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.
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.
If you have a question about a specific image, please be sure to link to it like this: [[:File:Example.jpg]]. (Please note the ":" just before the word File) Thanks!
Hi- I want to upload an image of Alex Shapiro that's been licensed from Getty Images Entertainment and didn't know how to do so since it's not through Creative Commons or in the public domain. Photographer is Tommaso Boddi. Llk.grab.bag (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Llk.grab.bag: Sorry to not have better news but it looks like Tommaso Boddi is still alive so his work is copyright until 70 after his death. He would have to release the image under a free licence we accept for us to use such a photo. Besides which Alex Shapiro is also still alive, so a freely licenced image can be made by someone for our use. ww2censor (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Llk.grab.bag. In addition to what Ww2censor posted above, images from Getty and other commercial image rights agencies are petty much never allowed to be uploaded and used as non-free content per speedy deletion criterion F7 and item 7 of examples of unacceptable non-free image use because such a use is considered to almost always fail non-free content use criterion #2 unless the image itself (not the subject of the image) is the subject of sourced critical commentary in reliable sources. Given that Shapiro is living, any type of non-free image of them isn't, in principle, going to be allowed since it's reasonable to expect that someone could take their photo and release it under one of the free licenses OK for Wikipedia's purposes. Such a person could even be Shapiro themselves if they were to take a selfie or owns the rights to any other images taken of them by others. The person who takes a photo is pretty much considered to be the copyright holder of the photo; so, anyone who takes a photo of Shapiro is going to be considered its copyright holder unless they've transferred copyright ownerships to Shapiro. Given what's written about Shapiro in "Alex Shapiro", they probably have a pretty good understanding of image and media copyright, and might respond favorably if you were to try to contact them as explained in Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission to a request for a freely licensed image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all of this guidance! I actually have purchased a license from Getty-- does that change things? If it's still not possible to use, that's fine. Llk.grab.bag (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. A license from Getty is the opposite of what we need, which is clearly-stated permission for the use and re-use of that image (including commercial exploitation, modification, etc.) under one of the Creative Commons or analogous open-source licenses which permit such use. --Orange Mike | Talk20:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of box set art, usually the company publishing the set is the one that designed the set, and while they may be using additional copyrighted art, they still have licensing and a vested interest in the copyright of the art on the box. Even if an editor took a photo of the box and made that photo free, it would stil be a derivative work of the box art and be copyright burdened. As such, this is basically saying the box art copyright and the promotional photograph are essentially the same copyright, and thus theres no FREER option. — Masem (t) 13:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: I see. Well, the box set images I uploaded were already deleted anyway, but @Iruka13 indicated to me at my talk page that they were not allowed. I decided to heed it, but now that I read this it means that there was no problem with them, right? edit: reading the user's talk page, it seems that several editors have questioned their interpretation of image usage guidelines and policies. The Bleach box set image was obtained from here. Xexerss (talk) 07:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that photo is that there are essentially two copyrights involved with it: one for the box set cover art and one for the photo. This means that that it would technically be more non-free (if that makes sense) than a straight-on photo/scan of one side of the box. This might not be a big deal if the copyright holder of the box set cover art and the photo are the same, but someone could, in principle, take a similar photo and release it in under a license free enough to satisfy Wikipedia's general licensing. Even in that case, the entire file would still need to be treated as non-free since it's a photograph of someone else's copyrighted work, but the photo itself would actually be freer since it's released under a copyright license that's less encumbered by copyirght restrictions than a photo licensed as "all right reserved". This is one of the reasons that slavish-reproductions (simple/mechanical/true recreations of someone else's copyrighted work) tend to be preferred for cover art because simple 2D photos, scans or other reproductionss are typically not considered to involve enough creative input to establish a new copyright for the photo that's separate from the copyright of what's being photographed under US copyright law. I can't speak for Iruka13, but I think this is what they might've been getting at regarding with this particular photo and with the ones of the bibles discussed in the thread below.It might help if you think of it this way: you go to the library, take a book off the shelf and photocopy one if it's pages; you might've have created something tangible, but there's pretty much no creative input involve, which means there's no copyright established for the physical photocopy you made even though whatever you photocopied could still be under its own copyright protection. If, however, you took whatever was on that page and incorporated someway into some other work in which you provided a significant degree of creative input (i.e. a WP:Derivative work), then a new copyright separate from the copyright of the original work is going to be created for your "new" work. In principle, the act of taking a photo, especially of anything with some 3D aspects to it, is considered to involve enough creativity to warrant copyright protection for the photo itself separate of whatever is being photographed. From a WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8 standpoint, the typical reader of the article probably doesn't gain a significant improvement in encyclopedic understanding from seeing a 3D image of the box set compared with seeing just a 2D image of the box set's primary face to justify using the 3D photo, and any information lost from not seeing the 3D image is unlikely going to significantly affect the said reader's understanding of what's written about the box set in the article. A 3D image, even one showing the contents of the set, might look good on a website trying to sell the box set, but that's not really what Wikipedia is about or what it needs. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded an image to serve as the image for the Revised New Jerusalem Bible article (with the understanding that the predecessor be automatically deleted after some time for being orphaned). Soon after my uploading it and adding it, it was tagged, disputing the non-free use rationale. WP:FREER was linked to and the '3D part' was mentioned in brackets as the concern.
