| 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) |
|---|
 Archives | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
Contents
File:Borley3.jpg[edit]
Is this file: File:Borley3.jpg, really in public domain? The website where it is obtained, [1] (trueghosttales.com) states that their images are considered to be "in public domain unless a copyright notice is given." JWilz12345 (talk) 06:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- Cancelling this discussion since I relocated it at Wikipedia:FFD.JWilz12345 (talk) 07:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
PartridgeMural.jpg[edit]
Hello, I've been gone a while, and I'm not sure how to properly tag this image. It is a photo of a mural taken from the artist's website. I contacted the artist himself via telephone for permission, and he told me that he gives full permission for us to use it. If someone could please help me with the correct tag. - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Adolphus79. Verbal permissions are pretty much possible to verify for Wikipedia's purposes, so it's better for the artist to explicitly email their WP:CONSENT to Wikimedia OTRS or otherwise add a free license for their work to their website as explained in c:COM:OTRS. One thing about murals is there are two copyrights often involved as explained in c:COM:CB#Murals: the one for the mural itself and the one for the photograph of the mural. So, if the copyright holders of each aren't the same person, then the permission of each copyright holder is going to be needed for the file to be kept, particularly in the United States because there's no freedom of panorama for 2D works of art (even publicly displayed ones) per c:COM:FOP United States. Since this is really a straight-on photo of the mural and because it also shows more of the location site than just the mural itself, c:COM:DM might be able to be argued for this, meaning that only a license for the photo itself is needed; even in that cases though, if you didn't take the photo yourself, the permission of the person who did would still be needed.In some cases, a photo of a copyrighted work of art like a statue or a mural might be OK to upload as WP:NFC#non-free content for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the work itself it or used to support sourced critical commentary about it in another article (e.g. a particular artistic style, an representative example of an artist's work) which are not problems per WP:FREER and WP:NFC#CS; I don't, however, there's really any such justification for the non-free use of this file given the way that it's currently being used in Reuben Partridge, and even then permission would still be needed from the person who took the photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- So, it sounds like I'm going to have to drive up there and take a photo of the mural myself? - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- That's one option I guess or someone else can do the same, but whoever does will still need to take the copyright status of the mural itself into account. One thing about Wikipedia files released under a free license is that you can't really say "permission available upon request" or "contact ABC for permission" because the point of most of the free licenses accepted by Wikipedia is that the copyright holder is basically agreeing to release a free version of their work available for use by anyone anywhere in the world by anyone at anytime for any use (including commercial and derivative use) without those wanting to use having to contact the copyright holder each time they want to do so; in other words, they are granting blanket permission in advance to anyone who wants to use their work under the terms of the license the file has been released under. Moreover, once they do this, they cannot really take it back at a later date if they change their mind. This is why verification by OTRS is often required of copyright holders because it shows that the copyright holder is willingly and knowingly agreeing to the terms of the license used for the file. If the artist who created this mural is the same person who took the photo you uploaded, then they can indicate their acceptance of the terms of the license you've chosen by simply adding one of the free licenses that Wikipedia accepts (see here) or a statement to that effect to their website or to the caption of the photo. If they do that, then that would make emailing OTRS unnecessary. They do, however, need to be the copyright holder of both the mural and the photo though for that to be OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, the person that painted the mural is the same person that took the photo. - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- All that person needs to do then is either (1) email their WP:CONSENT to Wikimedia OTRS or (2) post something on their website about the photo and their work stating that they agree to release both under a free license. This doesn't mean they're relinquishing or transferring their copyright over their work to Wikipedia or anyone else; only just that they are making this particular photographic reproduction of their work freely available to others others under a license that Wikipedia accepts. Anyone wanting to download and re-use the photo would still be expected to comply with the terms of the license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, the person that painted the mural is the same person that took the photo. - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- That's one option I guess or someone else can do the same, but whoever does will still need to take the copyright status of the mural itself into account. One thing about Wikipedia files released under a free license is that you can't really say "permission available upon request" or "contact ABC for permission" because the point of most of the