Media copyright questions
Shortcuts WP:CQ WP:MCQ WP:IMAGEHELP WP:ICHD 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

Click here to purge this page (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Archives

Archive list Archive year 2006 Closed Archive year 2007 Closed Archive year 2008 Closed Archive year 2009 Closed Archive year 2010 Closed Archive year 2011 Closed Archive year 2012 Closed Archive year 2013 Closed Archive year 2014 Closed Archive year 2015 Closed Archive year 2016 Closed Archive year 2017 Closed Archive year 2018 Closed Archive year 2019 Closed Archive year 2020 Closed Archive year 2021 Closed Archive year 2022 Closed Archive year 2023 Open Some pre-2009 archives from pages now merged here (note: more recent questions from these pages can be found at WP:MCQ or its archives above.) Requested copyright examinations archives Can I use... 2005-2006 archive Can I use... January-August 2007 archive Can I use... August-December 2007 archive Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk/Archive 1 Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk/Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Hi, so this is a question specifically about #1 of Wikipedia's non-free content policy:

"1. No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose."

and more specifically about the "or could be created" portion. I have uploaded several non-free photos of notable living persons to the info boxes on their BLP's (because NO free alternatives were available). However, I just received a notice that basically it's inappropriate to do this because someone at some time may hypothetically create a free photo that can be accessed and uploaded.

It seems like a pretty steep hurdle and a detriment to the encyclopedia to remove images of notable individuals because no one has created a free version yet.

could use some advise here. thx! Slacker13 (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has been debated several times previously but that's the current policy and it is unlikely to change. Please remember that a photo of a subject is not actually a requirement of an encycloaedic article. In rare cases unless someone is a known recluse or in prison for life, then an image could be created even if it takes some effort that people are not prepared to make. Sorry to not have better news for you. All the recent non-free images you uploaded look like you should be able to obtain freely licenced images of them, perhaps through their agents or even the subject themselves, maybe even a selfie. ww2censor (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! Slacker13 (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's a steep hurdle, but it keeps the rule simple and the lawyers from the door. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes, i understand. but still so frustrating. lol. Slacker13 (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Slacker13: These file's have already been deleted for the reasons given above. Of course, if you feel that was done in error, you can ask for clarification for the administrator who deleted the files. If you click on the red links for the files' names, you'll see which administrator deleted them and why. You can then post a query on their user talk page if you want. FWIW, it's not so much that allowing this type of use will cause all kinds a legal problems for the WMF; that's a possibility, but it a real small one since this would almost certainly be considered a case of acceptable fair use. However, as pointed about above, the current policy was something established quite a long time ago and discussed many times over the years since then. The consensus has always been for Wikipedia's policy to be intentionally more restrictive than fair use, and one of these restrictions has to do with non-free images of still living persons. You can of course propose a change be made at WT:NFCC since policies can be changed if deemed necessary; however, the argument you've made above seems to have been made a number of times before in some shape or form, and it's never really gained any traction. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Marchjulyfor the guidance. It actually is quite helpful. I'm just frustrated, please understand not at you, but with the restrictions. It just adds such context and content to be able to see the person you're reading about. But I understand that this debate and consensus predates me. I won't make a stink. Warmly, Slacker13 (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this a specific WMF requirement in their non-free resolution, here. A policy request change can't override that. Masem (t) 21:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Slacker13 (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if i'm in the wrong place; i know/understand next to nothing about copyrights, especially with regard to anything other than words. There is an image in Mohammed Shitta Bey the caption of which is a copyright notice. I asked on the talk page of the user who uploaded the image, and got a reply i don't fully understand. Two questions arise for me:

1. Is an old (PD) picture made copyright again because it has been scanned and trimmed?
2. Is it necessary (if the answer to the above is Yes) to label it as copyright in the caption on our article?
   

Any answers gratefully received. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 09:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Their argument is that the editing, retouching and cropping create a new copyright in this specific version of a public domain image. That can be argued. (Mere scanning however does not, as it is intended as a "faithful copy".)

