Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Media copyright questions
Shortcuts

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
  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 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.
  3. 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.
  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 start a new discussion" link below.
  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.

Click here to start a new discussion

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


Images manuscripts[edit]

hi I wanted to know if I take a scanned image at low resolution of a manuscript about 6-7 lines of a column like codex alexandrinus with various filters to worsen the quality of the image can i do put it on wikipedia images?

Puxanto (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are there simpler ways to re-uploaded ?[edit]

Images that have been on one wiki for a long time but not the others, need to be re-uploaded from the very beginning? Or are there simpler ways? اربابی دوم (talk) 11:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear what you mean by Images that have been on one wiki for a long time but not the others. Are you asking about images uploaded locally to one of the various Wikipedias or images uploaded to Commons? For example, images upload to Commons can be used by all of the various Wikipedias, but images uploaded to a English Wikipedia can only be used on English Wikipedia, images uploaded to French Wikipedia can only be used on French Wikipedia, images uploaded to German Wikipedia can only be used on German Wikipedia, images uploaded to Japanese Wikipedia can only be used on Japanese Wikipedia, etc. In order to use a file uploaded locally to one Wikipedia on some other Wikipedia, you will either need to re-upload the file to Commons or to the other Wikipedia; however, you will need to make sure the file satisfies the relevant policies or Commons or the other Wikipedia to avoid it being deleted. Some of the Wikipedia don't allow any files to be uploaded at all and only allow files uploaded to Commons to be used in their articles; so, you will have to make sure and check what the policy of file uploading is on the Wikipedia where you want to use the file before trying to upload anything. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation! اربابی دوم (talk) 06:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re-using an image that already exists in another article.[edit]

I can't seem to find any instructions on how to re-use an image that already exists in another article. I wish to use the image of the magazine cover found on National Lampoon (magazine) on the article for Ed Bluestone, who originated the idea for that magazine cover. I assumed I could add to the existing Non-free use rationale template on that image's file page, but I get error messages stating that you can't add additional "Article" parameters, etc. Does one have to re-upload it as a separate image file in order to use it on a different page? Cheers! Marchije•speak/peek 13:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to re-upload the file, and it will probably end up deleted if you do. A non-free file may be used more than once but a separate, specific non-free use rationale is needed for each use. So, if you feel the non-free use of the cover in the Bluestone article is justified per relevant policy, you're going to need to add rationale for that use to the file's page. Please keep in mind WP:JUSTONE, WP:NFC#cite_note-3, WP:NFC#CS and item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI if you do try and do that and don't simply just repeat what's written in the rationale for the use in the National Lampoon article because the two uses aren't equivalent. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the links, Marchjuly. I'm making sure to bookmark those. I'm going to try my chances at arguing fair use. Do I add another "Non-free use rationale" template to the image page? I tried adding fields to the existing template, but I could see in the preview that they weren't going to display. ...Or, do you know of an example of a non-free image that is currently being used on more than one article? If so, I can probably figure it out from there. Much appreciated. Marchije•speak/peek 21:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Marchije: Normally such images as magazine or album covers and similar copyright images, will only be allowed in the article about that specific subject with a suitable rationale. Using it in the creator's article is much harder as you will have to provide some reliable sources of critical commentary about the image itself that cannot be expressed in prose alone and is not there purely for decoration. ww2censor (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchije: You shouldn’t try to make a “combo rationale” by combining multiple uses into the same template. Even if you’re somehow able to make it work, it’s likely going to be flagged as a violation of WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFC#Implementation, and the file may be removed from the article per WP:NFCCE. You can either add another non-free use rationale template or provided the required rationale without a template. You can find out how to do this here. The rationale should specifically reflect how the file is used and explain how the use satisfies all ten NFCCP. - Marchjuly (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ww2censor: @Marchjuly: Thanks again to the both of you. I understand that the prospects are iffy. ;-) Marchije•speak/peek 23:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image licence[edit]

Hi Folks, this is regarding the image: File:Grove House School.jpg Does anybody happen to know what licence its asking for? Thanks. scope_creepTalk 01:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale seems to be ok, its just embedded. This can be closed. scope_creepTalk 01:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: Why would you upload File:Grove House School.jpg as non-free content if it was first published in 1842? Are you claiming that Bruce Castle Museum & Archive is the copyright holder. Generally, images first published prior to 1 January 1927 with a known author and aknown date for first publication are considered to be public domain per c:COM:HIRTLE. Even you didn't know the author or the date of publication, anything published prior to 1902 would also be within the public domain. Sometimes organizations try to claim they own the copyright over such images, but in many cases this is not really true. Moreover, even if this file needs to be non-free, the justification for its use in Joseph Lister#School is quite questionable per WP:FREER and WP:NFC#CS. A non-free image like this might be allowed for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of the stand-alone article about the school itself (assuming no free equivalent images could be created or found to serve that same encyclopedic purpose), but the reader doesn't need to see an image of the school that Lester attended to understand that he did attend the school. This type of non-fre use is pretty much WP:DECORATIVE and thus not really allowed per WP:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Going to also add that it's generally not a good idea to simultaneously ask the same question on multiple noticeboards because it can create confusion and lead to redundancy. Given you've also asked this at WP:HD#Image licence. It would probably better to continue further discussion there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: I was trying to get a quick answer as I thought the bot would delete the image due to a wrong licence. Can we continue the conversation on the help talk page at WP:HD#Image licence. scope_creepTalk 09:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A still taken from some security camera footage - copyright issue?...[edit]

This is basically a duplicate of a post at Talk:Columbine High School massacre.

I was trying to figure out the copyright status of the still from the Columbine High School security video that is presently in Columbine High School massacre's infobox.

Purpose of use - The cafeteria footage of the shooting has become an iconic image associated with the event; it shows the two students with guns, in the mass chaos of the cafeteria in the minutes after their initial shootings and before they committed suicide. The image aids in identifying the students, the nature of the incident as it occurred within the school, and the scene is highly associated with the shooting incident.

This image has a legal copyright that belongs to Getty Images. Regardless of the concept that "the scene is highly associated with the shooting incident" its legal status is, at best, murky.

I am not sure that the various templates in use at the Wikipedia File page - "Non-free fair use", "Non-free historic image", and "Non-free video screenshot" - are applicable for this article or in its infobox. It is clear that the rights for any still images from the security cameras in the school library reside with the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department via Getty Images...so then, can Wikipedia use any of these images in any articles associated with the Columbine massacre? Even if the security video could be said to have become an iconic image, does it help explain the subject, is having it in the article or in the infobox necessary for readers to understand the subject, does it convey needed information, does it really help - as the Purpose of use states - to aid in identifying the students, etc.? I don't really think so but I am not a Wikipedia image/copyright expert so am here seeking guidance on policy/guidelines etc. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"It is clear that the rights for any still images from the security cameras in the school library reside with the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department" Is it? surely the copyright resides with the school/school body. The above sentence reads like the Sheriff's Office automatically claims (and overrides previous) copyright on any video tape obtained as evidence, which I find hard to believe. - X201 (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You might find it hard to believe but in 1999-2000 the Sheriff's office - not the school itself or the school system - was sued by families of some of the murdered students so the families could have access to the footage. In April of 2000 the Sheriff's office decided to sell copies of the security footage together with police helicopter footage to the public for $25 so yes, the Jefferson County Sheriff apparently did have the rights to the video. Plus for copyright we have to rely on the public notices posted by reliable sources like Getty Images, NBC News, CNN. (Columbinesite(dot)com (a non-profit organization), does claim copyright over its content which includes the video and stills from the video but that doesn't fly in terms of the other information available.) Shearonink (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sounds as if all the copyright claims made are false. If anyone owns a copyright it would be the school who owned the camera. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or the copyright could rest with whoever ran the security system (security contractor, Sheriff's Department, etc.). The school district may not have been the ones actually running it, nor probably cared about copyright so long as they had access to the footage. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, so long as the copyright is not actually held by Getty (in which case it would almost certainly fail WP:NFCC#2), a single iconic non-free image probably satisfies our criteria. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Getty is selling stills from the video, wouldn't that indicate they hold the copyright? Shearonink (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. So far as I'm aware that used to be the case, but now they've evolved into a general image clearinghouse. When an image is being sold there, it's frequently still a problem because of WP:NFCC#2, but in this specific case the image's page specifically says "(Photo courtesy of Jefferson County Sheriff's Department via Getty Images)" so they got it from Jefferson County Sheriff's Department. They're selling it on behalf of "Kevin Moloney / Contributor" who is a professional photographer, but most (all?) of his other work is labeled (Photo by Kevin Moloney/Getty Images), so this one is clearly an exception.
As a demonstration of how Getty has become a muddled mess, you can also now find clearly public domain works being sold at Getty Images (see Getty and NYPL). VernoWhitney (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mikey Walsh [edit]

an image was removed from My M Walsh Wikipedia page, so I uploaded a new one from my verified instagram account.File:Author Mikey Walsh.png I would like to mark the image as {{"PD-self"}} to give permission & copyright to use it here, but am not sure how to do it, and am not experienced enough on Wiki to perfect what is needed to make it possible.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchelballbooks1989 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mitchelballbooks1989. In most cases, the copyright holder of a photo such as this is considered to be the photographer who takes the photo and not the subject of the photo. So, even if you're Mikey Browne and the photo does appear on your official Instagram account, verification of copyright ownership may still be need to be verified in a more formal way. It's not totally uncommon for someone to download a photo from another person's official social media account, and then upload that photo to Wikipedia under a "free" license. In some cases, the uploader may even claim they are the other person and that the photo is their "own work" even when they're not and it's not. So, in order to err on the side of caution and make sure it's the copyright holder doing the uploading, more formal verification tends to be required in cases like this. Did you take this photo yourself? If so, that's great because that makes things easier to sort out. Did someone else take this photo? If so, then that's great too but it can make things a little trickier to sort out.
In the first case, all you basically need to do is follow the instructions given in the template I added to your user talk page. Basically, Wikipedia is going to need some way of verifying your WP:CONSENT to ensure that you as the copyright holder of the photo has actually released it under one of the "free" licenses that the Wikimedia Foundation accepts. In the second case, things depend on the nature of your relationship with the person who took the photo. Was it a work for hire or did the photographer agree to transfer their copyright for the image to you? If it was either of those things, then basically you're back at the first case with the added difference that you may need to "prove" that you're now the sole copyright owner of the photo. If neither of those things apply, Wikipedia is going to need to verify the consent of the person who took the photo in order for it to avoid being deleted.
Finally, you can have your identity verified by Wikipedia if you want so that people will really know you're Mikey Walsh anytime you post something with this account. This is optional, but it might save you the trouble of having to convince others that you're really you each time you post something related to Walsh. Doing so doesn't give you any special editorial control over any content about you on Wikipedia, but it may grease the wheels a bit and make it easier for you to seek assistance. You can find out a little more about this here and you can ask questions about it here. If you've got any questions about what I posted above, feel free to ask them below. If you've got any questions about the information I added to your user talk page, feel free to ask them there. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the copyright for an image of a personal letter from 1969? The writer and recipient are both deceased.[edit]

I am in the process of writing a Wikipedia page about a noted violinist and music educator of the mid-twentieth century. All of the sources I have consulted on her early life and background are incorrect about how she chose her stage name. I know this because she is a distant relative, and I have inherited a personal letter she wrote to my grandfather where she explains how she picked her name.

I would like to add the correct information to the Wikipedia page and cite this letter as a source. Both the letter writer and the recipient are now deceased; the letter is dated June 1969. I own the letter, but it has not been published elsewhere.

Do I have the right to post an image of the letter to Wikimedia? If not, do I have the right to "publish" an image of this letter elsewhere (perhaps in a blog post) and link to that post instead?

Thanks in advance for any help in this matter.

Teresacurl (talk) 00:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the author of the letter died in 1988, her heir(s) probably own the copyright until 1 January 2059, 70 years after her death. If you can contact them, you could ask if they accept to publish the letter under a free license. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer. I will see about contacting her heirs. -- Teresacurl (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Teresacurl: Or, perhaps more simply, you can just ask their permission to publish the letter. Then you can publish it in a blog post or elsewhere and link to it. A free license would be required only for publishing the letter on Wikimedia. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Teresacurl. Just going to add that the contents of such a letter are likely going to be a considered a WP:PRIMARY source that could possibly be used in some way, but there would be a fair amount of limitations placed on such use. You might find WP:ABOUTSELF helpful in a case like this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, this is helpful information! -- Teresacurl (talk) 03:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Wallace Lindsay[edit]

I wish to upload a photo of Wallace Lindsay from the National Portrait Gallery in the article Wallace Lindsay on English Wikipedia. The photo was created in 1919 by Walter Stoneman, who died in 1958. I am told it is scheduled for speedy deletion from Wikipedia Commons, because 70 years has not passed since the photographer's death. The file is File:Wallace Martin Lindsay; portrait by Walter Stoneman 1919 (National Portrait Gallery).jpg. It comes with a licence from the National Portrait Gallery of this kind: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ Can it be uploaded to English Wikipedia at all? Kanjuzi (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kanjuzi. Is there any specific reason why you want to upload this particular file? Did you try and see whether you could find any other images of Lindsay that might be within the public domain for some reason? Given the year of Lindsay’s birth it seems possible that there might be some earlier images (i.e. images published before January 1, 1927) of him that might exist. Although it’s possible that this file could be uploaded as non-free content, each use of it would need to satisfy all ten non-free content use criteria listed here. The criterion that often can be hard to meet with respect to images such as this is criterion #1 as explained here. So, if you can somehow make the case that this criterion is not an issue than perhaps this would be OK as non-free content. — Marchjuly (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that all those categories can be adequately met. There are certainly no other images of him on Google, either free or copyrighted. It is not of a large enough size to be useful for commercial purposes (the Gallery offers larger versions for that). It is to be used in one article only, and there are no other articles for which it might be needed. It enhances the reader's understanding of the man. The copyright holder has given permission for its non-commercial use, and the source, artist, and owner have all been identified. Kanjuzi (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
​ Non-free content use isn't automatic, but it's allowed as long as all ten criteria are satisfied. If you assess them to be met, then you can upload the file, use it and then hope for the best. If someone disagrees with your assessment, they can challenge the file's non-free use justification. Such challenges, however, almost always happens after the fact because there's no formal pre-vetting of file uploads, and it's only when someone asks about a file like you've done here that they might get feedback on it before uploading it. One thing to consider might be the fact that Lindsay's wrote a number of books and sometimes a photo of authors appear on the books they write; similarly, a photo of Lindsay might've been used in a book written by someone else. If you can find a book or other print publication which contains a photo of Lindsay that was published prior to 1927, then that photo could possibly be uploaded to Commons under a public domain license if both PD in the US and the country of first publication. The photo doesn't necessarily need to be available online (but that does help) as long as it's published. Personally, I think the file you want to upload is probably OK licensed as {{Non-free biog pic}} using {{Non-free use rationale biog}} for the non-free use rationale, but ultimately it’s you as the uploader and user who wants use the file in a certain way that is expected to justify it’s use. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it was published in 1919 overseas, then under US copyright it is {{PD-old-100}} acceptable here but not at commons yet. --Masem (t) 20:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is possible (as Masem states above) for certain files to be uploaded locally to Wikipedia using a PD license as long as they are clearly PD in the US. These can't uploaded to Commons, but they essentially are treated the same way as Commons files when used on Wikipedia; in other words, they're not subject to the restrictions of WP:NFCC. This is another possibility to consider Kanjuzi, though I'm not too sure {{PD-old-100}} would work in this case since Stoneman died in 1958. Perhaps, {{PD-USonly}} or {{PD-US-expired-abroad}} could possibly work instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of major perpetrators of the Holocaust[edit]

Hello, anybody out here who would be able to explain why JJMC89 bot removed this image of Hermann Höfle which is in the article's infobox? Licensing states ...Please remember that the non-free content criteria require that non-free images on Wikipedia must not "[be] used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." Use of historic images from press agencies must only be of a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy). Since the image is in the article itself, I am in the honest opinion it can be added to the relevant page. Guess there are much more images all over Wikipedia used for that purpose: putting a face to the related subject. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lotje: When that bot removes a file from an article like that, it usually leaves an edit summary that includes a link to WP:NFC#Implementation. Bascially, a non-free file needs two things: (1) a file copyright license and (2) a separate and specific non-free use rationale for each use of file. What that bot is doing is removing files from articles for which no non-free use has been provided. The Höfle file does have a license and it does have a rationale for it's use in the stand-alone article about Höfle, but it doesn't have a rationale for its use in the list article; so, the bot removed it.
The next question is whether a valid rationale can be written for the list article, and the answer is pretty much no. Non-free use is not automatic and there are ten specific criteria that each use of a non-free file needs to satisfy for the use to be considered OK. Non-free use for individual entries in list articles is almost always not considered acceptable per WP:NFLISTS and item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI. In pretty much all cases like this, a link to the stand-alone article specific to the entry in question is considered sufficient per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. This isn't an assessment that a bot can make; so, you'll stop the bot from removing the file by adding the missing rationale to the file's page. The long-standing consensus about such non-free use, however, is that it's not acceptable and it's very unlikely that a consenus could be established to use the file in such a way. If you'd like to try, you can start a discussion about the use at WP:FFD and see what others think, but based on my experience it's going to quite hard to convince others that the use in the list article should be allowed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: thank you for the detailed information. And yes, it seems clear to me now. I fully understand the logic behind the none acceptability of files in other articles, but things have changed a lot recently... and the world might never be the same again. Therefore I wish to open that door for a discussion on this issue and see if a consensus might be reached. Thanks again for your kind help, very much appreciated :-) Lotje (talk) 07:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to discuss using a specific file in a specific article, then WP:FFD is probably your best bet. If you want a more general discussion about using non-free images in list articles, the WT:NFCC is probably a better place for that. For reference, not all images are the same as explained here. Images may seem to be used in the same way, but they may be licensed differently and thus their use may not be subject to the same policies and guidelines. In addition, not all non-free uses are the same; they may seem the same, but there could be some important differences. It's also possible that a non-free image could be being used in an article in a way that it shouldn't be used, but it's just that nobody noticed it yet. So, try and keep these things in mind if you're going to start a discussion about this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh Marchjuly, that is a lot to digest. In Dutch we would say Door de bomen het bos niet meer zien translated, something like Lost the overview because of the abundance of information. Of course, it is not my intention to make a mess of the aforesaid page. What would you suggest? Revert my yesterday edit? Thanks. Lotje (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FFD Discussion started at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 April 15#File:Hermann Julius Hoefle mug shot 1961.jpg, so feel free to hop on over there if you'd like. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions&oldid=1082951130"