free licenses accepted by Wikipedia is that the copyright holder is basically agreeing to release a free version of their work available for use by anyone anywhere in the world by anyone at anytime for any use (including commercial and derivative use) without those wanting to use having to contact the copyright holder each time they want to do so; in other words, they are granting blanket permission in advance to anyone who wants to use their work under the terms of the license the file has been released under. Moreover, once they do this, they cannot really take it back at a later date if they change their mind. This is why verification by OTRS is often required of copyright holders because it shows that the copyright holder is willingly and knowingly agreeing to the terms of the license used for the file. If the artist who created this mural is the same person who took the photo you uploaded, then they can indicate their acceptance of the terms of the license you've chosen by simply adding one of the free licenses that Wikipedia accepts (see here) or a statement to that effect to their website or to the caption of the photo. If they do that, then that would make emailing OTRS unnecessary. They do, however, need to be the copyright holder of both the mural and the photo though for that to be OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- So, it sounds like I'm going to have to drive up there and take a photo of the mural myself? - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
File:South Carolina Public Radio logo.png[edit]
I'm wondering if this file needs to be licensed as non-free. It seems to be below the TOO for the US per c:COM:TOO United States, so I converted it to PD a few months back. That change was, however, reverted by the uploader the other day with the edit sum "No!". I've queried the uploader about this, but am also curious as to what others may think. There really don't seem to be any copyrightable elements in play here, and the "shape" element actually seems to be an outline of South Carolina. If it needs to remain non-free that's fine, but it really seems simple enough for Commons and doesn't need to be locally hosted on Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 January 1#File:South Carolina Public Radio logo.png. I think this calls for FFD since a dispute exists. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
CC BY-NC-ND 3.0[edit]
I am currently working on Gordon Falcon (Royal Navy officer) and would like to insert a portrait. I have found one on the National Portrait Gallery's website[[2]] and there is a low resolution image available for download under a CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 licence here [[3]]. The non-commercial part of the licence makes it unsuitable for Wikimedia Commons because their rules are, that material can re-used for any purpose. Does Wikipedia have the same rule regarding images or can I upload it here? Please be aware that digitised copies have their own copyright under UK law.--Ykraps (talk) 09:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- Hrm. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 is a non-free license as well. But unlike Commons on enWikipedia we only care about copyrights in the USA and digitised copies there do not have a separate copyright from that of an original 2D work. So I am wondering what the copyright status of the portrait itself is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- Richard James Lane died in 1872 so the original lithograph is not copyrighted and indeed, you can go into the NPG and freely take photos of any of the exhibits there. I am a UK resident, bound by UK law, so I sent an email to the NPG copyright department, and they seem to think it's okay to use on Wikipedia. Why do you think the existing licence isn't sufficient?--Ykraps (talk) 10:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- I am not sure what you mean by "existing license". But if the portrait was made by a person who died in 1872, the correct license might be either
{{PD-old-100}}if the digitised copy has no copyright under UK law (does it? The UK has a lower copyright requirement than the US but I am not sure it's that much lower). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)- As far as I know, yes, digitised copies of PD works have their own copyright, as do photographs of PD works. Perhaps this article might help explain my concerns better. The NPG seem to think the low resolution image on their website is okay to use on Wikipedia but from what I'm hearing, the CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 licence they have attached to the image means it isn't. I would like to email the NPG again and tell them there is a problem with their licensing but in order to do that, I first need to understand what it is.--Ykraps (talk) 11:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- With regards to images from the UK NPG, we ignore their claim on a "new" copyright of the digital version of a work otherwise public domain in the UK. See National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute. See examples at Commons of what to include when uploading. [4]. --Masem (t) 12:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thus article The Public Domain vs. the Museum: The Limits of Copyright and Reproductions of Two-dimensional Works of Art covers the topic from an EU & UK perspective and the conclusion to section 2 and section 3 in particular contradicts the licensing claims that such copies of public domain works are copyright. It's a long read but enjoy. Just upload it to the commons using the
