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)

Uploading a picture

Hello! I want to upload a picture I took of a Epargyreus clarus to Wikipedia for potential use on its page. I'm totally confused with the copyright since the picture isn't really licensed, it was taken by me with my phone and cropped to 1403x1879. I plan the file name to be "Epargyreus clarus on wooden floor"

Lucy LostWord 17:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Never mind, I think I can just attach a free license to it.

Lucy LostWord 17:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

ILike Leavanny, just for clarity, you are quite correct. Since you took the photograph, you are the copyright holder to it and may license it however you so choose. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Lucy LostWord 20:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure you know this, but for the sake of completeness/generality: this also depends on whether the subject of the photograph is copyrighted. Wikipedia:Image use policy § Photographs describes this in more detail. It wasn't important for this particular photograph because the appearance of a plant is not copyrightable. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Linda Kearns.jpg

Hi, I think this is from USA. See File:Linda Kearns, three-quarter length portrait, facing forward.jpg, probably taken at the same session. Yann (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The source credit the photographer as "Boyé, O. H." and looking for such a photographer, it's probably the person mentioned here which states Otto H. Boyé, who operated in San Francisco 1896-1900 and later. So yes, looks to be taken in the USA. -- Whpq (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I moved the file to Commons. Yann (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Why is a photo permitted on one Wikipedia page, but banned from another?

Why is a photo permitted on one page and not another? Why isn't "non free rationale" true for *both* usages of the photo?

Every photo I add is one I have found elsewhere in use on wikipedia already. Last time it happened: File:PinUps.jpg ; why was this photo allowed on the album's page, but not on Twiggy's page, when she was on the album cover?

Oodles of album covers permitted on pages of individual models, musicians and artists--so is there some magic formula why some are allowed and some are not? PB57 (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

If it's under a non-free usage, then it's only allowed on the article that is the subject of the image. So, in this case, the album article itself and nowhere else. If you're seeing covers on other pages, those covers may not being used in a non-free manner. If they are, then that's against the rules and they should be removed, but no one has gotten around to it yet. Silverseren^C 18:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

There are ten non-free content criteria, and all must be met, for each separate use of an image. In this case, I think the key difference is contextual significance. The cover of an album is very significant to an article about that album, but it's probably not as significant to an article about someone who happens to be on that cover. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, looks like this is already explained in a footnote of WP:NFC:

NFCI#1 relates to the use of cover art within articles whose main subject is the work associated with the cover. Within such articles, the cover art implicitly satisfies the "contextual significance" NFCC criterion (NFCC#8) by virtue of the marketing, branding, and identification information that the cover conveys. The same rationale does not usually apply when the work is described in other articles, such as articles about the author or musician; in such articles, the NFCC criteria typically require that the cover art itself be significantly discussed within the article.

jlwoodwa (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Guidance Needed on Copyright Submission for Journal Cover Page on Wikimedia Commons

Dear Wikipedians,

I would appreciate your guidance on how to properly comply with the Wikimedia Commons rules related to copyright.

A learned society publishes a scientific journal, and it appears that the copyright for the journal's cover page is held by the society. The journal's chief editor, who has the managerial authority, has used the Commons:Wikimedia VRT release generator - Wikimedia Commons to upload a high-resolution version of the cover page to Wikimedia Commons. He received confirmation via email from Wikimedia Commons acknowledging his permission to use the media file(s) on the platform.

As he prepares to upload the image, he is prompted to confirm that it is not a logo. We are uncertain whether this should be selected, as the cover page does feature the publisher's logo, which could technically be considered a logo in that context. However, there doesn't seem to be an option for "submit logo" on Wikimedia.

Could you provide any advice on how to proceed in this situation?

Thank you for your assistance,

Firefly2024 Firefly2024 (talk) 10:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

For questions about Commons, you should ask at Commons. Try c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. -- Whpq (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt reply. Firefly2024 (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Marcia Lucas

Greetings, I recently uploaded a now-deleted image File:MarciaLucas.jpg because a user quickly advocated for a speedy deletion because supposedly it failed the section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file from a commercial source (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images).

I do not see how it failed the criteria because it was clearly the subject of sourced commentary. It was also cropped from a larger portrait photograph, so it would hopefully avoid copyright infringement. PrinceArchelaus (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@PrinceArchelaus. I think you're slightly misreading the criteria. WP:NFC#UUI #7 states A photo from a press agency or photo agency (e.g., AP or Getty Images), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. (my emphasis added). If you want to use a press image then that specific image has to be the subject of commentary, not that the subject appearing in the image is being commented upon, i.e. "this picture depicting a person is special because ...", not "the person in this picture is special because ..."

