description part. Lujojoseph (talk) 09:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
You cannot remove the image but you can add the following tag to the image {{db-blanked}} (include the curly brackets). Owning an image gives you no rights over that image which always belong to the copyright holder unless the copyright has expired which is generally 70 years after their death. I don't know what details you are asking about because when you upload an image here you are usually walked through the process and asked to fill in details along the way, which you need to answer honestly. It appears you did not fill in any detail for this image, but if it will be deleted there is no need. ww2censor (talk) 09:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I understood. My question is if I upload an image that I took with my camera or an image that is never used anywhere on the internet, how can I prove its my image and what is the exact tag i need to include in the description part to prove the ownership of my image Lujojoseph (talk) 10:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah, ok. If it is you own image, you can just use the upload wizard on the commons and it will ask you appropriate questions. If it is your image you will be asked what license you want to use, etc., It is pretty straight forward. When you click on the button to confirm it is an image created by you, not copied from elsewhere or from the internet, a default license will be listed but there is a link to see other acceptable licenses. There is also a small info button in a circle at the left for more information about each field if you don't understand. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Squirrel GoPro[edit]

We concluded that the Macaque selfie was not subject to copyright but what about the squirrel GoPro video? (I note that the question of copyright is discussed in the comments.) --S Philbrick(Talk) 14:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

This question reminds me a little of Andrew Davidson's question on this page. In my mind, it's questionable that merely causing the recording to happen does entitle anyone to a copyright. However, putting the recorder on the ground in front of a tree and turning it on could create a human-held copyright - I don't remember the name of the US Supreme Court case where the copyrightability of photos was established, but some of the arguments raised by the court in favour of that idea may apply here as well. Irrespective of the legal questions, as a matter of courtesy, I would ask for permission under a free license first. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


Should this file be licensed under {{Non-free architectural work}}? Maybe {{Non-free 3D art}} would be more appropriate for this type of thing if it's really non-free? Also, the source link given for the image is (according to Google Translate) belongs to the Croatian Encyclopedia which is copyrighted (according to Google Translate) by Miroslav Krleža Institute of Lexicography; however, there's no copyright information specific to this particular image provided on the source link. I'm assuming someone took the photo, but not sure if the LZMK can claim copyright over it. The same image can be seen online on a number of websites such as here and here which says the image comes from the Museum of Croatian Archaeological Monuments (MHAS). There's a category on Commons called c:Category:Museum of Croatian Archaeological Monuments, so I'm wondering if this file can be converted to PD in some way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

It's very counter-intuitive to use a non-free image to depict romanesque art from Medieval Croatia. If that's really as specific as the need to illustrate goes, then any image at c:Category:Romanesque art in Croatia will do. This one fails WP:NFCC#8 in this article. Because it's a 3D object the photograph necessarily contains originality and needs to be licensed free, separate from the object, and since no one seems to know who took the photo, I doubt it will happen. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 07:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
{{Non-free 3D art}} is questionable - a faithful attempt at reconstructing a 3D medieval work of art would be PD for the same reason as {{PD-Art}} usually is. An existing reconstruction is of course not {{Non-free architectural work}}. The file fails WP:NFCC#1 in my mind - Medieval art in Croatia should be freely accessible enough that one could easily ~create and freely license a photo of actual medieval art. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The category Museum of Croatian Archaeological Monuments has free photos, taken by Wikimedia contributors, of free objects in the Museum. This file has no evidence of being a free photograph. It should be deleted. It's not necessary to go into considerations about the pictured object. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Finnusertop, Jo-Jo Eumerus and Asclepias for taking a closer look at this. It seems that everyone is in agreement that this file does not satisfy WP:NFCCP and should be deleted, right? Should the next step be to tag it for speedy with {{rfu}} or something similiar or should it be discussed at FFD? Also, the same editor also uploaded File:StefatonKnin.png as non-free which seems to have same issues as the above-mentioned file. Should this be dealt with in the same way as the first file? One thing about the source link to the second file is that is immediate starts downloading as a pdf file when clicked (at least it did when I clicked on it) which does not seem to be a good thing even if the file's licensing is OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: {{subst:rfu}} it and add a link here in the reason parameter. No need to clog up FFD with this. Take it there only if the admin refuses. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 22:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Finnusertop. File has been tagged. If I missed something or did it incorrectly, just let me know. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Youtube CC license[edit]