However the user concerned uploaded the image as their own work and agreed that the image was made available by that user as cc-by-sa. While the edited image may be their copyright - as are any text contributions you or they make - this does not need to be stated, as the copyright and CC-BY-SA licence information can be found on the image page. The caption is also misleading as it implies the image cannot be reused by others; and in any case in copyright images, used as fair use etc, state the conditions on the image's own page, not in captions.

I think the user may have misunderstood how WP contributions work, and what they are agreeing to. If they feel strongly about that then they might want to have the image removed from Wikimedia Commons. I'm not sure what the policy is, although WM Commons would not be under any obligation to agree, as the licence assignation is very clear. Jim Killock (talk) 09:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the information on the Commons page accordingly. Felix QW (talk) 09:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the copyright notice on the Wikipedia page is perhaps misleading and definitely superfluous, it is not incongruent with a CC-BY-SA license. After all, that does require attribution and relicensing under the same license and so is very different from a public domain image. Felix QW (talk) 10:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, the caption isn't "wrong" from a copyright perspective (it perhaps ought to include cc-by-sa), but presumably there is a WP policy not to add credit, copyright or licence information in captions, as it's never seen (excepting items like artworks where the name of original artist may be needed for context reasons etc). Jim Killock (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading years ago that we almost never show the copyright info, which was part of what triggered my questions here. I've changed it, anyway, as the image at Commons shows the attributions and status. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 11:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:CREDITS. DMacks (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without speaking to the legal or policy aspects, I find the idea of presenting a cropped public domain scan as one's own copyrighted work to be absurd. Licensing such an image without doing research on how licensing works and then still claiming all rights reserved is doubly absurd. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. I shall point the user here for the useful information, and take care of the caption on the article page. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 10:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikimedia Commons Community,

I’m facing an urgent issue where my copyright, covering both an image and its caption under © 2024 SHITTA & DAVIES, was compromised through unauthorized edits shortly after upload. This alteration contradicts the explicit terms provided and constitutes a clear act of vandalism. In response, I removed the ripped image from Wikipedia, but it persists unlawfully on Wikimedia Commons - unfortunately, this as an act of piracy.

This not only undermines the copyright integrity but also my trust in the platform’s respect for creator rights. HkB99 (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are not the Wikimedia Commons community. En.Wikipedia and Commons are separate projects despite their interlinking nature. If you have a problem on commons, you can get sympathy here, but not action. You will need to make your request on commons instead. It would probably help to be more specific. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can try and be a bit more specific, David Eppstein. In trying to make better use of the picture HkB99 uploaded a couple of days ago i moved it [1] and changed the caption; i thought that was acceptable, though i may have misread the advice i was given above. HkB99 has now removed the image from the article and wants it gone; i'm afraid it was i who suggested he come here (showing mine ignorance of images and files) rather than Commons, mostly because i don't know my way around Commons. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 15:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HkB99 Wikimedia Commons does have a policy of allowing courtesy deletions of recently uploaded images at the behest of the uploader. If you wish for me to request its speedy deletion at Commons on your behalf with reference to this discussion, I would be happy to do that for you. Felix QW (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a policy:[2]. Also, in this particular case, such a discussion could go either way, there are reasons to oppose, basically that it seems a good picture of a historical person with articles on 3 WP:s. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring more to speedy deletion criterion G7, which does seem to be based in policy. Of course, given it was recently in use, that may not be considered appropriate. Felix QW (talk) 12:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the historical significance and educational value of the image cannot be understated, the heart of the matter remains the unauthorized use of copyrighted material on Wikimedia Commons. The infringement on © 2024 SHITTA & DAVIES rights needs addressing not just through content management policies but in a manner that respects the copyright holder's entitlement to compensation. Therefore, the proposal is straightforward: Wikimedia Commons should compensate © 2024 SHITTA & DAVIES at the standard stock price for the unauthorized use of the image. Upon payment, © 2024 SHITTA & DAVIES are prepared to grant a license that would legalize the use of the image on the platform. HkB99 (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HkB99 The issue is, that you personally authorised this usage under a CC-by-SA licence when you uploaded the work. You were asked to explain what the copyright status was, and you personally asserted that "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license."