There's an additional issue in that Marcia Lucas is still alive, so the use of any non-free image of her is likely to fail WP:NFCC#1 as a free image could be found or created. Nthep (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

If that's the case, the subject(s) of commentary would be both George and Marcia Lucas. Could I reupload the full uncropped image? As for any free image, it's doubtful I can find one. I can suggest this image in which the copyright owner is Athena Studios, but I don't think it's free. PrinceArchelaus (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you're still misunderstanding. What is the commentary about that particular image? Not, what does the article say about Marcia and George, but what does the article say about that specific image of Marcia and George that is significant (and sourced) in their careers/life. As far as I can see it doesn't say anything, it's there solely as an image of the couple.

Uploading the uncropped image isn't an improvement for the same reasons. Wikipedia's policy on non-free content is deliberately strict in order to minimise the amount of non-free content as this runs contrary to the aim of making information freely available for others to read and re-use. That's why the majority of BLP articles don't have illustrations - because free images haven't been found or created. Nthep (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

How do add license tags

I know I have to edit the description page but what do I write down to write the copyright tag. Please tell me soon or my image will be deleted JimmyCarterLover1 (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@JimmyCarterLover1: Are you asking about File:William Wheeler Grave.jpeg? If so, then can you provide more information about the provenance of the file? Did, for example, you take this photo yourself or did you find it online? If you took it yourself, then you should take a look at c:Commons:Licensing and Wikipedia:Image use policy because both those pages contain information on the types of copyright licesning you can use if you really want this photo to not end up deleted. If, however, you didn't take this photo yourself, then Wikipedia can't really keep with obtaining the WP:CONSENT of the person who did or having some sort of formal way of verifying that person who took the photo has already released it under an acceptable free license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Florida mugshot

It seems like File:Mugshot of Sky Bouche, the Forest High School (Florida) shooter, April 2018.jpeg is OK to relicense as {{PD-FLGov}} given that it was taken by the Sheriff's Office of Marion County, Florida, shouldn't it be? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Yes, it's okay to relicense as that if the mugshot was taken by a Florida county. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Does the Bible Methodist logo need permission?

I don't know if the Bible Methodist Connection of Churches (this one: the image) logo needs permission or not because if it does, it probably should not be uploaded to wikipedia, but I believe it's non-free. However, I am still unsure if needs permission right now, I want to know if it's fully compliant with Wikipedia's policies before proceeding. MJGTMKME123 (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@MJGTMKME123 It looks to pass the threshold of originality to me, so could only be used as a non-free file. (Note. I'm British where TOO is very low, US editors may disagree with me) Nthep (talk) 06:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@Nthep I'm just asking if it needs permission or not. MJGTMKME123 (talk) 11:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@MJGTMKME123 not if you're going to upload it as non-free. You just need to fill out a non-free rationale. Nthep (talk) 12:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@Nthep Thanks! MJGTMKME123 (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

cover of DVD

Why was a cover of a DVD removed when new art from Alien: Romulus#/media/File:Alien Romulus 2024 (poster).jpg is OK. I scanned the DVD cover myself. It was taken off from Superheroes: A Never-Ending Battle page.

See: below.

Wikipedia:Use rationale examples

# It illustrates educational articles about the album from which the cover illustration was taken.

# The image is used as the primary means of visual identification of the article topic.

# The use of the cover will not affect the value of the original work or limit the copyright holder's rights or ability to distribute the original. In particular, copies of the image could not be used to make illegal copies of the album artwork on another CD.

# The image is only a small portion of the commercial product.

I bu Qstor2 (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I checked there's no copyright to the image ITSELF just the movie

https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=Superheroes%3A+A+Never-Ending+Battle+&Search_Code=TALL&PID=xotPCWxsXMkEHIGVrOlyRiit8Ich3&SEQ=20240826172254&CNT=25&HIST=1 Qstor2 (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Qstor2: The bot that removed File:Image of cover of dvd.jpg from Superheroes: A Never-Ending Battle left an edit summary explaining why that contained a link to WP:NFC#Implementation. Did you take a look at that page? What that bot is looking for is a non-free use rationale that's specific to the article where you want to use the file; more specificlly, the bot is looking for some kind of indication (i.e. a WP:WIKILINK) to the article where the file is intended to be used. Since the bot didn't find such a link, it removed the file. So, even though you did provided part of a non-free use rationale for the file's use on its page, you didn't provide any link or other indication specifically stating where the file is intended to be used. All you need to do is add a link to the article when the file is being used to the rationale and then re-add the file to the article. That should be enough to stop the bot from removing the file again.