Please look at this video. Is "Creative Commons Attribution licence (reuse allowed)" enough to meet our CC-BY-SA requirements so that screenshots from that video can be used in articles here? --NeilN talk to me 16:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes. If you click on the license it takes you to Learn about copyright on YouTube, which links to the exact CC license: CC-BY 3.0. It's an acceptable license and there's a Wikimedia Commons temaplate for it: c:Template:YouTube CC-BY. Upload any screenshots there.
There is a minor error in your question that I want to correct: all text imported to Wikipedia has to be compatible with CC-BY-SA (3.0), but for images certain additional free licenses apply (WP:C). – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 16:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
It does look like the license is a CC-BY-SA (and importantly no -NC (non-commercial) restriction). However, from the page with the video's attribution [1] it might be a reposting of a previous video that had been taken down. Obviously no way to check that. So what might be happening is the is the same as Flickrwashing, reposting non-CC videos with CC licenses.
My rule of thumb for YouTube is that if the material looks professional (like this does), that the user account posting it is clearly the entity that created the content and can be a verified account for that entity, so that they have the right to assign the CC-BY, license. This would even apply to non-free screencaps from Youtube videos, I would expect those only to be taken from videos confirmed to be uploaded by the entity that made them or would have clear rights to upload them (like Fox Network would for Simpsons clips). --MASEM (t) 16:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The video I linked to was uploaded by the rights holder. --NeilN talk to me 18:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
This looks OK to me. The attribution mentioned above is from this suspended account. Much more likely the suspended account used Ten Sports's content than the other way around. INeverCry 19:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
@INeverCry: Thank you for the comment and the restoration. --NeilN talk to me 19:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Here's a still from the video: File:P.V. Sindhu.png. INeverCry 19:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Here's my take on it: The way I read the YouTube Terms Of Service the standard YouTube license does not allow making screenshots from videos and uploading elsewhere. Because section 8.1A of the YouTube TOS says "to each user of the Service, a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free licence to access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display and perform such Content to the extent permitted by the functionality of the Service", section 5.1L says "you agree not to access Content for any reason other than your personal, non-commercial use solely as intended through and permitted by the normal functionality of the Service, and solely for Streaming", and section 5.1M says "You shall not copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, or otherwise exploit any Content for any other purposes without the prior written consent of YouTube or the respective licensors of the Content" (my emphasis). And since YouTube doesnt have a button that takes a screenshot and uploads it to Wikimedia Commons, making a screenshot and uploading it to Commons violates the TOS, and the license. Any thoughts? - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
    • There are thousands of converted YouTube videos on Commons so obviously they're okay with the licensing. Pinging INeverCry again. --NeilN talk to me 20:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The way I see it, after reading their TOS, downloading YouTube videos and uploading them somewhere else also violates both the YouTube TOS and the Standard YouTube License, since YouTube explicitly do not allow downloading videos.. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • This practice is no different that using CC-marked images on Flickr on Wikipedia. Note that there was no downloading of the video, simply a still shot (Screenshot) from the video was used to make this image -- and the video content itself is licensed as CC-BY by a user account that belongs to the rightsholder (Ten Sports). This video was also presumably distributed through other platforms, and as such we should be worried simply about the license of the video itself rather than any particular platform hosting it. Dalek2point3 (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

change from non-free use to release under Creative Commons[edit]

Please can you advise how I change a non-free image I have uploaded to being in the 'release under a free licence category'. I took the photo myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclomath (talkcontribs) 20:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Encyclomath: Pick a license from WP:ICT/FL, and replace the {{Non-free historic image}} tag on the file page with the license you chose. Then replace the {{Non-free use rationale 2}} template with the {{Information}} template, and remove any parameters you don't need. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 21:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


I created a couple imaged from Google Images but the Authors couldn't produce a clear copyright title and I've allowed them to be deleted. One of the authors send me two new images and I uploaded them. After uploading them I replied to the email saying I uploaded them and did a CC to with a serial number provided by Wikipedia. I asked the author/professor to also email to making it 110% clear that these images that he said he created just for Wikipedia to be placed in the Public Domain were in fact so. I guess Dr. Willamson would like to focus on his Physics and may be trying to leave this to me. Unfortunately my impression is that the mail to must come from the author. How can I fix this?

