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.
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.
| ||
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) |
---|
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Fake PD claim?
File:Coal Black and De Sebben Dwarfs (1943) by Bob Clampett 2.webm has a PD copyright notice, but that appears to be fake (the video is a relatively recent review of a cartoon from 1943); what is the right thing to do about this? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- That file is on Commons and would need to be nominated for deletion there. -- Whpq (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Before nominating it for deletion on Commons, though, you might want to first ask about it at c:COM:VPC just to see what others think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks to both of you; I will ask at commons. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- And now the file has been deleted by the person who originally posted it; thanks again. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks to both of you; I will ask at commons. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
NIH History Office photo = US-GOV PD?
Working on a draft for a former National Institutes of Health (NIH) virologist and I ran across this photo posted by the official social media account for the NIH History Office. Is there any way to figure out if this counts as an "official publication of a US government employee during the course of their work", which would make it public domain? SilverserenC 01:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Resolved
- I contacted the NIH directly. They said all photos of her are from various issues of the NIH Record and, thus, are all public domain. So I'm good now. SilverserenC 02:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Old WoRMS logo – two versions of the same version of the logo, one on Commons, the other here
Is the old WoRMS logo copyrighted? The Commons version is c:File:WoRMS.jpg and is said to be under a CC BY-SA license, but the version on the English Wikipedia is claimed to be copyrighted. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Alfa-ketosav: The local non-free file was uploaded more than a year before the Commons file was uploaded; moreover, even though the source url is the same, the uploaders of the two files are different. I can't see anything on the latest version (at least at first glance) of the source website that indicates the content contained on that page has been released under a CC-by-SA license; however, such information could be on a different inner page or I could just be missing it. The wesbite's Terms of Use page states that text is released under a CC-by-SA license but images are released under a CC-by-NC-SA license. Whether that was the case at the time the files were uploaded, I can't say; a NC license, however, isn't free enough for Commons. My guess here, per WP:AGF, is that the user who uploaded it to Commons just made a mistake and for some reason just thought it would be OK to do so. FWIW, that's user's Commons user talk page is filled with lots of file licensing related notifications; some of the files have ended up deleted but others have been kept. The user hasn't edited Commons or any other WMF projects since 2018; so, they might've moved on and won't respond to a direct enquiry. The non-free seems fine at the moment; so, it's the Commons file that needs to be sorted out, and that needs to be done on Commons. Maybe try asking about it at c:COM:VPC? If the Commons file ends up deleted, then the non-free should most likely stay non-free. On the other hand, if the Commons file is kept, then the non-free is no longer need and can be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- At the Village pump's Copyright section, Felix QW said that When the old logo was uploaded, WoRMS said the web pages and their information was used under CC BY but did not say which version, and there was no hyperlink to any version of the license, so {{Attribution}} may be used there. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
==
Fair Use of non-free political cartoon?
On the page Stochastic Terrorism, I would like to use the non-free cartoon published by UK artist Dave Brown in The Independent on 2 August 2024 - Image from this page depicting UK politician Nigel Farage throwing petrol bombs into a riot whilst saying "Me? I'm just tossing a few questions out there!". It would be included in the Incidents section, with the section on the 2024 UK riots.
I think - but am not entirely sure - that this can meet Fair Use, but have little experience with non-free media outside organisation logos. Aside from being an excellent piece of commentary and illustration of Stochastic Terrorism, the work represents a very rare (and thus significant) example of directly linking Farage's speech to violent disorder. UK mainstream media have been very reticent to publicly call out right-wing extremists (especially elected MPs!) for encouraging violence - carefully couching their criticism behind free speech concepts. It is therefore of encyclopaedic value in illustrating both the concept of stochastic terrorism, and commenting on the UK media's increasingly critical position on such speech. In terms of fair use policy:
- No Free equivalent - It is not realistic to find a free image that represents "commentary by mainstream media", as the latter is always copyright!
- Respect for commercial opportunities. - As a daily cartoon, the work is intended to be disposable - little secondary value is envisaged. A low-resolution version would not inhibit the limited market for prints or signed copies
- Minimal usage - Min legible resolution
- Previous publication - published by the Independent
- Content & media policy - I believe it meets these.
