Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click here to ask your question
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
How to add a copyright tag to an existing image
  1. On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page.
  2. From the page Wikipedia:File copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag:
    • For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators".
    • For a work downloaded from the internet, please understand that the vast majority of images from the internet are not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. Exceptions include images from flickr that have an acceptable license, images that are in the public domain because of their age or because they were created by the United States federal government, or images used under a claim of fair use. If you do not know what you are doing, please post a link to the image here and ask BEFORE uploading it.
    • For an image created by someone else who has licensed their image under the GFDL, an acceptable Creative Commons license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information.
  3. Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{GFDL-self}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page.
  4. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}})
  5. Hit Save page.
  6. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below.
How to ask a question
  1. To ask a new question hit the "Click here to ask your question" link above.
  2. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end.
  3. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page.
  4. Don't include your email address, for your own privacy. We will respond here and cannot respond by email.
Note for those replying to posted questions

If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template {{mcq-wrong}} and, if possible, leave a note on the poster's talk page. For copyright issues relevant to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally, questions may be directed to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.

Photo of Oscar with stated regulations

Can somebody evaluate commons:File:Photo-Sonics Inc Award for 4ER camera.jpg and its use in User:Verbwright981/sandbox, discussed at User talk:PrimeHunter#Thank you for your Tea House response. with reference to See File:Academy Award trophy.jpg for a similar image uploaded here with a fair use claim. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Procedurally, that seems like a question for Commons. When was the statuette made and by who? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
@Verbwright981: @PrimeHunter: I've nominated the image for deletion on the commons because it is a derivative work that requires the permission of the copyright holder, who may well be the creator/designer/artist, and without that permission, even though the photo itself is freely licensed, it will be deleted unless that permission is forthcoming. It therefore appears to be a non-free image and the enwiki have strict rules about non-free media. See WP:NFCC and WP:NFC which means it cannot be used in the current sandbox and even then will likely not comply with our non-free policy in the proposed article. ww2censor (talk) 10:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
@Ww2censor: @PrimeHunter: @Jo-Jo Eumerus: First, to address Jo-Jo Eumerus, the Oscar(c) statuette stands 13.5" tall (including the base) and can only be "manufactured" by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences or a specifically designated sub-contractor (to the best of my knowledge). There is a Wikipedia article on the Oscar Statuette(c) that describes the Oscar(c) itself and the various forms it comes in that you can read regarding the Oscar(c) award itself. To address Ww2censor and PrimeHunter, given the review and decision of the Wiki Copyright Review department (stated above), I have gone ahead and deleted the photograph in question and the accompanying caption out of the article.Verbwright981 (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
@Verbwright981: @PrimeHunter: Regarding the original statuette image, there is a deletion nomination at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Photo-Sonics Inc Award for 4ER camera.jpg where you can comment. However, having removed that image from the draft article you replaced it with this image c:File:ACME animation stand circa 1942 Harold Scheib operator reduced.jpg claimed to be your own work of 2015. Bring a low resolution image and dated 70 years ago, we need to know who the actual photographer is, if they are still alive and if they, or their heirs, have given permission because I presume you did not take it yourself in 1947. ww2censor (talk) 10:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
If my understanding is correct, the Academy Award of Merit statuette itself was designed by George Stanley (sculptor) and it might either fall under Template:PD-US-no notice or be copyrighted until 2044. That's for the statuette itself, not necessarily for the derivative we are discussing here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
commons:File:Photo-Sonics Inc Award for 4ER camera.jpg has been deleted. Thanks for looking into this. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
@Ww2censor: @PrimeHunter: Regarding the image c:File:ACME animation stand circa 1942 Harold Scheib operator reduced.jpg. The photo that is in the proposed Wikipedia article is a product photo of the ACME Animation Stand being operated by a former employee of ACME Tool and Manufacturing Company by the name of Harold Scheib. This photo was taken by an ACME employee of that time period and has remained in the ACME Tool and Manufacturing Company/Photo-Sonics, Inc. archives since that photo was taken. Mr. Harold Scheib passed away in the mid 1980’s. This image was uploaded to the Wikipedia Commons by Mr. Philip Kiel, the current owner and President of Photo-Sonics, Inc. Mr. Philip Kiel is also the heir of the past owner of Photo-Sonics, Inc. as well as the majority stock holder of Photo-Sonics, Inc. Verbwright981 (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Verbwright981: Assuming what you say is true, and I have no reason to disbelieve you, then you need to post those details to the nomination page on the Commons where the image is hosted because posting here will not be seen by the closing admin on the commons and unlikely other commons editors who might be interested. In the meantime you also need to verify the copyright by getting the copyright holder, I assume Philip Kiel, to release the image under a free license by following the procedure found on the Commons OTRS Team page though the simplest way is for him to use the Inteactive Release Generator which is also linked from the Commons OTRS page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