  • File:Williamson Electron Spinnor Twisted Photon Strip.png - This file is missing evidence of permission.

Below it says "This work has been released into the public domain by its author, Dr. John Williamson. This applies worldwide." which is true.

The other picture that Dr. Williamson sent seems to be in better compliance:

Perhaps it my Other information:

Other information John Has released this file to be in the Public domain specifically for WikiPedia.

Email: Hello Piet and everyone,

The one from the eprint may have a SPIE copyright on it. Again not sure here.

Had a go at making a new one for you but my old (windows) machine will no longer boot. Need to spend a bit of time getting Povray working. Anyone got POVRAY working on a MAC?

Here is one I'm sure has never been used, so the copyright is mine. Is this the kind of thing you are looking for?

Regards to all, John.

I'll add this to the non-compliant image and ask John to send his copyright declaration to Maybe the mistake was my Cc:ing which appears to be for text, not images.--Pete.delaney (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC) is just fine since you uploaded the image directly at Wikipedia. And it would in fact be helpful if Dr. Williamson himself could confirm that he waived the copyright for these two images because this is not evident from the email text you posted here and in the file pages. If you got a ticket number from any previous emails to the permissions agents, please ask Dr. Williamson to include this number in his message so our email helpers can combine these tasks. De728631 (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Uploading an author photo at a book signing; I am the author[edit]

Hi, I read through a page of many questions already asked and didn't find an answer I feel confident addresses my current issue exactly.

I am an author, and have a page on Wikipedia. I am looking to upload an image of myself at a book signing for the main image. It is my photo, taken by a non-photographer/layman friend at my request. The (my) book cover (which I illustrated) is visible in the photo, as is a poster behind me of one of the other illustrations.

Which tag should I use to upload this image?

Thank you, Huicholo (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Huicholo: Greetings. I hate saying this but a non-photographer/layman friend at my request is a problem - they would be the copyright holder. You'll need to ask them to make an account and upload the file. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


Hi, I would like to request some assistance and guidance on uploading a certain company logo. For your information, I have written in to the company request for permission for uploading their logo image to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegreenspokeperson (talkcontribs) 07:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Thegreenspokesperson: Greetings. What company is the logo of? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Thegreenspokeperson: Normally we allow the use of non-free logos as an identifying image in the infobox of articles about the company though in some cases the logo is so simple it may not be copyrightable because it does not pass the Threshold of originality. We don't nee their permission but I should mention that Wikipedia use alone is not a good enough permission for images in general. It also looks like the article you are preparing is not really notable enough to have its own article based on the source you added. It is missing reliable independent third party sources. You seem to be preparing that article in your user space which is generally used to tell other editors about yourself, your interests and activities; the best place is to start a draft in your sandbox. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 08:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: & @Ww2censor: It is one of the Malaysia companies. The company name is KEN Holdings Berhad. I believe you could easily search it on Google. As for the image, you can view it on this link as I couldn't upload or attach it on this chat space. Apart from that, it would be great if you could guide me how to upload the image to Wikipedia as I was creating general articles for it.

A photograph of a standard plush bear - Is it a "Derivative work"?[edit]

I received a copyright notice related to File:BellaireHSTexasBears.JPG stating that it could be a derivative work. I took the photograph, but the question is that whether photographing standard plush bears dressed in high school regalia (meant to represent Bellaire High School (Texas)) would count as a derivative work WhisperToMe (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The design of the stuffed bear is definitely copyrightable (it is not like a "utilitarian object" like a car or piece of furniture which cannot be copyrighted). So unless you know that the designer or owner of the copyright of the bear has licensed it as CC-BY or similar, it should be considered a derivative work. --MASEM (t) 14:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
All I can tell is that the bear came from "Hometown Products" which seems to be a small company based in Magnolia, Texas. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Then the design of the bear is still likely copyrighted, so this is a derivative work to be treated as non-free. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)