Thus you can ask at Commons for your scan to be removed, on the basis that you didn't read or didn't understand the instructions you were given and accepted, or now want to change your mind. However, as the image is a public domain scan, etcetera, there may be some debate about whether to remove the image. However it would be helpful if acknowledged that this is your error, as you uploaded the image and accepted the copyright licence agreement, however this error may have occurred. There's not much point arguing otherwise as it is clear from the publicly visible image page creation and edit logs. Jim Killock (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HkB99: Any attempt to try and receive compensation for your image by posting here is going to go nowhere. None of us posting here (i.e. the Wikipedia Community) represent the Wikimedia Foundation in any official capacity and have no authority when it comes to such a request. The same applies to those (i.e. the Wikimedia Commons Community) posting on Commons. If compensation is what you're really after, I suggest you try contacting the Wikimedia Foundation directly by email and state your case to them. I also suggest you take a close look at Wikipedia:No legal threats and be very careful about posting anything that might be construed as such. In other words, anything related to legal matters that you would like to discuss should be done directly by email with the Wikimedia Foundation itself. Finally, regarding the copyright status of digitalized images, you might want to take a look at Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. and National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute for general reference. Your specific situation may not exactly the same as those two disputes, but those two cases seem to be primarily related to how Wikimedia Foundation's views the copyright status of digitalized public domain images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Felix QW Yes please, I would like to escalate deleting the pirated image. And for further avoidable of doubt to other commentators, please understand that the image is my copyright - only I have the original, which is now in PD. HkB99 (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it now as at its file page, but I would fully expect this to be converted into a regular deletion discussion at Commons rather than being unilaterally deleted by an administrator. Felix QW (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You (HkB99) uploaded it with the statement "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license." How is it then pirated? It is regrettable if you didn't bother to check what that meant (wouldn't be the first time someone did that), and MOS:CREDITS perhaps surprised you, but you decided to "give it to the world."

Felix QW, a Commons admin reverted your tag. HkB99, as I understand it, your next step is to go to File:Mohamedu Shitta Mosque.jpg, find the "Nominate for deletion" link on the left side (assuming you're on a laptop), use that and make your case. Afaik, your best shot is to ask for a Courtesy deletion, which you may or may not get. Good luck. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I didn't realise it had been restored to the Wikipedia article. That obviously makes it ineligible for speedy deletion, so Gråbergs Gråa Sång's advice is spot on. Felix QW (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the interested, thread on Commons: Can a PD picture be put back into copyright? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HkB99: Am I understanding correctly that you want "© 2024 SHITTA & DAVIES" to be part of the attribution? I can definitely fix it so that is noted on the license on the file (which is irrevocable). Abzeronow (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that HkB99 wants/demands it to be part of the picture-caption in the en-WP article like here [3], but perhaps I'm wrong. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Abzeronow,I hope this message finds you well. I want to clarify that my primary goal in this situation is to ensure proper attribution and respect for copyright.

It's important to understand that the image in question is not in the public domain; it is under copyright for the year 2024. There exists a larger, physical version of this image that PD, but the copyrighted version has been specifically retouched and focused on the subject alone.

After noticing the unauthorized alteration and re-addition of the image to Wikipedia, my concerns about copyright protection and attribution have only deepened.

Initially, my intention was to share the image for educational purposes, believing in the platform's capacity to respect and protect the rights of copyright holders. However, the handling of this matter has raised significant concerns about the general understanding and enforcement of copyright principles within the community.

There are two ways I would not mind proceeding:

1. WK Commons purchasing the image at its standard stock price to redeem the infirigmemt, to which I have been advised by @Marchjuly and am open to more advice and help/labour.