John Pierre Burr

The image File:John Pierre Burr.jpg says that it’s original work by the uploader. But the presentation of the image at website suggests the image may be older, though potentially still out of copyright. Can someone help with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anirvan (talkcontribs) 19:00, 13 November 2017

Providing Copyright and Licensing Status

I uploaded an image and am positive that I filled out the copyright and licensing status correctly but the file says that it doesn't have this information. What can I do so that the file will not be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miso16 (talkcontribs) 04:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Miso16. Since you did not specifically say which file you're having problems with, I can only guess that it might be File:The East Light Wearing Hanboks.jpg because of User talk:Miso16#Image without license. The problem appears to be that you manually typed in a file copyright license instead of using a template. This might have caused the bot to mistakenly assume that you did not add a copyright license. It also appears that you've taken this screenshot from this YouTube channel. I cannot read Korean, but if the video was uploaded by its original copyright holder to YouTube, then the "Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported" license you added might be OK; however, if it's not, then it is unlikely that the file can be uploaded under such a license and would most likely need to be licensed as non-free content instead, which in turn is going to make it much harder to use on Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Dzaïr News Latin logo.png

Is there a reason File:Dzaïr News Latin logo.png licensed as {{non-free logo}}? It seems to be mainly a text logo with a few decorative elements, but nothing which appears to be above c:COM:TOO#United States. I think in some cases arabic text might be seen as calligraphy, but not sure if that means its eligible for copyright protection. If not PD in it's home country, then maybe it's OK as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. Otherwise, the way it's currently being used would almost certainly not be acceptable per WP:NFCC#8 which means it should considered for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

It is on the commons as a combined image earlier then this one at c:File:دزاير نيوز.png though I am not sure it is correctly licensed there. ww2censor (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look Ww2censor. I was aware of the Commons image, but am also not sure about its licensing. File:Numidia news.png is another similar logo which also has a more recent version uploaded to Commons. Any opinion on this file? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Pablo Picasso, 1901-02, Femme aux Bras Croisés

File:Pablo Picasso, 1901-02, Femme aux Bras Croisés, Woman with Folded Arms (Madchenbildnis), oil on canvas, 81 × 58 cm (32 × 23 in).jpg is a colour reproduction of Picasso's Femme aux Bras Croisés. It claims {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} but the cited book was published in Germany, not USA, and the reproduction within it is monochrome, so not the actual source. jnestorius(talk) 00:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

And you consider that the painting was not published? -- Asclepias (talk) 05:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what "publish" means for a painting. If a book with a mono reproduction is published, does that count as publishing the painting or just publishing the reproduction? In any case, publishing in Germany is certainly not publishing in the USA. jnestorius(talk) 10:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I've corrected the license to {{PD-US-1923-abroad|2044}} because the date should not be 2054: 1973+70=2044. In reading through Wikipedia:Public domain#Artworks the publication does not suggest that the form of publication, in this case a black and white image, makes any difference. By being reproduced in the source book, the painting was published in Germany in 1920. If it helps, there are some other similarly dated Picasso paintings which are tagged {{PD-USonly|expiry=1 January 2044}}. ww2censor (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks jnestorius(talk) 13:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Appeal by Δ (BetaCommand)

The community is invited to comment on the appeal lodged by Δ at Arbitration Requests for Clarification and Amendment.

For the arbitration committee - GoldenRing (talk) 11:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Why is it so difficult to post and attribute an image you have taken yourself?

Image:2005-02-24 Trinity Church at night.jpg

There is a message in my notices that this file had been deleted. I took the photo myself. I posted it myself to WikiPedia. And I gave you the right to use it. i did this with numerous awesome photos i took in 2005 of this iconic church at the Russian Antarctic base at Bellingshausen. It says the image has now been deleted. I don;t even remember which image of the thousands I took that it was. is there any way for Wikipedia to recover the image and replace it on the Trinity Church page?