The text mentions that 'a photograph of a copyrighted 3D work of art will also carry the copyright of the photographer in addition to the copyright of the artist that created the work', but it links to 3D computer graphics. I assume it also applies to photographs of books (which are 3D), though.
@StarryGrandma: I find Iruka13, who tagged the file for speedy deletion, to be pretty experienced when it comes to file licensing so I don't see how their tagging of this file was being disruptive; in fact, the reason they did so does (in my opinion) have some merit and probably would've been something worth discussing at WP:FFD instead. Non-free book cover art is allowed per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, and generally straight-on photographs of book cover are no problem because the photo itself isn't something considered to be separately eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:2D copying. The reasons straight-on photos tend to be preferred is because a photo with 3D elements adds another degree of non-freeness to the overall image due to the non-free nature of the photo since the photo is considered a WP:Derivative work, whereas with a straight-on photo avoids such concerns. There's also very little encyclopedic value added from showing the spine of the book to readers since pretty much all they need to know can be found on the cover. In this case, if the bible's publisher also took the photo uploaded by the OP, it could perhaps be argued that it's OK since the copyright holder of the photo and book cover are the same, but someone (including the uploader Bojo Skankins) could've just as easily uploaded a straight-on shot of the photo to use instead, and that's why I think Iruka13 tagged the file for speedy deletion. As for the other photos mentioned above by the OP, the fact they they exist doesn't mean they should exist, and there could be WP:FREER issues associated with them for very reason that the photos themselves are non-free. If the book covers are too simple to be eligible for copyright protection, which might be the case, than a non-free photo of them wouldn't meet FREER because anyone could take a straight-on photo that also wouldn't be eligible for copyright protection. This is one of the reasons by arguing WP:OTHERIMAGE, like the OP seems to be doing, is often not a good thing because there can be subtle differences between images that's aren't immediately apparent. So, if the reason, you blocked Iruka13 was blocked is solely based on the above and some of the other images they recently tagged for speedy deletion, then I think the block was a mistake. -- Marchjuly (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC); post edited -- 09:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Marchjuly, I believe Iruka13 was blocked for a week for his approach to interacting with other users over his tagging. I don't understand why Iruka13 persists on tagging without explanation of what they find wrong. FREER issues are different from his "invalid fair use claim", when the fair use claim seems fine. This book has art on its dust jacket, so any image is going to be non-free. When I first saw this I was going to suggest using an image of the front of the book without dust jacket, since most bible covers are just text, but this one has embossed patterns. I don't think the editor is just arguing from OTHERIMAGE, but is looking for an explanation. This noticeboard doesn't seem to give responses very rapidly. I understand what you are saying about the type of photo, and to reduce the reliance from fair use of two copyrights to fair use of one. I will replace the deletion tag.
Bojo Skankins, it is certainly possible to find a face-on image of the front of the book. The other inages that you used as examples are of books which have only text on the cover, or text only on the spine. The only copyright involved is the copyright of the photographer of the 3D image. This image has two copyrights involved, so needs to be replaced with one that is WP:FREER. Upload an image of the front of the book with the same free-use rationale. Thanks to to Marchjuly for explaining all this. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@StarryGrandma: The US copyright law concept of fair use and Wikipedia's concept of non-free content aren't exactly one and the same, and Wikipedia's non-free content use policy was intentionally set up to be more restrictive than fair use. Iruka13's tagging of the file simply stated "disputed non-free use rationale"; it made no mention of it being a violation of fair use that I can see. A violation of FREER (WP:NFCC#1) is a violation of Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, and a violation of FREER means the non-free use rationale for that particular use would be invalid; neither of those two things have anything to do with fair use per se. Something can be violation of Wikipedia policy and still be fine as fair use; similarly not everything that satisfies fair use automatically meets Wikipedia non-free content use policy as explained in WP:ITSFAIRUSE. The notification Irula13 added to the uploader's user talk page was just a boilerplate notification, which is recommended practice; so, that doesn't seem like an inappropriate interaction (at least with this particular uploader). Anyway, if the uploader disagrees with the tagging, they could use the file's talk page to explain why; administrators who review these types of deletion almost always check the file's talk page to see whether the tagging is being disputed. Finally, the other photos aren't necessary free of FREER issues because of what's shown in the photograph; the photos themselves are likely eligible for copyright protection because of the 3D aspects separate from the photographed works. There's no need for a non-free photo of a PD book cover because any anyone can take a straight-on photo of or scan the same cover and upload that instead; in other words, there's no justification for non-free use just because the photo is non-free. A slavish reproduction of any of a public domain work isn't something that typically is considered creative enough to establish a new copyright for the reproduction, and such works could be uploaded to Commons with a PD license (e.g. c:Template:PD-text logo) for the photographed work and a wrapper license like c:Template:PD-scan for the scan/photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know I'm being asked a question directly, but I'm going to address all the points I wanted to reply to, in this reply, and then I'm going to answer the question.
The photo came from a website operated by the publisher, so it seems logical to assume that the copyright is owned by the publisher. The possibility of another copyright on the photo I did not consider, but the website doesn't indicate it anywhere, and the unquestioned existence of other such photos on Wikipedia used for similar articles (as linked to in my original post) made me not concerned about it by default.
If I had to guess, I would assume that the publisher took the photo, or owns the copyright for it, given they reproduce it on their website without attribution. On archive.org (much of the site is not visible now), I can see that there was a copyright notice at the bottom of the site, which doesn't mention anyone other than the publisher, which gives the impression that all the content belongs to the publisher solely.
They also have logos, as well as text, which presumably are copyrighted.
It's not clear to me why having only text on the spine or only text on the cover makes a difference, when both spine and cover are visible, or in the one case where the printing on the spine is not clearly visible there is both the title and a logo on the cover.
Can the font of the title not be copyrighted? And are not the designs of the covers in general copyrighted?
Correct. Threeof thoseimages (which I would describe as being taken from an angle) were uploaded in 2021 and one of them (which I would describe as being face-on, but with the spine visible) was uploaded in 2016. Given those photos have been up for so long, and mine was tagged almost immediately, it felt pertinent to ask it.
If it doesn't serve as a means to bolster my argument, it serves as a means to point out other images that might need to be tagged. Consistency is what I'm after (and fairness).
I wanted an image of the original edition to be the image for the article, as stated in my edit summary. Since the article mentions the original publisher so much (and the new publisher is presumably someone who has just bought the rights, presumably without any significant creative input, and presumably without any longstanding relationship with the translator, which the original publisher had), it seems appropriate. The DLT logo is visible on the spine. In general, it's a good photo. There is a subtle difference in cover design (placement of fishes), although I can't tell if this is a variation that existed before or something instituted by the new publisher. The tone of the blue is slightly lighter in the image from the new publisher (the image I replaced). Minor, but difference(s) nonetheless. Given I knew my first upload would be deleted automatically after a time (and given the precedent set by other articles with long-standing photos of bibles), it seemed harmless (and, if there's no additional copyright on the photo, I would argue it continues to be so and would continue to question the tagging).
The first file, RevisedNewJerusalemBible.jpg, was an image of the cover of the New Testament & Psalms edition, which was released in 2018 before the release of the full bible, and was serving as the image for the article. I changed it to an image of the cover of the full bible, hence my edit summary "image of cover of full bible seems more appropriate" (because the article is not just about the New Testament & Psalms, but the bible in its entirety). Once I changed the image used for the article, the first file was no longer in use in any articles, and was subsequently deleted (eventually, after a pre-determined time period - I believe it was tagged automatically for being orphaned). Bojo Skankins (talk) 14:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bojo Skankins, Since titles of books are copyrightable I was trying to come up with an explanation of the difference between your images and the other examples that made sense. But my explanation actually doesn't make sense. Marchjuly is the one who understands the complexity of this area. Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Images has a guide to adding book cover images to articles, but its focus is on images of the front of the book. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bojo Skankins: Thank you for clarifying some things in your last post. I'll take a shot at responding to your questions. I apologize in advance if I end up posting things you already know. I also tend to use "you" as a collective pronoun quite a bit and when I do I may not be specifically referring to you as an individual, but Wikipedia users in general.First of all, files are pretty much like any other page when it comes to Wikipedia in that editors are encouraged to be WP:BOLD when uploading them; in other words, there's no vetting of files before they go live and Wp:AGF is going to be assumed (at least at first) in that the uploader is familiar enough with relevant Wikipedia policies and image licensing in general to do things correctly. What this means is a file existing so to speak doesn't necessarily mean it should exist or that it's licensed or being used in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies. This is perhaps the main reason why "other stuff exists" types of arguments are hard to make when it comes to arguing that individual files should be kept much in the same way as they're hard to make with respect to keeping articles or keeping article content. The fact that a file exist, even for quite some time, could just be an indication that nobody noticed it until now. New uploaded files or new revisions of files eventually show up in Special:NewFiles, and those who work in the file namespace often work off that page. It's possible that the person who tagged the file you uploaded found the file that way, but they could've just came across it through random link clicking. Regardless of how they found the file, their concerns pertain to that particular file per se and it's that file which need to be assessed based upon whether it meets relevant policy, much in the same way an article nominated for deletion is assessed on whether it meets relevant policy. The existence of other similar things doesn't necessarily mean those things should exist or that things similar to them should exist. This might seem unfair or inconsistent perhaps, but it's pretty much how much of Wikipedia works and has always worked when it comes to determining whether something should be kept or deleted.Works aren't automatically eligible for copyright protection just because someone created them, but rather copyright eligibility depends on how much creatively was involved in creating them. Most countries apply a threshold of originality (TOO) when assessing whether something is creative enough to warrant copyright protection, but this threshold can