2. As you have stated, correct attribution fixes this. The image is NOT in the public domain - Wikipedia currently tells a misleading and inevitably a story of future infringement. Irrevocably fixing the copyright © 2024 SHITTA & DAVIES to the license is a correct step forward. HkB99 (talk) 04:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have misunderstood what I posted above. I did post If compensation is what you're really after, I suggest you try contacting the Wikimedia Foundation directly by email and state your case to them., but I didn't post the "WK Commons will purchase your image". So, if that's what you want, email the WMF and ask. I'm pretty sure everyone who's posted here knows what the WMF's answer will be, but you can find out yourself if you want. Before you go off emailing the WMF, though, you might want to contact an attorney specializing in image copyright law first to make sure you have a case. An attorney should be able to more clearly lay out what you're options are (e.g. wmf:Legal:Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedowns) than anyone here at MCQ can do. As for your point #2, as explained by others above, that's not going to happen because that's not how images are attirbuted on Wikipedia as explained in MOS:CREDITS; so, it's probably time to drop that stick and move on. Finally, you uploaded the image to Commons, and Commons is where you're going to have to resolve any issues with the images licensing. A discussion about the image is taking place at c:COM:HD#Can a PD picture be put back into copyright? and you're free to participate in that discussion if you want. You can also start a new discussion at c:COM:VPC if you want (but it's probably best to stick to one discussion at Commons at a time). There's really nothing more anybody here at MCQ can do for you other than to keep repeating what's already been posted above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. No doubt, I understood the first time around. Best HkB99 (talk) 06:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image is now incorrectly marked as being in the public domain - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mohamedu_Shitta_Mosque.jpg

I am seeking simple, direct, resolution to the aforementioned statement:

"The image is now incorrectly marked as being in the public domain - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mohamedu_Shitta_Mosque.jpg" HkB99 (talk) 06:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your contributions. Seeing as there is no respect for copyright © 2024 SHITTA & DAVIES on this platform.

We shall now enforce copyright law against accused parties.

Please be reminded, I uploaded the image for the education and knowledge of this community. Being a beneficiary of the subjects estate, I did not have to redistribute any portion of the original copy now in PD.

I did this for history. I did it for education. I only asked that the copyright (the image and caption) not be vandalised or the image be ripped from its copyright.

Unfortunately, this platform does not do enough to educate and enforce copyright law.

The current PD designation of my own image, to which you can see an iPhone screenshot bar at the bottom attesting to the fact the copyright is not from 1894, is incorrect and a clear breach of copyright law.

The standard stock price of this image was rather high, and now the value is 0. Thank you all. HkB99 (talk) 08:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the now-unambiguous legal threat here, building on several other comments that at best started to approach that bright line and warning for such, I have indef'ed HkB99. DMacks (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was afraid of that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original position on the image page, whereby the image was stated as your creation and copyright, licenced by you as cc-by-sa, would cover this, without any need to state that the image is copyright anywhere else, such as specific Wikipedia pages.

Whether the image is PD or not is a matter of debate, and something that Commons would need to determine. This discussion should move there. Jim Killock (talk) 08:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For info, I uploaded a file with the uncropped version of the photograph, but it's unfortunately a very small file from a postcard seller and copied via facebook. There might be a much larger copy published in this journal article, if someone can have access to it through an institutional subscription or something. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The version in that article is slighty better, yes. I've added it here File:Prince Oyekan - Oba of Lagos and others, photo by Neils Walwin Holm, 1894-2.jpg The face would need a bit of retouching work to roughly match the current version, as the postcard seems to have been slightly damaged. I think all three are scans from the postcard however. Jim Killock (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Harvey_Birdman,_Attorney_at_Law.png was uploaded with a copyrighted tag, but the logo is simple enough to fall under a public domain tag. I have already added the correct license (and trademark tag), but even with that and the non-free use template fixed, I would still be unable to use the FileExporter tool, as a revision is hidden.

What is the standard process for moving once copyright tagged files to Commons? Do I request for the revision to be unhidden, manually upload to Commons and tag the WP file for SD, or something else? Apologies if this is answered somewhere that I did not notice. detria^skies 17:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DetriaSkies. I think there are two options for you here: (1) request the older revisions of the file be restored via WP:REFUND (an administrator needs restore the older version) and then transfer the file to Commons; or (2) upload a new higher quality version of the logo to Commons yourself and then tag the local file for speedy deletion per WP:F8. With respect to (2), if use the same file name and file format as the local file, the software will automatically replace the old file with the new one after the former has been deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saved y'all a trip to REFUND:) DMacks (talk) 22:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both! detria^skies 22:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Some time ago, I uploaded a work I made using LaTeX, File:DominoLogic-LaTeX.png, to Wikipedia. Not knowing which license to use, I seem to have uploaded it simultaneously under the LaTeX Project Public License and CC-BY-SA 4.0. Is this an issue? If so, how can it be resolved?

Thanks, DeemDeem52 (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No issue. If there are two licences then that just means whoever reuses it gets to pick which terms they prefer. For example, most text on Wikipedia is both CC-BY-SA 4.0 and GFDL, but most people just reuse it under the CC. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We host two versions of this crest, one under fair use at File:Iona Presentation College new color logo.jpg and one at File:Ionapresentation.jpg with the claim that it was first used in 1907 and is therefore in the public domain. If that is true, the colour variation of the former may have insufficient originality to attract new copyright, at least under US law. If we find the 1907 claim unconvincing, File:Ionapresentation.jpg would probably have to be removed from the list that it is currently in use on. Felix QW (talk) 08:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unconvincing indeed. It is obviously a more recent rendering, not a scan of a rendering made in 1907 found on a document. The source doesn't even say that the concept of the design is from 1907. -- Asclepias (talk) 11:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I uploaded File:Greenbaum-Film Weissensee advertisement, April 1918.jpg, but am unsure which copyright tags to use. The image is from a German trade publication, Lichtbild-Bühne, Vol 11, No. 14, 6 April 1918 [pdf 77] (in German), online at https://archive.org/details/lichtbildbuhne-1918-04/page/n76/mode/1up?view=theater . The author appears to be unknown. I added a basic PD license. Could you also confirm that another image of a film studio on [pdf 98], https://archive.org/details/lichtbildbuhne-1918-04/page/n97/mode/1up?view=theater (not uploaded yet) would need the same copyright licenses? Cheers, MinorProphet (talk) 09:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a specific issue with anonymously published German works, namely that for non-photographic works such as this one seems to be, the copyright term usually extends to 70 years after the author's death, even if the author is unknown. Since we have no way of knowing when the author of this advertisement died, it would be safer to upload it locally here on the English Wikipedia, where we only care about US copyright law. Felix QW (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, I'll move it to en:wp. Is the copyright notice correct, though? Many thanks, MinorProphet (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Felix QW This looks like {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} would apply on Commons. Under either the old or new methods (see c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany#Anonymous and pseudonymous works) publication +70 years would be the duration of the copyright. Nthep (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added the {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} and left it on Commons for the moment. Thanks both for your helpful comments. MinorProphet (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The way I understand the convoluted old German rules is that for works of fine art, which include works of applied art but not photographic works, the copyright term is always life + 70 years, regardless of anonymity. If this advertisement counts as a "work of fine art" by those standards then, one would have to wait the 120 years old-assumed period. Felix QW (talk) 05:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not exactly in the same league as a Dürer or a Caspar David Friedrich, is it? I would argue it is a workman-like drawing for the purpose of promoting a business, with no pretensions to as to a higher purpose. Maybe it's best on en:wp as you suggested. Cheers, MinorProphet (talk) 08:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

doesn't look like fine art or even applied art to me, hence my suggestion that publication +70 is applicable. Nthep (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Can this coverart be uploaded to wikimedia so that it can be used in the template on wikidata?

Thanks :) - Tobost06 (talk) 10:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tobost06: Sorry but no, non-free media can only be uploaded to wikis that allow non-free use. Those wikis are very few, such as the enwiki, where it is now. ww2censor (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for answering so fast. Understood :) - Tobost06 (talk) 10:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is issue about this film poster [4] not upload to Srikanth article. Please help. Sush150 (talk) 09:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sush150. The problem has to do with the |article= parameter in the non-free use rationale you provided for the file. You added Shrikanth (film) as the article where you want to use the file, but that page WP:REDIRECTs to the article Srikanta (film). That's what the bot it seeing when it checks the rationale and that's why the bot moved the file. If you want to use the file in Srikanth (film), then that's the name of the article you should add to the rationale. It looks like you might've just misspelled the name of the film by mistakenly adding an "h" to "Srikanth". -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does File:Lincoln Chafee 2020 presidential campaign logo.webp really need to be treated as non-free simply due to the Statue of Liberty imagery used as the "i" in "Lincoln"? If it does, then it probably fails WP:NFCCP based on it's current use. For reference, I asked the same at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2023/August#Statue of Liberty imagery and just want to double check. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking to add a picture of Olivia Frank on english Wikipedia. For rather obvious reasons, a new picture cannot be taken, and I can't find any existing pictures that are usable per commons.

Would any/every one of those meet the requirements for fair use? I believe this to be the case, but am rather inexperienced with this sort of media.

1. https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/trans-mossad-spy-who-helped-track-down-the-munich-terrorists-is-laid-to-rest-brocccl6
2. https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/mossad-spy-identifies-neo-nazi-konrad
3. https://confidentials.com/manchester/the-olivia-frank-story-manchesters-transgender-spy

Thank you :) FortunateSons (talk) 09:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FortunateSons I see no reason this wouldn't be allowed. Consider the book-cover [5] an option. Pick the one you think would be the best lead-image, and upload it at WP:FUW - "Upload a non-free file". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much :) FortunateSons (talk) 10:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! I noticed that this file is copyrighted and I would like to use it for the article "Torture" in the Vietnamese Wikipedia project. Can I upload it to the Vietnamese Wikipedia with full copyright details like the English version? Hope to get some help! Have a nice day! Phong Dang (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@P. ĐĂNG You'll have to ask on the Vietnamese Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gråbergs Gråa Sång Some members knowledgeable in this field on Vietnamese Wikipedia are currently inactive. At the Vietnamese Wikipedia project, when downloading a copyrighted image from the English Wikipedia, I often copy the entire copyright attribution of the English version to the Vietnamese version. I'm wondering if I can make the above file this way? Phong Dang (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Depends what the fair use rules on vi-WP are, and I have no idea. My impression is that en-WP is comparatively liberal in this regard. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toohool Can you join this discussion? Phong Dang (talk) 08:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@P. ĐĂNG: It depends on Vietnamese Wikipedia's copyright policy. The photo is public domain in the US, but some wikis require that files also be public domain in the country where most of that wiki's editors are located. If Vietnamese Wikipedia has that policy, then we have to look at Vietnamese copyright law, which would protect this photo for 75 years from publication, which is 2044. (Though the photo may also be allowable as non-free content, depending on Vietnamese Wikipedia's version of WP:NFCC and on how you intend to use it). Toohool (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I found an image I'd like to upload. It's a crop/screen shot of an image of a dancing shaman woman from the disappearing Nivkh culture. The dancer is Chiyo Nakamura. The image appears numbered 019 on PDF page 69 (publication page number 64)(bottom right). I'm hopeful the image I found qualifies under some licensure (non-copyrighted, free use?)