Some people have a life. Mine is practically destroyed by chronic illness and I do not have time or energy to chase down silly problems like this. I offered the image for the world to see. You should not make this any more difficult than posting it and clicking a button which says it is mine and I grant permission to use it. I did all this and nearly all the photos of the Trinity Church I posted are still there. I have no idea why this one was an issue. Can someone help recover this and give the awesome image back to the world? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArJuna (talkcontribs) 11:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@ArJuna: It looks like this file was deleted from Wikipedia back on 10 December 2007 by an administrator named Quadell and the reason given was "no valid tag after 7 days (CSD I4)". I've pinged Quadell to this thread, but he hasn't edited since January 2017, so I'm not sure if he will respond. I am not an administrator, so I cannot see or undelete previously deleted photos. In general, files which are deleted are not really gone forever, but are only hidden from public view and they can possibly be "undeleted" at a later date via WP:REFUND or by the deleting administrator if they feel an error was made.
Just for reference, Wikipedia's policies, etc. related to image use and file uploads probably have changed quite a bit since you first uploaded the image and even since when Quadell deleted the file. Back then there were probably quite a number of files which people were uploading under a claim of "own work" even when that was not the case at all. Since Wikipedia tends to delete files whose licensing is questioned and whose copyright ownership cannot be sufficiently verified. The reason given by Quadell is now referred to as WP:F4, and files tend to be deleted for this reason because their copyright ownership cannot be properly verified; so, that appears to be why your photo was deleted. If you can verify you own the copyright of the photo (i.e., it was actually taken by you), such as explained in WP:CONSENT or even c:COM:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS?, then having it restored is probably not going to be too difficult. In some cases, files uploaded way back in the early days of Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons before the OTRS verification system was esablished have been grandfathered in even if their licensing isn't perfect per c:COM:GOF, but this file was deleted more than ten years ago and I'm not sure if that would be applicable to it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Actually, your file has just been restored by an administrator Ritchie333 who apparently saw your post. Just a suggestion, but maybe this file and any other similarly licensed files you've uploaded locally to Wikipedia would be better off hosted on Wikimedia Commons instead. Local files can only being used locally, but files hosted by Commons can be easily used by any WMF project. As long as your ownership of the files is no longer an issue, they should not be deleted from Commons. Wikipedia is not really set up to be an image repository, and files are often moved to Commons when there's not really a good reason to keep them locally. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
@ArJuna: (ec) I have restored the image, and assumed from what you have written here that the picture is your own work and that you are happy to release it via a suitable free licence. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Occasionally an image will slip through the cracks as this one did not 10 years but you did get a notice on your talk page (which is still there) that this image was missing copyright details back in 2007. You never did anything about it at the time and no one else seems to have noticed the missing copyright notice either. Thanks for letting us know even with your health problems, but now everything looks good. ww2censor (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Maps derived from out-of-copyright sources

I have drawn a map which I would like to incorporate in an article I have edited. The map is drawn by hand (using drawing software) with reference to an Ordnance Survey 1" 7th series map, dated 1960, which is out-of copyright, with additions drawn in by me to suit the article. When I look at the copyright status page, none of the choices are true; the nearest is "This is entirely my own work" but this choice goes on to say "without incorporating anyone else's creative work". My map does incorporate other work, albeit out-of-copyright. Can it be used?

I did not scan the OS map, but suppose I did. Could such an image be used, with or without my adding anything myself? Exbrum (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I presume you are talking about a UK Ordnance Survey map, in which case you could upload a scan of it so long as you add the copyright tag {{PD-UKGov}} because the copyright expired at the end of 2010. Depending on how much you changed the original, it might still be considered a derivative work but there are no problems because the original copyright has expired. I suggest you should probably state your work is based on a previous Crown copyright map. You should upload it to the commons and not here, so it is available to the other language wikis. ww2censor (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I found a tag that specifically referenced OS maps. I have now uploaded the file. I still found the process quite tricky, so hope I have done it correctly. Exbrum (talk) 13:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Can a photographer give permission to use his work if it has already been published

In the article Don Gregorio Antón, most of the images are published versions of Antón's photographs, with the publication given as the source in a footnote. The source in Wikimedia is 'own work', so presumably they were uploaded by Antón, and the license is Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. If a photographer's photo is published (or an artist's painting, etc), does the copyright stay with the artist, or do the journals/books that published them hold the copyright? Also, in a case like this, how can an editor know what 'own work' means? It could be the artist uploading his own version of the image, or someone who took a picture of a published source or museum exhibit (which would, of course, be a problem). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leschnei (talkcontribs) 22:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

About your first question, it depends what the parties have agreed in the contract between them, but in a case like this one I suppose that it is very probable that the artist kept the control over his copyright. However, and sort of adressing your second question, see also Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by BLAN-JU. There does not seem to be an indication that the situation has been clarified since then. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
c:File:Don Gregorio Antón.jpg has been reuploaded despite the issues not being addressed, so I have nominated it for deletion again. ww2censor (talk) 10:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Leschnei (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

File:A for Andromeda (1961 TV series).jpg

File:A for Andromeda (1961 TV series).jpg is uploaded as a {{Non-free title card}} which seems correct, but the source given is YouTube and it seems clear that the YouTube uploader is not the original copyright holder. How does Wikipedia deal with this kind of thing when it comes to file uploads. Per WP:ELNEVER and WP:COPYLINK, links to copyvios should not be added to any Wikipedia pages, which seems to means things such as this. Would it be acceptable to simply change the source to the TV series or the BBC without a link or perhaps use the DVD cover art for the series found on its IMDb page instead? It also might be possible to find the same or a similar title card image here, but I am not a registered user so I can't say for sure.

Finally, File:Adventure Story (1961 TV play).jpg also has the same YouTube source issues. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe reupload the same image from an official source and let F5 take care of these screenshots? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Media copyright questions"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA