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)

Images for Utica, New York

I'm doing a GA review for the Utica, New York, article. While I was clicking through the images, I was unsure about the true copyright status of these ones:

• File:Flag of Utica-New York.png - Isn't this a modification of a copyrighted work, so not the original work of the uploader?
• File:Seal of Utica-Vector.svg - The reason for the PD claim is that a book, published in 1900, describes this seal as such in words. But how do we know that the city's current seal is in the public domain?
• File:Utica1759-3.jpg - This depicts a scene from 1759, but there's no indication of when the painting was created. The source seems to suggest that it was created quite recently and would be copyrighted. And, not surprisingly, the source site has a copyright notice.

--Jsayre64 (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, File:Seal of Utica-Vector.svg seems to be a derivative work of the image on this page (the source does not link to the image). So taking that as an obvious public domain image, the flag image File:Flag of Utica-New York.png is essentially also derivative of the same image with a white background and yellow border also using as reference a photo on the source page is http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/u/us-nyuti.jpg. I think the images themselves are ok though they need the file page information to be refined. The painting image File:Utica1759-3.jpg, as you say, has no author or date, so its copyright status is unknown and should be nominated for deletion. Its licence is obviously false because we cannot know the author is dead 70+ years. ww2censor (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll nominate File:Utica1759-3.jpg for deletion. File:Seal of Utica-Vector.svg points to this source, where on page 20 of the overall document, the same seal is in the bottom left (you'll have to zoom in a lot). So don't we have to assume that's copyrighted by the city? If it's copyrighted, then so is the derivative work File:Flag of Utica-New York.png. Jsayre64 (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: do you still think the flag and seal files are OK? Jsayre64 (talk) 04:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but I think the images details need to be refined for more clarity to avoid them being questioned again. ww2censor (talk) 11:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done Jsayre64 (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Should the browser toolbars, etc be cropped from the File:Ytmnd-screenshot.jpg screenshot?

File:Ytmnd-screenshot.jpg is a screenshot of the YTMND website, used in the article about YTMND so I think it's a perfectly fine to have the screenshot as a fair use image. However the screenshot also includes the toolbars, etc from whichever version of Safari was used by the person who took the screenshot - should these be kept or removed? Thryduulf (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The image fails WP:NFCC#8 because it is not contextually significant to include this non-free image for the reader to understand the article. ww2censor (talk) 11:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. The article is all about the visual appearance of the website (that's the point of this website) and there is discussion of this version of the website. Thryduulf (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Well Thryduulf I disagree with you because the use of a non-free image such as this, specifically showing Sean Connery, who is known for using the phrase, requires the rationale to make the claim for its use and as stated "For describing this web page on the article of its parent website" I don't think this what it does. To me a better rationale would likely be fine. I highly doubt the toolsbars are a copyright issue. ww2censor (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Image copyright question

I own a copy of the book Coles Finch, William (1933). Watermills and Windmills. London: C W Daniel Company., and also of the reprint Coles Finch, William (1976) [1933]. Watermills and Windmills. Sheerness: A J Cassell. ISBN 0 903253 02 X. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help). On the flap of the dustjacket (of the reprint) that folds over the rear cover is a photograph of Coles Finch, who died in 1944. There is no indication at all as to where the photograph came from, but I'd say it was either from WCF himself or his family. Can this image be uploaded to Commons as a Public Domain image, or would it have to be uploaded locally with a FUR? Mjroots (talk) 10:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

So the book is not obviously in the public domain being published after 1923. Does the book have a copyright notice anywhere or acknowledgment for the images? If not, then you can likely use {{PD-US-no notice}} either here or on the commons. Otherwise a local upload as a non-free image of a deceased person with a fully completed WP:FURG would be the last option but only after you have done an exhaustive search for a free image. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 11:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: WCF died over 70 years ago, therefore his books are now firmly in the PD. Any image of him is also over 70 years old. Publication of the image can be stated to have been in 1976, regardless of its age. Mjroots (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

You are correct that based on WCF's death his own works are in the public domain but we don't know who took the photo. A photographic self-portrait would be highly unlikely, so we must assume, because you have not said there is any attribution, that the photographer is anonymous or pseudonymous. So his portrait would be copyright for 70 from publication per List of countries' copyright lengths having been published in the UK but specifically per this c:Commons:Anonymous works#United Kingdom but not because the subject died over 70 years ago even though the coverage period is the same. However I believe URAA applies so you should keep the image local and not upload to the commons. ww2censor (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Album covers