very quite a lot from country to country because copyright laws in general can vary quite a lot from country to country. Since English Wikipedia's servers are located in the US, it tends to follow US copyright law and the US's TOO when assessing the copyright status of a work. English Wikipedia files are local files and can only be used on English Wikipedia and thus only US copyright law need be considered. Since the US's TOO is comparatively high than the TOO of some other countries (e.g. the UK), logos that might be considered too complex to be ineligible for copyright protection on one countries copyright laws, could be considered too simple to be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law. Such logos might not be OK to be uploaded to Commons under a license like Template:PD-logo since Commons (which is a global whose files can be used by all WMF projects) also takes into account the copyright laws of the country of first publication, but could be fine under a license like Template:PD-ineligible-USonly for local use on English Wikipedia. This is the kind of thing I was trying to get at when I mentioned there could be subtle differences between two files which at first glance seem quite similar and are being used in the same way. Lots of users upload files (album covers, book covers, logos,etc.) as non-free content simply because they think that's what they need to do or to err on the side of caution. There's nothing wrong with this per se, but it's not necessary in some cases since the work in question might be within the public domain for one reason or another.The copyright laws of most countries consider the taking of a photo by a person to involve enough creative input to establish a copyright for the photo that is separate from whatever is being photographed. So, even though the sky is something not considered to be eligible for copyright protection, someone's photo of the sky would be. This means that whenever you photograph someone else's work, you could be creating a WP:Derivative work in which there are multiple copyrights that need to be considered. So, a photo of a book cover could have two copyright to take into account: one for the photo and one for the book cover. For this reason, particularly when it comes to non-free content, straight-on photos of book cover art is preferable because such photos are considered to be slavish reproductions which aren't considered creative enough under US copyright law to establish a new copyright for the photo; so, only the copyright of the book cover needs to be assessed. If the photographed book cover is either too old to be still eligible for copyright protection or too simple too ever have been eligible for copyright protection, neither it nor any slavish reproduction of it would really need to be treated as non-free content and could be relicensed as pubic domain instead. A photo of a book cover which includes some 3D elements to it would still need to be treated as non-free just for the photo itself; this, however, wouldn't meet Wikipedia non-free content use criterion #1 since some could create a slavish reproduction of the same cover unencumbered by copyright restriction and use that instead. This is one of the reasons while I'm not sure the other bible images mentioned above are OK per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. If the covers of those bibles are considered to be too simple to be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law, then there's really no way to justify any non-free photos of the same bible covers. The book cover you uploaded does seem rather complex or at least complex enough to warrant copyright protection under US copyright law; so, it probably needs to be treated as non-free content. The question then is whether the photo showing a 3D view of the book adds another degree of non-freeness that makes it less preferable to a straight-on photo of the books cover. Both photos would be non-free so to speak but the straight-on photo might be considered less non-free than the other, and it might be preferred for that reason alone. Figuring this out is something that might require more input from the Wikipedia community as a whole via discussion at WP:FFD.Finally, if you don't agree with what I've posted above, you can challenge the speedy deletion tagging of the file by following the instructions given in the template that was added to the file's page and explaining why you feel the file should be kept on its talk page. The administrator who reviews the tag should check the file's talk page to see if anyone has contested the deletion. The administrator could, based on what's posted on the file's talk page, decide that further discussion is needed or they could still decide the file should be deleted. In the former case, the administrator themselves might start a discussion about the file at FFD or make mention that such a discussion is needed in the edit summary they leave when declining the speedy deletion tag. In the latter case, the deletion of the file could still be challenged per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE and the administrator could be asked to restore the file so that it can be further discussed at FFD. So, even if the file ends up deleted, the deletion can still be challenged if you think it was inappropriate. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From an NFC POV, all those existing covers are inappropriate uses of copyrighted images. The 2D cover of each of those existing works are too simple to qualify for copyright so a non-3D image of their cover is the most FREER option. No new information is gained by having the spine of the book also in shot. Alternatively, because all the books lack copyrightable designs, a WP editor's own photograph, published under a free license, could also work. The New Jeruselum cover is copyrightable, but again per FREER, a simple 2D shot of the cover (no spine required) will be less copyright burdened than the 3d photo. — Masem (t) 13:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I know what @StarryGrandma was getting at(2nd para) (or this might be another point). In the case of the New King James Version and Christian Standard Bible images (but not the other two), is it that because the front covers have just the words 'Holy Bible' (and in the case of the Christian Standard Bible, a 'debossed' logo in the background, but because it blends into the background it does not identify it as the CSB to those not in the know), those bibles need a photo with the spine to identify them clearly as those particular bible translations (because otherwise, essentially, the articles would just be showing a cover with the words 'Holy Bible', which could be anything)?
Re: Revised New Jerusalem Bible 3D photo being more copyright burdened, does this still apply if the copyright for the photo belongs to the publisher? Bojo Skankins (talk) 11:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This file is described as own work based on this image produced by the combined ISW-CTP team and is copyright protected. It shows areas of Syria controlled by various groups/factions. My understanding of copyright is that the intellectual property protected by copyright in the base image is the outline of the areas controlled (an overlay on the basic map). My further understanding is that minor changes such as varying the colours used in the map, and the addition or removal of features from the basic map do not change/dissolve the copyright. Also, reproducing this outline (ie as an overlay) on a third-party open source map, whether or not it uses the original colours, is also an infringement of copyright.
If my understanding is correct the map could only be used under fair use criteria. The map is used in more than one place on En Wiki.
@Cinderella157: Given that the file was uploaded to Commons, it's issues will need to be resolved over at Commons. So, if you feel the file is a copyright violations in some way, you could tagged it for speedy deletion per c:COM:CSD or you could nominate it for deletion per c:COM:DR. I would only suggest speedy deletion if you feel the map is clearly a copyright violation per c:COM:CB#Maps and satellite imagery, but the copyright status of maps can be tricky and might be better to go the DR route in this case. If you want other opinions on this, it would probably be better to ask at c:COM:VPC because Commons and Wikipedia are technically separate projects with their own policies and guidelines. So, even though there's lots of overlapping, there are also some important differences. As to whether this could be treated as non-free content, that would depend on WP:FREER and whether a free equivalent map could be created to serve the same encyclopedic purpose as this or any other non-free map. In general. maps this showing outlines of countries seem to be too simple for copyright protection under US copyright law, but what the map "shows" and "how it shows it" could involve creative input that is a copyright eligible element. If someone could use essentially the same data (care needs to be taken because some data sets can be separately copyrighted depending upon how they're sampled or obtained) or similar data ineligible for copyright protection to create a similar map and then release that map under a free license, I think that would be OK for Wikipedia's purposes and make using any non-free map fail WP:NFCC#1. That, however, only matters if it turns out that Commons needs to delete the ISW-CTP file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a reduced-resolution still from a 44-minute Syrian documentary film from 2004. There are very few photos of this article’s subject, who was a politician in the now fallen Syrian Arab Republic, and this film still is the only one of certain authorship besides press agency photos (which are presumed to fail the NFCI). The filmmaker died in 2011 with no children or spouse. There is no public-facing estate for the filmmaker’s work. Do I need to try and track down the copyright, ask for a free use license, and be turned down before the photo meets WP:NFCI? It’s being suggested at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2024_December_12 that this would be necessary for the photo to meet fair use criteria. ꧁Zanahary꧂03:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There being only few photos of the subject isn't in and or itself really a good justification for non-free use in my opinion; however, that in combination with the subject being deceased could be a good argument in favor of non-free use. It's not automatic, but it does make a stronger case. Finally, given that this file is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 December 12#File:Diab al-Mashi.png, there really nothing to gain by opening a new discussion about it here. In fact, doing so just runs the risk of splitting the discussion and confusing things. The best thing to do is to keep discussing the file at FFD because that's where a consensus regarding it will be established. Using {{Please see}} to notify others of the FFD discussion is fine, but it's not really a good to discuss anything else anywhere other than FFD now that the file is there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the FFD has now closed, I might as well comment here that any pre-1994 photograph first published in Syria will be free of copyright in both Syria and the US. So if such a Syrian photograph were to be found, we can replace this file. Felix QW (talk) 09:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@One-Winged Devil: The image had to have come from somewhere and the source of the image (preferably a link if possible) of where it came from should be added to |source= parameter of the non-free use rationale. FWIW, I don't think this file's non-free use can be justified even if you sort out its source information. Non-free images of fictional characters such as this can be uploaded and used, but usually only when they're used for primary identification purposes in a stand-alone article about the character itself; using such images to illustrate individual sections in "List of ... characters" types of articles generally isn't considered compliant with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy per WP:NFLISTS. In other words, such an image would probably be fine used in a stand-alone article about "Barney" the character, but not really OK to use in a more general list article. For this reason, I think you're going to have quite a hard time establishing a consensus to justify the non-free use of the file in that particular article if it ends up being discussed at WP:FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I don't understand why this would still be under a copyright. The author can't be Noel, as he is on the picture. Whether the author is Bruce or unattributed, it is out of copyright in UK and in USA. Yann (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably because of the RGS captioning the photographer as being Noel himself and the uncertainty this introduces. Personally I don't think this is a selfie by any stretch of the imagination, and would put the RGS part down as a error. Nthep (talk) 08:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if the copyright holder was (is) Noel, it is still under UK copyright (died 1989). At the time I uploaded RGS said he is the photographer but now they are more nuanced.[1] I have placed a {{keeplocal}} because I want to minimise the risk of deletion from both platforms. Thincat (talk) 11:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a Sherpa took the photograph then it wouldn't now be under US copyright but what about UK, China, Nepal, India and their law regarding (presumably) unknown photographers? Thincat (talk) 11:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think UK (and India) law would say copyright to an unknown photographer would have expired.[2] At the time, and generally, Sherpas were born in Nepal but most expedition Sherpas had gone to live in Darjeeling, India where expeditions went to find staff. Tibet and Nepal had no concept of nationality (or copyright?). This photo was taken from Chang La (i.e. the North Col) on the Tibet/Nepal border (our Chang La and Changla articles are about different locations). Tibet was effectively independent with a feeble claim by China to have suzerainty. Thincat (talk) 11:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All this doesn't matter for copyright (i.e. place it was taken, photographer's nationality, etc.), only the place of first publication does, which is undoubtedly UK. Yann (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although I've been here a (very) long time I did not realise that. I'm pretty sure it was fist published in the UK and then immediatlely rushed into print in the US. Taking Commons' precautionary principle it may still be in UK copyright but out of copyright in US. Thank you for your advice. Thincat (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Noel could have been his own photographer. They had remote wiring and delays in camera equipment even back then. It's absurd to think that he wasn't able to. Noel died in 1989. Bastique☎ call me!02:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! File:Igor_Kirillov_scoooter_bomb_video.webm is listed as public domain and credited as CCTV footage. While the original video clearly qualifies, the current video, which was taken from Reddit, features uncredited additional text and graphics overlayed on top the footage (which I'm fairly certain were not part of the original footage). I am uncertain of the current status, is the file free or a possible copyright violation? 31.44.227.152 (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Images from a blog with written statement but no precise license
The website contains the statement "Please feel free to use any info or images on here for your own purposes", and I contacted the author who also confirmed that I have permission to add them to Wikipedia. However, I don't know what specific license to add. Thanks for your help.
@Junkribbons: What Wikipedia is going to need is the copyright holder's WP:CONSENT. The "permission" you received isn't specific enough and too restrictive for Wikipedia's purposes. The copyright holder has to bascially make it clear that they're releasing their work under a copyright license that allows anyone anywhere in the world to download it at anytime from Wikipedia and reuse it for any purpose (including commercial and derivative reuse). They don't need to transfer their copyright ownership to others, but they do need to make their work available under a copyright license that places minimal restrictions on the reuse of their work. Finally, the copyright holder of a work is the original creator of the work, and only the original creator can release it under the type of copyright licenses that Wikipedia accepts. A website operator only is the copyright holder of content that is 100% percent their "own work"; they don't really have any claim of copyright ownership over content created by others that they just happen to be hosting on their website. I'm only bringing this up because the images you want to upload and some of the other images from that blog seem like they're just being hosted by that blog and weren't originally created by the person writing the blog. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I believe that the images I want to use were created by the website creator but will verify that. The consent link you provided describes an email they can send. Would it also be an option for them to add a CC license to the page? I suppose that would be difficult given that, as you mentioned, some of the content was contributed by others.
Can you comment on whether or not a "fair use" scenario could apply here to make things easier? I don't get the impression that the creator has a lot of time or interest for this project. Junkribbons (talk) 12:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you say I believe that the images I want to use were created by the website creator, it's unclear what you mean. The two linked images appear to be photographs of posters. The copyright holder would the person who made the poster, and not the person who took a photograph of the poster. The person who needs to give consent would be the person who created the posters. As for "fair use", Wikipedia goes by its own stricter standard of non-free content. These would need to meet all of the non-free content criteria in order to be used. Without any information about how you intend to use these, it's impossible to provide any guidance on that. -- Whpq (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By "created" I meant that they took the photographs of the magazine adverts. Does that not count as authorship and the copyright still belongs to whoever created the ads themselves? I'll take a look at the non-free content page you linked, thank you. Junkribbons (talk) 12:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, as the photographs are derivative (or even slavish reproductions) of the magazine adverts, we would need permission from the copyright holder of the magazine advert. This in itself has nothing to do with whether the photograph itself is also copyrightable; it is just that in that case there would be an extra (second) layer of photography copyright to worry about... Felix QW (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone recommend the easiest method of changing the licensing & summary of existing image files? Perhaps it's easier to delete and reupload? Junkribbons (talk) 13:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I was wondering if I could use a screenshot from a Youtube video for the image of a person for an article about that person and in what manner i would upload it, because I am not sure if it is copyrighted or not. Zzendaya (talk) 13:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zzendaya. There's some information about this at c:COM:YOUTUBE; that page is for Wikipedia's sister site Wikimedia Commons, but the same also applies to Wikipedia. Most YouTube content is uploaded under YouTube's standard license which is, in general, too restrictive for Wikipedia's purposes; there is some YouTube content that has been uploaded under a less restrictive licensing and this is usually clearly indicated somewhere in the content's description on the YouTube page. Another problem with YouTube is that those uploading content to it need to be 100% the original creator of such content. YouTube uploaders often upload content either entirely or partially created by other parties, and in such cases this third-party content may be eligible for separate copyright protection on its own. So, even a less restrictive YouTube license would only apply to the 100% originally