- Contextual Significance - Stochastic terrorism is a concept that is being increasingly discussed in public discourse and this art is an early and significant piece of commentary that succinctly describes it and would increase readers' understanding.
What does the gallery think? Hemmers (talk) 10:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think it fails WP:NFCC#8 as the lack of it does not really detract from a reader's understanding of the concept. -- Whpq (talk) 11:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
File:The Spitfire Makers plaque, Sun Engineering Ltd, Newman Street, Shirley, Southampton.jpeg
Would File:The Spitfire Makers plaque, Sun Engineering Ltd, Newman Street, Shirley, Southampton.jpeg this be considered a 2D graphic work in the UK? If it is, then this might not be able to be kept since there's no freedom of panorama for 2D graphic works in the UK per c:COM:FOP UK and the textual content of noticeboards and signs is often eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:CB#Noticeboards and signs. This doesn't qualify for {{FOP-USonly}} and I don't see any justification for converting to a non-free license based on the file's current use in the article Blue plaque. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- There are numerous images of blue plaques on Commons, so unless there's a massive purge to come then they must be assumed to be 3D and are therefore covered by FOP-UK. Nthep (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
File:BUCEES STATUE.png
Hello, I recently received a derivative work warning on an image that I added on the Buc-ee's article, File:BUCEES STATUE.png. The former image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BuceesRichmond.jpg depicted the exact same work I uploaded, only that the former image was up for 2 months and mine got a warning. I don't understand why that one didn't and what can I do to fix it. I took the image, disclosed everything, and wouldn't ever upload a copyrighted image if I wasn't aware. Please help explain. FloridaMan21 (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- My main question is how should I go about it? Reupload? I'm not sure how to use a double license. I'm willing to wave all rights and have someone else do it if possible? FloridaMan21 (talk) 02:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- The issue is not about your license. The issue is about the copyright status of the statue. There is no freedom of panorama in the US for statues. As such, unless the statue is under a free license or public domain, then the image is not usable unless a suitable non-free usage rationale is provided. As currently used, I do not see how all the non-free content criteria would be satisified. As for the Commons image, it will likely be deleted in due course. -- Whpq (talk) 04:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ok thank you for that information. Copyright isn't my thing as you can see :( FloridaMan21 (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- The issue is not about your license. The issue is about the copyright status of the statue. There is no freedom of panorama in the US for statues. As such, unless the statue is under a free license or public domain, then the image is not usable unless a suitable non-free usage rationale is provided. As currently used, I do not see how all the non-free content criteria would be satisified. As for the Commons image, it will likely be deleted in due course. -- Whpq (talk) 04:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Flag of Bangladesh Nationalist Party unusable
This file getting copyright claimed and removed from pages. It is needed for List of political parties in Bangladesh and probably various other pages involving anything about the Bangladesh Nationalist Party ComradeJarif (talk) 10:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- The file in non-free which means that each individual use of the file must meet all of the non-free content criteria and must have a separate non-free usage rationale. The image is being removed from the list article because the file description does not have a non-free usage rationale for its use in the list article, nor should it as the use in a list article is essentially decorative and fails to meet WP:NFCC#8 for contextual significance, -- Whpq (talk) 11:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Scan & upload 1930 German scientific publication?
I have a physical copy of a historically important scientific publication. I cannot find any existing digital version of it. I would thus like to upload it to Wikimedia Commons and/or the Internet Archive, for example.
My understanding is that the text ought to be public domain by now, but perhaps the physical layout, the journal's logo, etc., prohibit it from being published 1:1.
- The publication is a special print (Sonderabdruck) of: Berger, Hans. 1930. Das Elektrenkephalogramm des Menschen. Die Medizinische Welt 4: 911–913.
- The author died in 1941.
- The journal is no longer active ("Erscheinen eingestellt").
- The publisher has been bought and appears to still exist in some form.
- It is a three-page publication, with the first page, containing a prominent logo/header, looking like this.
Am I allowed to scan my copy and upload it with a CC0 license? Lrkrol (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- The paper would need to be public domain in both Germany and the US.
- In Germany, the copyright term is up to 70 years after the death of the author. So it is in the public domain in Germany as of 2012.
- In the US, there are different rules for works published abroad, works published before 1978, and those published before 1929. These rules are listed at Commons:Hirtle chart. If it is not in the public domain, it will enter the public domain on 1 January 2026. Also, if it was owned or administered by the Office of Alien Property Custodian (like many Nazi copyrights), it is in the public domain.
- Note that
{{CC0}}
should only be used for works that you own the rights to. For other works, a template like{{PD-old-70}}
is more appropriate. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 21:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC) - Also, when was the special edition published? Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 21:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks @Qzekrom! The special print is from the same year, 1930. My understanding now, then, is that it is in the public domain in Germany, but because it's "Solely published abroad, without compliance with US formalities or republication in the US, and not in the public domain in its home country as of URAA date", I'd have to wait until 2026 for my upload to Wikipedia or other US-based platforms. Indeed it'd then have to be PD rather than CC0.
- In the meantime, it should be alright to upload it to sites hosted in Germany, is that correct? Lrkrol (talk) 10:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, that is exactly right. Only if the journal had also been simultaneously published in the United States would that be different. Felix QW (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks @Felix QW, I think this has been cleared up for now then! Lrkrol (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Resolved
- As far as I can see, that is exactly right. Only if the journal had also been simultaneously published in the United States would that be different. Felix QW (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Should the song clip on this page be replaced with File:ICarly 2021 theme song.wav? This file was extracted from a video that was posted to YouTube by Paramount under CC-BY 3.0, and while the license no longer appears on the page, my understanding is that the license is still valid for anyone who receives a copy of the video or any derivative work of it and has not violated the license. (However, the full version of the song, which is two and a half minutes long, is not covered by the license.) Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 20:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Update: I have asked a relevant question at commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright § iCarly theme song extracted audio. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 20:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Category:Videos by Combating Islam
Someone has uploaded several videos from an obscure YouTube channel called Combating Islam, found under Commons:Category:Videos by Combating Islam, which I am pretty sure does not hold the copyright for the videos in question. The videos in question are originally published by the YouTube channel JihadWatchVideo of Robert B. Spencer, and seem to have been re-published by this other channel under an unlawful CC license. The videos are not actually under CC by its original publisher. Thismess (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Update: I found out how to nominate the files for deletion myself. Thismess (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Mary Kay Bergman photos
I have a question about the Mary Kay Bergman photos. Are they in fair use, or are they freely licensed? I really want to illustrate the images to justify the context better, and I keep getting notifications about warnings that they may be deleted after two days. I couldn't find any evidence of a Creative Commons Attribution license. The files are in below:
File:Mary Kay Bergman in the 1960s.png
File:Mary Kay Bergman 1980.jpg
File:Mary Kay Bergman, Trey Parker, and Matt Stone, June 23, 1999.jpg
If you want me to delete these photos on the article, please let me know. I do agree that they can be covered by text alone. Aubreeprincess (talk) 08:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Aubreeprincess: Generally only one non-free image of deceased people are allowed in their biographic articles. If there is supporting sourced prose, you might justify the use of File:Mary Kay Bergman 1980.jpg as an example of her very different appearance around that time. Otherwise, without any "contextual significance" all 10 WP:NFCC#8 guidelines apply. ww2censor (talk) 12:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note that if one were to successfully show with significant sourced critical commentary that the appearance in the 1980 photo should be included, then it should be placed in the infobox and replace the existing infobox image. To have both images, one would need to provide justification that both images are needed in the article. See WP:NFCC#3a. -- Whpq (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at the images on that draft? I'm no expert, but I believe that at least some are tagged with the wrong licence unless the uploader uploaded the images themselves. Nobody (talk) 05:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Those are on Commons, so it would have to be handled over there. I am indeed very dubious that all of those photos are the uploader's own work, so I think it would be worth requesting deletion there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Seraphimblade, @Krd could you take a look? I saw you deleted some from the draft some time ago. Nobody (talk) 06:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- I dropped the uploader a message on his talk page. Let's see what they say (if anything). Felix QW (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Seraphimblade, @Krd could you take a look? I saw you deleted some from the draft some time ago. Nobody (talk) 06:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)