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 Publish changes.
  6. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below.
How to ask a question
  1. To ask a new question hit the "Click here to 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.

"World copyright" for images in 1955 issue of The Illustrated London News

An issue of The Illustrated London News from 27 August 1955 contains two images (which appear to be retouched photographs) of the Emesa helmet. The images are credited as "Reproduced by courtesy of the General Directorate of Antiquities of Syria, world copyright reserved." Could someone please give an indication of what "world copyright" means, and the copyright status of these images? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to mean much of anything. UK copyright law would govern if this is the original publication, and doesn't require a copyright notice. It might have something to do with establishing the images as "scientific work", which may enjoy a higher level of protection than ordinary photographs under some copyright regimes, but unless it's established that this wasn't the original publication I don't see any relevance for out purposes. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Use of Bank notes in Infobox of Bank notes article

I have added Indian Rupee notes in one of the article, Indian 10-rupee note. It seems the a user has removed the image files from the article Infobox. The image helps in identifying the bank notes and the features also the reason for adding the image has been described in file summary of File. Why the Image has been deleted? --Jinoy Tom Jacob (talk) 09:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jinoytommanjaly: Indian government works which includes coins and banknotes are copyrighted for 60 years from first production, so if the image was off the new, 2018, issue it will be in copyright until 1 January 2069. Nthep (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
However you could easily make a case for fair use of this kind of image. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Uploading Instagram image for a living person's biography

File:Vikram-Sakhalkar.jpg I have uploaded this photo that I got from Vikram Sakhalkar's official Instagram account. Can I use this photo in Vikram's wikipedia page? Anonymousaa (talk) 09:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

No, not without specific permission for the copyright holder who is usually the photographer and the subject of the image. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page to see the types of issues like this one. ww2censor (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Help! - EDITOR685422

I recently uploaded recently this file: File:Sen. Ralph Recto official.jpg

I got a message from MifterBot that I need to specify the image's copyright status. I sourced the file from Recto's official website and therefore I assume it is Free Use. What do I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EDITOR685422 (talkcontribs)

EDITOR685422: Sorry but you cannot assume that just because an image is found on a website without any specific copyright notice, that it is in the public domain. Most images found on the internet are copyright to someone and in this case you do not know who the copyright holder is. Usually it is the photographer and you need their permission given under a free licence. This image does not compley with any of the statements made in the template: either released into the public domain by the copyright holder, the copyright has expired, or the work is ineligible for copyright. ww2censor (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
ww2censor: If so, the source, which is inarguably public since it provides information about the person the file is a government official, and since the "copyright holder" is also an official employee of the Philippine government, for what purpose would the image serve other than for reuse in the web and in official portraits in government buildings? Please do clarify this matter further to me. Much gratitude. EDITOR685422 (talk) 10:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
@EDITOR685422: Being available in public is not the same as being in the public domain. If the copyright holder is a government official AND the image was created as part of their official duties then is maybe a public domain image. The issue is that at the moment the information you have provided doesn't establish whether this is the case or not. You've only linked to his own website and even if I look at the specific image file that doesn't indicate who took the photo and their employment status. That's the information that needs to be provided to determine if this a public domain item. Nthep (talk) 11:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I see. If the photo is somehow deleted, do I lose uploading privileges? EDITOR685422 (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Just for reference, photos which are deleted aren't really gone forever; they are only hidden from public view and can possibly be restored at a later if whatever issues which led to their deletion are subsequently resolved. As for having your uploading privaledges taken away, that kind of thing only typically happens when an editor repeatedly continues to inappropriately upload files despite being warned to be more careful. In such cases, an adminstrator may be asked to intervene to prevent any further disruption or any further copyright violations being uploaded. Those tend to be extreme cases though where the editor is not really paying attention to what the Wikipedia community is saying. Making a good-faith mistake once or even twice will most likely not result in such serious action being taken; so, just try not to keep repeating the same mistake over and over again and you should be fine. If you're not sure about the licensing of the next file you want to upload, you can always ask for help here first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Currently, on DeVry University, File:DeVry-University-Logo.png is the official logo used as the image in the article. That image is from 2014; DeVry has since updated its logo (higher resolution from a recent press release) and this altered design can be found throughout its website. According to the filenames of these instances, it appears this new logo was adopted in 2017. I do not know if the older logo is still in use (though changing logo-header-devry-2.png to *-1.png reveals the old logo), nor whether the new design is on its campus buildings. I might as well ask here how to proceed, especially since I have never uploaded any file on Wikipedia, let alone a copyrighted one. Given my unfamiliarity with this whole process and the legal concerns involved, I am naturally hesitant about what to do. Perhaps I am just being paranoid, but I would rather be paranoid than prosecuted, legally or otherwise.

Specifically, is this logo change important enough to change on the article or are minor cosmetic changes like this usually ignored? Is the old logo design still the official logo of DeVry University and, if not, is it legally problematic to continue using and describing it as such? What specifically do I need to do to satisfy WP:LOGO and WP:NFCC? Does either (or both) logo qualify as copyright-free? If this new logo is uploaded, should the old logo and file be deleted? Tangentially, DeVry's official Twitter account uses yet another different logo design. Does this at all matter? The pertinent policies and guidelines coupled with the information at File:DeVry-University-Logo.png already give me some indication on what the answers to these questions might be and on how to proceed, but I would rather not do so based on inexperienced guesses.

Any advice or instruction here would be appreciated. If this is not the appropriate place for such questions, please direct me to a better one. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 07:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I think there are a couple of things you can do here. The first one would be to simply go to the old logo's page and click "Upload a new version of this file" (it's near the bottom of the page). Just follow the instructions, and upload the new logo to Wikipedia. Once you've done that you can edit the non-free use rationale as needed to reflect any changes in the file's source, description, etc. The file name will remain the same, so you won't have to add/remove anything from the article about the university; you might just have to WP:PURGE the page to make the new logo appear in the infobox. In this case, you should add the template {{subst:furd}} to the file's page after the new file has been uploaded since the older version is now considered an "orphan" and will need to be deleted per WP:F5. The one drawback of this approach is the the old version will eventually be deleted, which means that new version will replace the old one on every page where it is currently being used.
Another thing you can do would be to upload the new version as a completely separate file from the old. You can do this by clicking on "Upload file" in the navigation bar on the left side of your screen or by using WP:UPLOAD. This will not replace the old version with the new; so, once you've uploaded the file, you will need to go an manually replace the old wherever it's being used. The old file will most likely then become an orphan and will be eventually tagged for deletion by a bot or another editor per WP:F5. This latter approach is probably the best if you believe that the older logo should be kept and a new use for it can be found which complies with WP:NFCC. This also can be helpful when the old and new files are significantly different or you're not sure which should be used and you want to discuss which to use on the article's talk page. In this latter case, it might be a good idea to discuss first and then upload the new logo once there's a consensus established for it to be used.
As for the Twitter logo, I would suggest using the one found on the university's official website over that. Twitter logos, etc. are sometimes tweaked for social media purposes, whereas the one of the official website is more likely the one best used to represent the university's choice of branding. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

"List of Adventure Time characters" image

Many years ago, someone uploaded image to illustrate the characters of the animated show Adventure Time. The image, in part, helps a reader visualize a stylistically-unique show, and is low-enough in quality so as to not really infringe upon the rights of Cartoon Network. However, the other day, user JJMC89 removed it from the page, writing that it did not have a "valid WP:NFUR for [the] page" I politely reverted, asking the user to discuss the topic on the talk page before removing it, since I made sure that the image does indeed have a fair-use rationale attached, only for it to be reverted a few days later. Any insight? Since this is being used on a featured list, I'd like to clear it up as soon as we can. Thanks!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Gen. Quon: File:Adventure Time cast.jpg does have a non-free use rationale attached, but if you take a closer look that rationale is for Adventure Time not List of Adventure Time characters; so, this is most likely why JJMC89 removed the file from the list article. What might have happened is that many years ago there was only one article "Adventure Time" and the file was being used there; then, someone created the list article and the file was moved to it. Maybe whomever moved the file either wasn't aware that it was non-free and needed a "new" rationale or just assumed that the old rationale automatically applied to the new use. What you need to do is provide a rationale which specifically addresses the particular way you want to use the file, and then re-add the file to the article. For reference, you might want to look at WP:NFLISTS, WP:JUSTONE and WP:ITSFA. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Briefly since Marchjuly addressed this: The NFUR was not for the article it was being used in. Per WP:NFCC#10c each use must have a separate rationale that contains the name of or link to the article. — JJMC89(T·C) 01:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Hawaii Five-0 Season 8 Cast.jpg

I did not know we allowed cast photos as fair use.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

We do, actually, though there must be care taken, and if free media (like, nowadays, panels from San Diego Comic Con) exist that include the bulk of the principle cast, it must be replaced. The argument for their use is the same that we do allow for non-free images of television or film characters on articles about those characters where we could use a free image of the actor behind the character, but justify it because these publicity shots are said to define aspects of how the character is presented and poised by the actor. (I tend to think this is a weak reasoning but consensus had deemed it valid). --Masem (t) 05:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Book covers to identify the author

Do we allow the use of a non-free book cover as the primary identification (e.g. infobox image) for the author? Specific example: File:Bazin What Is Cinema.jpg for André Bazin. — JJMC89(T·C) 01:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

  • In this case, given he's been dead for 60 years, yes it's ok. For living people, no. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    I should have specified deceased. For living it would be a clear violation of WP:NFCC#1. Wouldn't a different image or a crop of just the author be more appropriate? example — JJMC89(T·C) 04:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Either way, it's still not appropriate. The book cover is not the author, and the use does not meet our standards for non-free use. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Cropping just the photo of the author from the cover would be fine, if that's really the only photo you could find. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 09:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • To those against the book cover; keep in mind that without the photograph of him, the entirety of the cover fails threshold of originality. It's just text. Reducing the cover to just him doesn't reduce the burden of non-free content. If someone wants to locate another image of him, fine. There's no need to use the cover. But, if another image is similarly low quality, we'd only be replacing a poor quality non-free image with a poor quality non-free image. We would not be reducing, in any respect, our burden of non-free content. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Addendum; there are higher quality version of the image here. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Image usage in Bet9ja

Is the usage of a non-free logo and a non-free screenshot in the infobox (both for "identification") in this article valid? It seems to violate Wikipedia's "minimal usage" requirement for non-free media, but I am not entirely sure. If two images for the same purpose are prohibited, which one should be used for identification of a web company? GermanJoe (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

File in Commons

How do I go about suggesting that this file c:File:Heroesjourney.svg should be deleted? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

On that image page on the commons, just click on the "Nominate for deletion" button on the left side panel and fill in the reason why it should be deleted. BTW, there is a also a jpg version: c:File:Heroesjourney.jpg. If there is a good reason one should be deleted that probably applies to both images. ww2censor (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2018 (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