Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 66.99.3.244 (talk) at 20:30, 12 June 2013 (→‎Information: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Active editnotice

Skip to the bottom
    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)


    Image that is public domain in France

    I refer to the Bibliothèque nationale de France's page for the relevant image of Sir Thomas Beecham: here. If you click on "Informations détaillées" at the top right of the search section the pop-up information box declares the image to be "domaine public". Does this mean that it is permissible to use it in Wikipedia? Grateful for advice. Tim riley (talk) 12:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably PD and free to use. The photo was made by Cannon's of Hollywood in 1930 [1], so if there's no explicit copyright notice the image would be in the public domain in the US. Getty is selling a cropped version [2] but that doesn't have to mean anything. De728631 (talk) 14:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's very encouraging - thank you! May I ask which PD template would be appropriate in this case? Tim riley (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not automatically mean that, no. This is a problem frequently encountered by users on Wikimedia Commons. The major problem with the Gallica notices is that, while they may be useful about some other informations (author, source, etc.), they are not explicit and not always reliable about the copyright status of the works (that is to say, even about their copyright status in France. The Gallica notices would not be about the copyright status of the works in the U.S.). When one of those notices says that a work is in the public domain, it doesn't tell the reason why it would be so. In some cases, that mention is false and is contradicted by another page of the website describing more explicitely the collection. Basically, you're left with using the other informations, the context, your own knowledge of the copyright laws and your best judment to determine if, and why, a particular work is actually in the public domain or not (in the U.S. if you want to upload it to Wikipedia, or in the U.S. and in the source country of the work if you want to upload it to Wikimedia Commons). The photo of Beecham was created by the British photographer George Frederic Cannons (1897-1972), who worked in California in the 1920's and early 1930's (and apparently moved back to the U.K. in the 1930's). The National Portrait Gallery of the United Kingdom specifies that its works by Cannons are not in the public domain in the U.K. and that their copyright is owned by the estate of G.F. Cannons (see for example this notice). Of course, what you want to know specifically is the copyright status in the U.S. of the photo of Beecham created/published somewhere in the 1930's. For that, you must do the usual tedious research: Where was this photo first published? In the U.K.? In the U.S.? Was it distributed in the U.S. with a valid copyright notice, and if so was its U.S. copyright renewed, etc. It is plausible that portrait photos of this type were correctly copyrighted. The NPG notice hints that the estate is watchful of the copyright in the U.K. and it is likely to be watchful of the copyright in the U.S. if it still exists. You can find the correct answer only after completing the research about the facts. If the facts you find do not show with certainty that this photo is in the public domain in the U.S., it may be best to be cautious. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, dear! I thought it was too good to be true. Never mind! Thank you for your expert advice, nonetheless. Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Union Jack Newspaper Front Page 02-15-2013.png

    Looks like this photo was taken from a copyrighted image here: http://www.ctvnews.ca/bank-of-canada-unveils-new-plastic-bills-1.659770 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffc529 (talk • contribs)

    Now tagged for deletion on Commons.--ukexpat (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    A Fire in the Sky Title Card

    The copyright status on the title card image for the article A Fire in the Sky has been changed to denote that the image is in the public domain. When I originally posted this image, I indicated that it was a copyrighted image, because the copyright of Columbia Pictures Television is clearly depicted on it. I'd like someone to review the image and verify the correct status. Cag1970 (talk) 02:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that it is too simple to qualify for copyright protection, slapping a copyright notice on it doesn't affect that.--ukexpat (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Free image through e-mail

    Hi. I contacted the family of Armando Torres III and they granted me permission to use any of the images they have of Mr. Torres that are found on a Facebook group the family created to locate his whereabouts. His sister sent me an e-mail with the details. I have her permission through Facebook inbox, too. How can I upload a free image of Mr. Torres with this information? ComputerJA (talk) 06:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Please communicate the permission to OTRS via the process set out at WP:IOWN.--ukexpat (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Photograph of old coins

    Would the image on these page be considered free content:

    ...as a depiction of an out-of-copyrighted three-dimensional work? --RA (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Technically, the photograph is a new copyright because of the light and shadows under the photographer's control, so we'd need the photo to be freely licensed (Obviously, the coins themselves are in the PD). I have read somewhere but I really can't remember where that with coins where typically the indentation is so shallow that sometimes the photograph is considered akin to a slavish reproduction and thus not a new copyright. This might be a question to ask better at Commons to assure of that. --MASEM (t) 01:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The images on that website are tagged with a copyright notice and do not have a free license. Depending on your analysis, that notice may or may not be universally applicable, as it is possible that this type of images may not generate a copyright in some (or in many) countries. However, by precaution and for simplicity of application, the most common interpretation of the policy on Commons (and I guess probably on Wikipedia) is to treat recently made images, even simple ones, of 3-D objects as copyrightable images and thus non-free unless their maker agrees that they are free. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Concerning Photograph of Laura E. Richards

    Concerning File:LauraElizabethRichards.jpg, as contributor of this scanned photograph I wanted to help clarify the license issues, but have trouble figuring how this item should be categorized and can't figure where best to post even this information. I had tried to follow Megapixie's flowchart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Megapixie/CopyrightFlowChart/ScannedImage), but again was confused. I purchased two original carte-de-vistes a number of years ago. The photos, which seem to have been taken on the same day (as LER appears to be the same age and seems to be in the same dress/shawl in both) was most likely taken in the mid-1880's. Note, LER was born in 1850, and is probably less than 40 years of age in this photo. LER died Jan 14, 1943, so that is now over 70 years that she has been dead. The carte-de-viste does not have a date. It does identify the photography studio as "McIntosh & Allen, Gardiner, Me.". The photography studio for the second photo (not submitted) is listed as "Cochranes, Corner Water & Bridge Sts., Gardiner, Me." I tried to find more information about these photography studios and to determine the death dates of any of these photographers, but found no solid information. To my knowledge, these photographs were never published but were personal photographs.Jayras (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Daily Show with John Oliver

    The logo I uploaded for The Daily Show with John Oliver was an offshoot of the logo that was previously there. The ONLY Change I made was take out Jon Stewart's name and replace it with John Oliver's name. Unfortunately for me, I don't remember where I can access old versions of the Daily Show's page, because I would gladly add the information required. But I simply don't remember. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny Tempest (talk • contribs) 00:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The original logo is at File:Dailyshow logo.svg, but I have a broader question: where is the source that confirms that during Stewart's absence the show will be renamed The Daily Show with John Oliver? If that cannot be confirmed then the old logo should be reinstated and the opening sentence reverted.--ukexpat (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Lincoln biography cover: PD Simple

    Would File:Team of Rivals.jpg, the cover of Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, be PD simple if the illustration on the cover is already PD? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it would be, the text is very straight forward and the shape is also public domain. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we're okay in this case, but a caution that just because a work uses only PD elements and other simple text/shapes to it doesn't necessarily make it PD. PD works can be assembled in a novel fashion to make a work that is copyrightable. I don't think this is the case here (adding text and a few decorative bars isn't enough), but just a caution in the future. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, yeah. If we're talking about someone transposing a PD painting of Zeus' head onto a PD photograph of Pamela Anderson, then adding PD images up the wazoo to in the background, that's liable to be copyrightable; I know that much. My issue is, generally, how high is the TOO? I don't have that much experience with those images. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, here if you took the PD image away and look at what's left, that's clearly under TOO. So the addition of the image without any other modification is still likely to be okay. But say if they took the picture and colorized Lincoln, with all other elements the same, that could pose a copyright problem. It's just a caution, not a concern in this specific case. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right. It's the specific points I have issue with sometimes (last time I asked about PD-Simple, it was for the cover of Theory of Literature back in December, which was a little more involved; this time I asked because of the combination of two different aspects of a work). Anyways, thanks for the input. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Colorizing Lincoln shouldn't matter in the US; even colorizing a whole movie was discussed before the copyright office agreed to register a colorized B&W movie for its own copyright, and they made it clear that colorizing something still didn't give you a copyright outside that special case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Edward Snowden newspaper cover