created content of YouTube uploader. Anyway, it would be easier for someone to give you a more specific answer if you could (1) provide the name of the Wikipedia article where you want to use this image and (2) provide a link to the YouTube page you want to take the image from. In the case of (2), though, you need to be careful of WP:YOUTUBE and WP:COPYLINK, and not post any links which you think might be to copyright violating content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I will just hold off then, because it seems like the youtube video is copyrighted. But the person I am trying to find a picture for is Dean Withers, who is a tiktok personality. I can't seem to find any videos with a CC license. Can I use Instagram pictures? Zzendaya (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What was posted above about YouTube videos, in principle, applies to any image of Withers you might find online. You should assume it's protected by copyright unless it clearly states otherwise. You should also assume that the copyright holder is whoever originally created and the image and only that person can release their work under a copyright license that's OK for Wikipedia's purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You really need to link to the page where the image is used instead of directly to the image. I assume you are referring to this page. Yes, the image is copyrighted absent any further information from the author of the image. -- Whpq (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Donkey Kong1018: In general, pretty much anything (images or text) you find online that you didn't originally create yourself should be assumed to be protected by copyright unless it's clearly stated to the contrary. Even if there's no author attributed to it or no visible "This image is copyrighted" type of language (i.e. copyright notice) anywhere to be found on the website, you should assume it's protected. Anonymous creative works are still eligible for copyright protection for various lengths of time under the copyright laws of the US and many other countries; moreover, visible copyright notices or other formalities are no longer required by most countries, with something becoming eligible for copyright protection as soon as it's published in some tangible medium. Of course, something you find online could be considered to be within the public domain because it's too simple to be eligible for copyright protection, too old to still be eligible for copyright protection or some other reason, but most photos are deemed to involve sufficient creative input to warrant copyright protection with the copyright holder in nearly all cases being the person who actually takes the photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should I upload this image to Wikipedia, Commons, or not at all?
I recently purchased the attached photograph (which I have uploaded to the IMSLP website) and would like to use it to replace the current image on the Archibald Joyce page here on Wikipedia; however, I have no way of knowing for certain when it was taken or by whom. Based upon the current image in the article (which was taken between 1908 and 1910) as well as the general style, I estimate it was taken around 1918-1920, but this obviously just conjecture. The image also doesn't appear to have ever been published. Knowing this, I am unsure if I should upload the image here on Wikipedia (where US copyright law applies), on Commons (where, since the image is most certainly of British origin, British copyright law applies), or not at all since no concrete date can be ascertained. What should I do? Physeters✉21:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, it would come down to whether we can somehow reliably date the image to 1929 or earlier. It is a bit difficult with an entertainment personality, I suspect, since he could well be wearing clothes that are more elaborate than usual for the period. Felix QW (talk) 12:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Physeters IMO, it comes down to a judgement call. Based on what you've posted, I don't think he's 20 years older in your pic than in the current WP pic. His mustache seems to reach higher in 1909, whatever that indicates. I'd put it on Commons, "c. 1920" or something like that. If someone wants to challenge that, you can talk about it in a deletion discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be inclined to agree to the dating – however, I would host it here locally under {{PD-US-expired-abroad}}, as I don't think we have enough information to assert that it is public domain in the United Kingdom yet with no provenance information whatsoever. Felix QW (talk) 10:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is to ascertain whether the photograph is truly anonymous, rather than us just not knowing who the photographer is. I concur though that it is unlikely to be deleted from Commons, just that I personally would not upload it there without a source that calls it anonymous or a little more provenance (such as the identification of a photography studio known not to identify its individual employee photographer). Felix QW (talk) 11:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The photo is not completely without provenance. It was part of a collection of Joyce's papers. Here's a link to the listing on the autograph site I purchased the collection from: https://www.taminoautographs.com/products/archibald-joyce-autographs-lot From my interpretation of the letter that is part of the collection, all of the items were sent as a group to the letter's recipient in January 1950. Joyce mentions mentions the photo in the letter when he says he "enclose[s] a "Photo," also a few callings etc." In my opinion, it's pretty much impossible that the picture was taken anywhere near 1950, and I think the quotation marks around the word photo in the letter also give this fact away. Physeters✉20:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we all agree so far that you can upload it on the English Wikipedia, dated to "ca. some time between 1910 and the early 1920s" or similar. You could also upload it to Commons as an anonymous photograph, citing the sales page where it was from. I wouldn't, because I try to be maximally careful with such "anonymous work" claims if there could well be people out there who do know who the author is, but I certainly wouldn't nominate it for deletion on Commons either. Felix QW (talk) 10:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for both of your inputs! I have uploaded the image to Wikipedia and would like you both to look my documentation over just so I don't run into any issues in the future. Portrait of Archibald Joyce (1873 – 1963)Physeters✉02:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you did an excellent job! I removed the {{PD-because}} since I think that the permission field is the better place for this information, and to the best of my knowledge {{PD-because}} should only be used instead of, not in addition to a regular PD tag. Felix QW (talk) 08:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Blitzite2: I've restored the WP:REDIRECT of Sean Diaz to Life Is Strange article because article was completely unreferenced with not indication that the subject meets Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline. Leaving the article where as it was in the WP:MAINSPACE would almost certainly lead it to being nominated for deletion. If you think you find the reliable sources (as defined by Wikipedia) need to establish the character's Wikipedia notability, you should continue working on it as a WP:DRAFT and then submitted it to WP:AFC when you think its ready for review. As for File:Sean Diaz.png, this is almost certainly a copyrighted image and the opyright holders are whoever created Life Is Strange. For that reason, it will need to be treated as non-free content and subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. Non-free content use is heavily restricted and one of these restrictions is that it can only be used in articles; so, there's no way to use this image in Draft:Sean Diaz. My suggestion to you would be to first work on improving the draft itself and only worry about adding images to it until after it's been approved as an article. I recommend tagging the file for speedy deletion per WP:G7, and then requesting that it be WP:REFUNDed once the draft has been approved. After the file has been refunded, you can add the {{Non-free character}} template to the file's page as the copyright license, and the {{Non-free use rationale video game screenshot}} or template to the file's page as the non-free use rationale. Doing those things now won't stop the image from being deleted as long as it's not being used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, but things should be OK after the draft has been approved as an article. Finally, since you're working on draft for an article about a character from a videogame, you might want to ask for suggestions or help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games because that WikiProject is where Wikipedians interested in articles about videogame are likely going to be found. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recently, I uploaded an excerpt of the song "Storm" by Godspeed You! Black Emperor to use the in article for Lift Your Skinny Fists like Antennas to Heaven as per a GAN review request. Shortly afterward, the file was tagged by the ImageTaggingBot as lacking a provided source. But it does have a source; it says it is an excerpt of the song "Storm", which is copyrighted to either Godspeed You! Black Emperor or the song's labels. The excerpt I uploaded of "Then It's White" for the Field's Looping State of Mind has a similar description of the excerpt's source and it was never tagged. Can anyone clarify this for me? Lazman321 (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lazman321. For future reference, it can save others from the need to do some digging when asking about a particular file if you provide a link to the actual file. I'm assuming you're asking about File:Godspeed You! Black Emperor - Storm.ogg, right? The bot that tagged that file is run by Carnildo; so, any questions about the why the bot did something are probably better asked of Carnildo. Carnildo seems to be pretty good in responding to queries about the bot, but they haven't edited in about a month in a half. Maybe they've got things going on in the real world at the moment, but there's an explanation of the bot and what it does provided at the top of Carnildo's user talk page. FWIW, the files the bot tags as missing source information are still subject to administrator review, and it's unlikely an administrator is going to delete this file per WP:F4. This seems to me like a false positive, with the bot mistakenly assessing that Wikilinks you provided for the song's label are insufficient (i.e. it might be looking for a link to an external website for some reason) because you left both the |source= and |website= parameters for the {{Non-free use rationale audio sample}} template empty; scrolling through Carnildo's user talk page shows that something similar for some other non-free use rationale templates has been discussed before by others. I don't know why the bot didn't do this for the other file, but that file was uploaded almost two years ago; maybe the bot was inactive or wasn't looking at files the same way then. Anyway, I'll add a {{Please see}} template for this discussion to Carnildo's user talk page, but you should be OK in removing the template. If it gets re-added again and Carnildo hasn't yet responded, there could be a problem with the bot that might have nothing to do with this file per se that needs to be discussed at WP:AN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When using a template from the {{Non-free use rationale}} family, the bot expects you to fill out at least one of the "source", "publisher", "owner", "website", or "distributor" fields, or provide source information as free-form text. The defaults for those fields tend to be quite vague about who the copyright holder is. --Carnildo (talk) 04:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SimpleSubCubicGraph: In the general, most photos are considered to involve sufficient copyright protection to warrant copyright protection, and the person who takes a photo is considered to be its copyright holder. It seems the Daily Mail is attributing the image to Yohap News, which could mean it was taken by an YN employee. So, the copyright holder would be YN, the employee or possibly shared copyright between the two depending on whether the person taking the photo did so as part of a work for hire agreement. You won't be banned per se for uploading a copyright work, but you shouldn't really upload a photo taken by another person without providing a way to verify that person's WP:CONSENT. In some cases, copyrighted photos taken by others can be uploaded as non-free content, but each use of the photo needs to meet Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. In this particular case, it might be hard to meet non-free content use criterion #1 and non-free content use criterion #2. There could be a less restrictive photo of the same crash capable of serving essentially the same encyclopedic purpose of any non-free one per WP:FREER, and non-free photos attributed to press agencies or commercial image agencies tend not to be allowed unless the photo itself (not the event it depicts but the actual photo itself) per item 7 of WP:NFC#UUI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The site specifically has to say that image reuse can be done under a free license or in the public domain; this is usually something either said in the image caption or as a site disclaimer. There's nothing clearly stated in this direction on any of the sites involved, so no, there's no allowed use for the image Masem (t) 03:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
,_Jan_2018.png){kind=link}
,_Oct_2018.png){kind=link}
,_Mar_2017.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