{{PD-old-100}}license but use the highest quality image here. ww2censor (talk) 13:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)- I've always found that adopting the "I'll do what I want and fuck you" attitude detrimental to building relationships so what I really want to know is, what is it Wikipedia doesn't like about the CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 licence?[[5]] When I understand that, I can explain to the NPG why their assumption that I can use their work on Wikipedia under their existing licence is incorrect. And who knows, perhaps they will work with us to solve the problem.--Ykraps (talk) 12:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- A CC BY-NC-ND licence is not a free license, as it prohibits commercial use or changing the photo. As such, files correctly licenced as -NC can only be used with a fair use exemption on en:wiki (where the use of an image is essential) and cannot be uploaded to Commons. The NPG are falsely claiming copyright on a public domain image in order to make money.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Again, I suggest reading the NPG and Wikimedia Foundation article in mainspace above. We've been there to try to negotiate with them. I'd also point out the last main section, where the legal opinion (not via case) sides with WMF's interpretation even considering UK's "sweat of the brow" on copyright - that the mechanical reproduction of a 2D public domain work, no matter how much effort was put it, has no new creativity and thus a new copyright cannot be claimed. --Masem (t) 15:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- I've always found that adopting the "I'll do what I want and fuck you" attitude detrimental to building relationships so what I really want to know is, what is it Wikipedia doesn't like about the CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 licence?[[5]] When I understand that, I can explain to the NPG why their assumption that I can use their work on Wikipedia under their existing licence is incorrect. And who knows, perhaps they will work with us to solve the problem.--Ykraps (talk) 12:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thus article The Public Domain vs. the Museum: The Limits of Copyright and Reproductions of Two-dimensional Works of Art covers the topic from an EU & UK perspective and the conclusion to section 2 and section 3 in particular contradicts the licensing claims that such copies of public domain works are copyright. It's a long read but enjoy. Just upload it to the commons using the
- With regards to images from the UK NPG, we ignore their claim on a "new" copyright of the digital version of a work otherwise public domain in the UK. See National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute. See examples at Commons of what to include when uploading. [4]. --Masem (t) 12:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- As far as I know, yes, digitised copies of PD works have their own copyright, as do photographs of PD works. Perhaps this article might help explain my concerns better. The NPG seem to think the low resolution image on their website is okay to use on Wikipedia but from what I'm hearing, the CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 licence they have attached to the image means it isn't. I would like to email the NPG again and tell them there is a problem with their licensing but in order to do that, I first need to understand what it is.--Ykraps (talk) 11:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- I am not sure what you mean by "existing license". But if the portrait was made by a person who died in 1872, the correct license might be either
- Richard James Lane died in 1872 so the original lithograph is not copyrighted and indeed, you can go into the NPG and freely take photos of any of the exhibits there. I am a UK resident, bound by UK law, so I sent an email to the NPG copyright department, and they seem to think it's okay to use on Wikipedia. Why do you think the existing licence isn't sufficient?--Ykraps (talk) 10:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Ykraps: You are...correct and incorrect depending on the circumstances regarding public domain 2D works. The difference is between a "reproduction" and a derivative creative work. If I take a selfie of me and my mom in front of the Mona Lisa, then it is derivative of the Mona Lisa. In other words, the bit of the photo that consists of the Mona Lisa is public domain, but the bits that are "not-Mona-Lisa" are copyrighted, and the work as a whole is derivative. However, if it is a faithful reproduction (legally a "slavish copy") of the work, such as a scan where there are no pieces of the copy that do not consist of the public domain 2D work, such a reproduction would not contain sufficient original creative contribution to qualify under copyright, and only the original expired copyright would apply. GMGtalk 13:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Disclaimer: This applies in nearly all circumstances, except for one court in Germany one time recently that experienced a brief moment of insanity. GMGtalk 13:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Just going to add a bit more to what GMG posted since it might not be clear if you've never come across this type of thing before. A "slavish copy" in this case generally refers to a photo of only the painting itself, not any picture frame that the painting may be set in as explained in c:COM:PDART. So, a photograph of a painting which is in the public domain showing not only the painting, but also its frame isn't automatically considered to be 100% c:COM:2D copying. In such cases, if you're the photographer, you probably should provide a separate copyright license for the photo itself if it shows the the painting and its frame, or just crop the frame out on your own and use the license {{PD-Art}}; if you're not the photographer, the frame may need to be cropped out somehow prior to uploading the photo, though Commons does have c:Template:Non-free frame for those files that aren't cropped prior to upload. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)