    Hi, some expert advice would be appreciated at Talk:Edward_Snowden#Image. The subject of the article is currently "on the run" and as such a free image is unlikely any time soon. However, while he is alive and free, it is still within the realm of possibility so as I understand it we cannot use a non-free portrait image. As an alternative, I believe the use of File:The Guardian front page 10 June 2013.jpg is appropriate fair use in the context, as the entire reason for Snowden's notability is his appearance in that series of newspaper reports. This seems to meet the criteria of use of newspaper excerpts "to illustrate either the publication of the article or issue in question". Please could somebody advise whether this is the case, or suggest alternative action? Thanks, --— Pretzels Hii! 20:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you have good grounds here on both as his picture as well as the overall story, since it is that Guardian article that is the one that everyone's pointing to. Using his picture from it is "okay", but if you tack on the aspect of being the story that broke news, you've strongly improved the rationale. --MASEM (t) 21:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Masem. The clause "it is not acceptable to use the image in the article of the person or persons depicted on the cover, unless used to directly illustrate a point about the publication of the image" slightly concerns me. It seems to be a grey area.
    To complicate things further, the Guardian appear to be distributing official photographs via the EPA agency here. The wording implies they are free to use (not free content) but the site requires a login. — Pretzels Hii! 21:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an unusual case, in that 1) the person is now a wanted man, and that lacking any existing free image, we can't assume we'll be able to get one any time soon. and 2) that article is itself part of the notable aspects of the breaking story. (To keep things in mind, you're reading from NFC#UUI which is normally true but as a guideline we consider IAR, and as long as all the other ten points of NFCC (police) are met, we're good. If for some reason a free image of Snowden comes to light, we will need to replace it, but right now we have no assurance of that. --MASEM (t) 21:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Image does have a Creative Commons License

    The following http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Encyclopedia_-_example_of_visualization.jpg has a link saying that it comes from http://www.laetusinpraesens.org/docs00s/images/netmap_files/netmap_faith/faith_econ_det_det_leg.jpg but the main page for that image is http://www.laetusinpraesens.org/docs00s/netmap.php, where both the image AND the Creative Commons license figure. How can it be fixed so that the image is not removed from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_of_World_Problems_and_Human_Potential ? Please notify me on my talk page. --Robert Daoust (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately, though it has a CC license, it is CC-BY-NC-SA. The NC term means non-commercial. Wikipedia aims to be freely usable by anyone for any purpose, and the NC restriction was decided (sometime in the past) to be incompatible with that mission. So, as it currently stands, the image cannot be used on Wikipedia unless a valid fair-use rationale can be made. Chris857 (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to make a valid fair-use rationale. Can someone tell whether it will be sufficient to prevent the image from being removed? --Robert Daoust (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    noicon

    With images and soundfiles it is possible to remove the link to the sourcefile (the WP media page, so within WP that is). See the two examples added. This way, it is neigh impossible for a reader to get to the source file from an article page. In the image example: how to get to image:example.svg? An editor raised the issue of the copyright issue, like attribution. His conclusion is: the link must always be available. OTOH, I state that there is no guideline that forces that, and available guidelines pint out how to remove the link: WP:EIS (using size, frame, noicon). The question is: is there a copyright rule that requires the filelink to be present? Is there any guideline that can help us out?

    The actual discussion is at Template_talk:IPA_soundbox#Removing_info_links_is_not_an_option (sic) [3]. For now, I concluded that the arguments did not warrant an edit to (try to) install and show the file link, but which disrupted many article pages. I will notify that section to this talk. -DePiep (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm the one who raised the concern. I'd like to stress that this issue has been raised before for audio templates:
    The result of some of those discussion was that Template:Audio and Template:Audio-nohelp had at least some sort of link to the file. I was quite surprised to find out that WP:Extended image syntax allows users to remove file links even for images. I'm quite troubled to see that layout options are allowed to casually set aside practical issues of copyright and easy re-use of freely licensed media files.
    Peter Isotalo 16:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Brickens

    Usually I'm answering questions here but now need other eyes to look at Brickens. A request was made to the WikiProject Ireland to reassess the article but I am rather wary to give advise until I determine some issues. I find it very odd to see embedded links to external images, especially as their copyright status is unknown, which I though was discouraged. Are these acceptable? I personally doubt it. Any comments and advise happily taken. ww2censor (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    No, not allowed per WP:ELNEVER.--ukexpat (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Sajed.ir

    sajed.ir publishes photos of Iran-Iraq war under a Gnu GFDL licence. Some of these photos have been used in different Wikimedia projects. In fact, all these files are copyrighted and the owner has provided an improper licence. Could someone point me out to a page to report this case?Farhikht (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    If the images are on Wikipedia, please report them at WP:Copyright problems. If they are on Commons, probably at their admin noticeboard.--ukexpat (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Information

    Please call 1-347-542-1575.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions&oldid=559622569"