Finally, the DVD cover art is copyright protected separately from the movie itself. Any type of creative copyright eligible work first published in the US on or after March 1, 1989, is automatically eligible for under current US copyright law as soon as it's "fixed". Copyright formalities (registration, notice, renewal, etc.) are no longer a requirement for copyright protection under US copyright law, and most other countries due to the Berne Convention. Registration, for sure, can help a copyright holder file successful claims of copyright infringment against others, but it's not required for copyright protection. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Qstor2 (talk) 10:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The bot approved it. How do I "move" it back to the page? Qstor2 (talk) 11:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Qstor2: I'm not sure what you mean by the The bot approved it since that's not really what the bot does; however, you seem to have figured things out on your own. If the bot doesn't remove it again (for that very same reason), then I guess that is a kind of "approval" so to speak. Please understand for future reference, though, the adding of a non-free use rationale for a particular use doesn't automatically make said use policy compliant as explained in WP:JUSTONE. In this case, things should be fine. If, however, the file should by chance get removed again by someone else or a bot, pause for a minute and try to sort out why; if there's a proper reason given for its removal, further discussion/review may be needed to assess the file's non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Qstor2 (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Removed WP:NFCC violation(s). No valid non-free use rationale for this page. See WP:NFC#Implementation.

Why can't the Beijing Normal University logo.svg be placed on the Beijing Normal University at Zhuhai page? Realmomo (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Realmomo for the reason you've put in the section heading, file:Beijing Normal University logo.svg has no fair-use rationale for its use in Beijing Normal University at Zhuhai, it only has a rationale for use in Beijing Normal University. Every individual use of a non-free file requires its own discrete rationale. Nthep (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Beijing Normal University at Zhuhai is part of Beijing Normal University, and the two schools share the same logo. Realmomo (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Realmomo: The fact that the two schools share the same logo doesn't automatically mean that the same logo file should be used in both articles. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy tells us to minimize our use of non-free content as much as possible and use free equivalents (which includes using no images as all) whenever its reasonable to do so. For this reason, as explained in items 14 and 17 of WP:NFC#UUI, policy discourages the use of parent entity logos in articles about child entities. A university, for example, may have a main campus and several "other" campuses at other locations; in such cases, Wikipedia policy tells us it's generally OK to use the university logo for primary identification purposes in the main infobox or at the top of the stand-alone article about the main campus, but not OK to use for the same reason in stand-alone articles about the other campuses. Even if all the campuses are using the same logo, relevant policy says the logo shouldn't be used in the other campus articles. Now, if one or more of the campuses has their own specific logo that identifies them, then it's usually OK to use that logo. Policy in a sense is telling us it's better to use no logo at all in the other campus articles than reuse the same logo as the parent entity. So, even though you added a non-free use rationale for the file's use in the other article, that particular use could still be challenged as being invalid according to relevant policy, and the file still could eventually be removed. Adding the rationale should stop the bot from removing the file, but it doesn't automatically mean the non-free use in question policy compliant as explained in WP:JUSTONE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Rooms by the Sea

Rooms by the Sea uses a non-free image of Edward's Hopper 1951 painting. How do I determine instead, if this is in the public domain in the US, as it may have been published between 1929 and 1977 without a copyright notice? The only copyright public record I could find is this one, which appears to be filed by the New York Graphic Society, which is an art reproduction company. It is not a copyright record for the original painting. Does this mean the painting is in the public domain? Viriditas (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Works attributed to Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Do I understand correctly, that this text is in public domain? Thank you in advance, Викидим (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0 files

I've always found {{Cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}} to be an odd license that tends to be used by individuals who just want to upload content but who don't have any clue about the content's copyright status. To me it seems like a CC version of {{PD-because}} that's used to try and cover every possibility because none of the better defined copyright license seem to work or because the uploader assumes everything should be OK to upload to Wikipedia. FWIW, there are probably some valid uses for the license, but lhe license is being used on everything from logos, maps, product photos, Wikipedia screenshots, billboards, graphics, etc. Just clicking on a few of the files in Category:Cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0 files (there are more than 200), finds pretty much no information about the provenance of the content other than perhaps a claim of "own work" or a brief description. The category was created in 2016 but a form of the license dates back to 2007. Does anyone who might've been around back then remember any discussion about this license and perhaps why it was needed? Does anyone know whether the category is regularly monitored? It might be a good idea for one or more to go through this category and try to sort things out: relicense what can be relicensed and tag/nominate for deletion/discussion those that are in need of further attention. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)