I have been asked to completely update a Wikipedia biography from a recording artist. His page currently has no discography and he requests one be generated with pictures of his albums. Can this be done under Fair Use? Utnijlj (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Utnijlj: Unless there's good reason to, we don't put non-free album covers in artist biographies. The idea here is that an album cover is not necessary to help identify the artist. Unless the artist agrees to release the album cover under an appropriate free license (which may or may not be against his contract with publishers and the album's original artist), we should only use the album under fair use on articles about the album or song. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Generally this is not possible because most album covers are copyright images and we only allow such non-free images to be used in articles about that specific album (see WP:NFCI #1). Use in a discography is not possible, unless they are freely licenced images, because such us will not comply with all 10 non-free media policy guidelines. Our non-free policy is much stricter than the legal understanding of Fair Use. If the artist, if they are the copyright holder as opposed to the photographer or record company, is prepared to licence the images of the albums freely then you could use them. ww2censor (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

hi i want to upload my information on wikipedia

i want to upload my inforamation wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.212.246.47 (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

We don't generally allow simple uploads of files. What specific information are you trying to add, and to what article(s)? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Adhemar

I uploaded a picture of comic book character Adhemar. Questions have been asked about the copyright, but I noticed on Tintin an image of Tintin is also used, despite the fact that the copyright of the Hergé estate is protected as heavily as Disney. Since the picture of Adhemar is a publicity shot and I found it on the web page of a university professor it can be used as "fair use" to illustrate the article. -- User:Kjell Knudde, 24 August, 2015.

Hello @Kjell Knudde:, the Tintin image is indeed copyrighted, but used under Wikipedia's WP:NFCC policy. Please check the linked policy. If the Adhemar image meets all 10 listed criteria, you can add a similar rationale to the Adhemar image page (just copy/paste and use the Tintin templates as model, and change the differing details), and remove the warning template. You should also save with a clear edit summary like "Fair-use rationale added" or something similar. GermanJoe (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

You may be better off to not remove the warning template but allow a more knowledgeable editor review the changes and they will remove the warning if all looks good. Or ask again here. ww2censor (talk) 10:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

On first readthrough the image does seem to meet all the required standards. The only thing I can't retrace is when the image was drawn. According to the style it's probably from the 1980s-1990s, but I can't place an exact date. It's fine by me if a more knowledgeable editor makes the changes, because my knowledge of computer stuff isn't that huge. -- User:Kjell Knudde, 24 August 2015.

I've refined the details of File:Adhemar (comic book character).gif and now removed the warning. ww2censor (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Image for Kathryn Harrold

While I have been a Wikipedia Editor for many years, I have never uploaded an image. Most of the time, I have found it unnecessary because most of the edits I have done involve the text of an article. However, I have recently come across the Wikipedia Article for former actress (and current psychotherapist) Kathryn Harrold -- and found that this article does not contain a picture of the subject. Her noteworthiness being built upon an acting career, it seems essential to include a picture of her as an actor in the article. Yet, I am hesitant to choose one, based on Wikipedia's copyright policies. The most appropriate one I could find is available here: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4PA2F2uadGs/T_3R2hJI8EI/AAAAAAAAFmc/VgScvOUApME/s1600/kathryn-harrold-as-lauren-bacall-in-bogie-1980-image-2.jpg Please verify if this image is acceptable for Wikipedia. If not, please help me understand how to find one that would be acceptable. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samson3000 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Clearly Kathryn Harrold is still alive so a freely licenced image could be made. In that case we have no reason to use a non-free image to simply identify here. However, if there were sourced critical commentary about that specific image in the article it might justify its use under our stricter than fair-use non-free image policy guidelines but it must pass all 10 points and have a fully complete fair-use rationale. We cannot see the page the image you link to is displayed on, just the image itself, so cannot see any copyright notices or other details that might be there. Can you provide that url? Tineye found it twice here and here but neither provides more helpful information. ww2censor (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Copyright notice placement

File:WEC-69F-002r.jpg and File:Wh-earth-69-cover.jpg are both taken from the 1969 edition of the Whole Earth Catalog and marked as GFDL, which is clearly wrong, because they're unoriginal scans: they have the same copyright status as the catalog itself. The question hinges on the first image, which is the second page from the original work — is this where a copyright notice would have to be placed, or would it go somewhere else? There's nothing of the sort on this page, but of course if it were required to go elsewhere, that's not relevant. Nyttend (talk) 05:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Acceptable position for a copyright notice is discussed in U.S. Copyright Office Circular 3: Copyright Notice.

For periodicals, acceptable locations include: (a) the title page, (b) the page immediately following the title page, (c) either side of the front or back cover, (d) the first or last page of the main body of the work, (e) as part of, or adjacent to, the masthead or on the page containing the masthead, or (f) adjacent to a prominent heading appearing at or near the front of the issue. Both of the images you reference are from the Fall 1969 issue of the Whole Earth Catalog which had a copyright notice of "© 1969 Portola Institute, Inc. All rights reserved under Pan-American and International copyright conventions." on its title page. I've nominated both for deletion. —RP88 ^(talk) 08:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The cover image File:Wh-earth-69-cover.jpg is quite likely a simple scan of the cover and may well be in the public domain. If the earth image is sourced to NASA or some other US government organisation, then with the added text no new copyright has been created with a freely licenced image and a scan of it will be free. Find the earth image source but if you can't as a non-free image of a book cover it is allowable in the Whole Earth Catalog article per WP:NFC but nowhere else. The only part of the catalogue page File:WEC-69F-002r.jpg that might be copyright is the image. That likely makes the image copyright per the copyright notices you mention and as such it should be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Two line standalone couplet

The late Robert Conquest, known for many high-brow things, was also devoted to science fiction from the days when it was considered lowest-of-the-low-brow. Amongst other things he was a poet, and in 1962 published a famous two-line couplet that ends "that's not SF!" The couplet is entirely standalone. It is not part of a larger poem. Is quoting it in its entirety acceptable in his article, as part of discussing his contributions to science fiction? Is this acceptable more generally in discussing science fiction culture? Is this acceptable on Wikiquote? Choor monster (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Image of Kingdom Centre in Saudi Arabia

I'm not sure if this is the place to enquire about this issue. This file on Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kingdom.jpg shouldn't be there as there is no FOP in Saudi Arabia. Can I request it be moved to the English Wikipedia with the following tag: {{FoP-USonly}} -- Nirinsanity 14:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is no bot or tool that automates this process, you'll have have to do it by hand (the closest is Commons fair use upload bot, but it doesn't support this particular case). Basically, upload the file yourself to English Wikipedia under a different name (making sure to provide attribution to original uploader and a link to original upload location) with the original uploader's license and {{FoP-USonly}}. Change English Wikipedia articles using the Commons file to use the local file. Nominate the original for deletion on Commons. I'm happy to help if you get stuck anywhere in this process. —RP88 ^(talk) 20:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I couldn't upload the file on the English Wikipedia. It doesn't allow me to as it says that the file is a duplicate even if I upload it under a different name and description. So, I'll request speedy deletion of the original file on Commons and then upload it here. Nirinsanity 01:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, never mind. I've managed to upload it :) -- Nirinsanity 01:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The correct tag for File:HarryMarkPetrakis.jpg

Hello,

My name is Lambrini Papangelis and I am the author of the Harry Mark Petrakis article on English Wikipedia. I received a message that I have not tagged the photo I mounted there. The photo is a family photo that I got from Harry Mark Petrakis's son. It was never published in any of HMP's books. What is the correct tag to use, please? Lambrini Papangelis (talk) 12:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Without more information we cannot tell you what copyright tag to use. Is this really a family-taken photo or just a photo the family have but taken by someone else? If it is a family photo, inherited by the family they can licence it freely and you would be best to upload it to the commons and use the c:Template:PD-heirs template so long as the family agree to licencing it in that way. There is no equivalent template here. If it was taken by someone else you would need that photographer to verify their consent by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. In fact even if it is family photo it would be best to verify their permission with the OTRS Team. In general it is always the copyright holder who determines and decides the licence unless it is known to be freely licenced. ww2censor (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Can a file with the "CC BY-NC-ND 3.0" license be uploaded on Wikipedia?

Can a file, an logo for a software, be uploaded with the CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 be uploaded on Wikipedia?

This license is "Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs" which I understand is not acceptable for Commons, but wanted to confirm that it is for Wikipedia.

Thanks.

dorfsmay (talk) 02:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It would be acceptable only if it would meet the nonfree content use requirements. If it does, you could upload it as a nonfree image. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I checked those criteria, and I believe it does meet them, I'll explain in the description of the image. Thanks for the pointer.--dorfsmay (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to add to that, in general no images with commercial NC and derivative ND restrictions are allowed to be uploaded. What image do you have in mind so we can tell you if it will pass the non-free policy guidelines. ww2censor (talk) 09:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a logo for a free software, my intention is to link it from the page with about said software. The author gave me permission to upload it via email, I do not believe there is a free equivalent available.--dorfsmay (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I have added the image File:Bottle-logo.svg. Is the "Permission" description sufficient? Should I create a new page in Wikipedia for the CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 license, or is the license I selected there sufficient? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorfsmay (talk • contribs) 14:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dorfsmay: You'll need to include a nonfree use rationale. You should easily be able to do that. Generally, the primary logo of a subject that has one is allowable in the article about that particular subject. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

And because it's a logo for identification at the top of the page (as it seems) you can use {{Non-free use rationale logo}} as the rationale basis to make it easy to do this, filling in the right parts. --MASEM (t) 16:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Added. Thanks.--dorfsmay (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Or you could have the author of the software relicense the logo under an acceptable free license and pass through the OTRS process, if you'd like. Longbyte1 (talk) 23:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

FWS Employee Portrait Domain Status

I'm currently working on the article for Lucille Farrier Stickel, who was a government worker for a national research lab and who died in 2007. The US Fish and Wildlife Service tribute to her, found here has a black and white portrait of her that is credited as USFWS. What is the domain status of this? Because I thought all government photos in the line of work for a US government employee went into the public domain. In addition, this photo would have to have been taken before 1982 when she retired and potentially much older than that, depending. I'm just not clear what the legalities are on the use of this image. Silverseren^C 02:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

With the US Fish and Wildlife Service attribution you should upload this image to the commons using the template {{PD-USGov-FWS}}. You are correct that it is in the public domain. Provide as much details as you have in a completed {{information}} template with the image. ww2censor (talk) 09:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for the help. Silverseren^C 18:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete image

Hlo sir plz delete this image — Preceding unsigned comment added by TEJPAL BHADU (talk • contribs)

Tagged it as G7. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

MY UPLOADED PICTURES,,,,,

ALL THE PICTURES I JUST UPLOADED HERE ON WIKIPEDIA, WERE TAKEN OVER THE YEARS BY OUR GIRLFRIENDS,,AT THE TIME,THEY ARE ALL ON MY COMPUTER AND ARE FOR ALL TO SEE,,,,WE HAVE THEM POSTED ON REMEMBRANCE VOCAL GROUP (talk) 03:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)MANY SITES AROUND THE COMPUTER..THEY ARE FROM MY OWN PRIVATE STOCK AND I LOVE SHARING THEM WITH ANYONE..THANK YOU. REMEMBRANCE VOCAL GROUP ... JAMES.REMEMBRANCE VOCAL GROUP (talk) 03:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC) REMEMBRANCE VOCAL GROUP (talk) 03:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

If they were taken by your girlfriends, the girlfriend who took the photo is the copyright holder. In that case, she would have to be the one to agree to the release of the photo under a free license, you would lack the authority to do so. Additionally, Wikipedia's photo upload capacity is not for sharing photos you just happen to like; a site like Flickr or Instagram might suit you if that's what you want to do. Photo uploads here are for educational use, not personal use. And finally, YOUR CAPS LOCK KEY SEEMS STUCK. Typing in all caps is shouting, please don't do that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Town of Ajax Flag photo

Resolved

I am pretty sure that this image is copyrighted but can someone check? Please ping me in your response. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 15:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Skyllfully: it would be copyright, both in the photography, and the flag design. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: thanks for the help. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 23:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Marking as  Resolved. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 23:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete it please

Delete the image please — Preceding unsigned comment added by MooseV98 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@MooseV98: Hi, this page is for copyright-related questions about media (usually images) uploaded to Wikipedia. For answers to your question try asking at the Reference Desk. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 15:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

 Already done your image is scheduled for deletion because of a copyright violation. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 15:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Dubious copyright on Meme Run.png?

The Meme Run logo includes the Get Out Frog/MLG Frog/Frogout. I don't remember the copyright policy on memes, but in any case this means that he doesn't own more than 75% of the image. Not to mention that the font isn't his either (and can't be copyrighted by itself), so that makes this a totally original work that can be attributed to numerous people other than the developer of Meme Run. Longbyte1 (talk) 23:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)