Here's the image provenance: the actual author (photographer) is unknown. The publisher of the document that contains this image is the Osaka National Museum of Ethnology. The author of the publication containing the image, Chuner Taksami, obtained the image from the "personal collection" of a former (different, defunct) museum director (Yonemura Tetsuhide), a private individual who is/was the apparent owner. Whose property is it when I crop a page from the government publication (with this provenance)? How does no-copyright or fair use smell to you? FWIW it appears everyone involved except the Osaka museum is now dead. Thanks for your input! JFHJr (㊟) 21:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS. The photographer snapped the photo "in the 1950s" per Chuner (I find him reliable). His government-published work is from 2004. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 22:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Nakamura still living? The article states he was born in 1906 and refers to him using the past tense, but it doesn't provide any reliably sourced verifiable information about his death. Before trying to add an image of him to the article, it might be better to first find a reliable source regarding his death. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy doesn't, in principle, allow non-free images of still living persons to be used, absent some prettylimited circumstances; so, if it can be verified that Nakamura has died, then a photo still under copyright protection could be used as long as its use satisfies all ten non-free content use criteria. If, however, Nakamura is still alive, then a non-free photo becomes much harder to justify and it would be better to try a find a freely licensed or public domain photo of him to use instead.

Different governments have different copyright laws and not everything you find in a government publication is free from copyright restrictions just because it's in a government publication. Moreover, the fact that "everyone involved in now dead" doesn't automatically mean the photo is no longer under copyright protection because intellectual property rights, like most other assests, can be transferred to others either through a formal transfer agreement or as part of an inheritence. The photographer who took the photo is going to be considered the copyright holder. If the photographer is dead, then it's possible their heirs or maybe even the museun now own the rights to the photo. The first publication of the photo also matters when assessing copyright status; so, if the photo was first published in 2004 (even though the author may have died many years before), that could be when the copyright countdown clock starts so to speak. For example, under US copyright law, works orginating in the US which have an unknown author and which are first published in 2003 or later are eligible for copyright protect for 120 years the after the date of creation or 95 years after the date of publication, whichever comes first. In this case, though, the subject of the photo is Japanese so c:COM:JAPAN might be relevant as well if the photographer is/was Japanese, the document you linked to above seems to be in Russian, which also means c:COM:RUSSIA might also be relevant if that was the first time the photo was published.

Unless the photo clearly originated with the publisher of the document, it's best to sssume it came form somewhere else which means the copyright laws of mutliple coutnies might need to be considered. The author/publisher of the document might have received permission to use the photo, but it can't be assumed that permission extends to any other third-party like Wikipedia unless it explicity states so. For this reason, it might be a good idea to ask about this at c:COM:VPC because Commons is a global (i.e. multi-lingual) project and there might someone who understands Russian there who can help sort things out. English Wikipedia is mainly only concerned with US copyright law with respect to content it hosts, and the photos in that document don't seem to be eligible for hosting on English Wikipedia in any way other than non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to ja-WP, Nakamura died in 1969. If there's a decent source for that, uploading locally at en-WP at WP:FUW as non-free shouldn't be a problem. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that and removed it after I couldn't find it in a reliable source. I reached out for a date or year of death on ja-wiki. JFHJr (㊟) 22:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I found a good source for the 1969 DOD. I'll work on the upload later this week or this weekend as time permits. Thanks, Gråbergs Gråa Sång! JFHJr (㊟) 04:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JFHJr: You're not required to do so, but I suggest using the copyright license {{Non-free biog pic}} and the non-free use rationale {{Non-free use rationale biog}} for the file if you're going to upload it as non-free. You might not be allowed to do so at first if you use the upload wizard, but you can modify the license and the rationale after the file has been uploaded. Try to fill in the parameters of the non-free use rationale template as much as possible and as accurately as possible. It would also be helpful if you could provide a link to the publication's general copyright page as the "general source" and a link to the specific page the photo can be found on as the "direct source" to make it easier for others to find both the photo and its licensing. If you Google how to link to a specific pdf page, you should be able to figure it out. When I click on the link, it downloads the pdf to my computer. This could just be my setting or it could be something at the source. Whatever the reason is, it's not really desirable and it's better for the source to open up when clicked. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]