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. 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

(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Copyright in 1781 images in 1922 book digitised in 2009

If a book is on Internet Archive, uploaded in 2009, but was published in 1922, and contains images made in 1781, what is their copyright status? I've uploaded one image under "Fair use as a historical portrait" (File:Eleonore von Raab silhouette.png) but wasn't sure about it. The book is here. Any thoughts? I'm not clear whether someone has copyright in the digitised version of the book as such, and couldn't find much help on Internet Archive itself. PamD 23:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, PamD. Under US copyright law, an image originally published either in 1781 or in 1922 is now in the public domain because copyright has expired. Digitizing a public domain work does not create a new copyright. Cullen328 (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thanks: I'd forgotten that last fact. I'll load the image into Commons instead. PamD 05:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

PD-logo

Would like some input on whether File:Mix 100.5 logo.png needs to be licensed as non-free content. It seems simple enough to be OK to covert to {{PD-logo}} given c:COM:TOO United States because the station its for (WDVI) is a US radio station. It's the bit of shading in the circle element, however, that I'm not too certain about because it's giving a 3D-effect to the part of the logo. FWIW, if the file needs to remain non-free, then it doesn't meet WP:NFC#cite-note-4 and WP:NFG, and will need to be deleted unless some sourced critical commentary about the logo is found and added to the article and the logo is moved near such content.

The above pretty much also applies to File:KRAB logo.png and File:KRAB 1061logo.jpg. They seem pretty close to be "PD-logo", but there are some elements in each logo which just might nudge it above the TOO for the US. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

File:Topgun2.jpg

I have added the non-free File:Topgun2.jpg, used in Kansas City Barbeque, also in Aaron and Adam Weis, getting reverted by User:JJMC89 bot. I think that WP:NFCC is fulfilled even much clearer in the latter case. So, was the bot right, and why? If it is just about formals to be fulfilled, what are they? --KnightMove (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

You need a wholly separate rational for the use on the Weis page. Masem (t) 13:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Where do I need to describe/claim that rational? I don't find any in case of Kansas City Barbeque. --KnightMove (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

You do it on the image / file page. --Masem (t) 14:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Done, thanks. --KnightMove (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Masem: Please, one follow-up question: May I use the image for Template:Did you know nominations/Aaron and Adam Weis? How? Or is this impossible? --KnightMove (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

No, it is a nonfree image, which cannot be used for any Main Page items including DYKs. Masem (t) 17:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@KnightMove: I'm going to go a little deeper than Masem in that I don't think there's really any justification for that file's non-free use in either Kansas City Barbeque and Aaron and Adam Weis, but for slightly different reasons. Adding the missing rationale will stop the bot from removing the file, but adding a rationale doesn't automatically make a non-free use policy compliant as explained in WP:JUSTONE. I'm also not too convinced that the Weis twins meet WP:NACTOR or WP:BIO for a stand-alone article to be written about them, but that's a different discussion not really related to the non-free use of the file. While you might argue that the Weis twins are Wikipedia notable for their "uncredited appearance" in the first Top Gun film, a non-free publicity still or other image from their childhood years showing both brothers from the front would be much easier to argue for than a profile shot of one of them sitting on a piano in that scene from the film. If you disagree with my assessment, you can follow the instructions given in the templates I added to the file's page and explain why. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the extensive explanation. First of all, I do think that they now easily fulfil the general WP:BIO. Secondly, "a non-free publicity still or other image from their childhood years showing both brothers from the front would be much easier to argue for..." - may be, but this is not part of WP:NFCC. More at your request for deletion. --KnightMove (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Update (to prevent unnecessary further answers): I see that you are right about the image, and I won't issue an objection against deletion. --KnightMove (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

PD-ineligible-USonly for Irish logo

File:FT-Logo-onLight.jpg and File:Full Tilt Poker.svg are essentially the same logo in different formats under different copyright licenses. Full Tilt Poker is based out of Ireland, but Ireland's TOO is described as being "unknown" per c:COM:TOO Ireland. There's no real difference between these two files from a copyright standpoint, unless you want to argue that the vector version is eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:SVG#Copyright or WP:NFC#Multiple restrictions. So, basically, if one's non-free, then both are non-free (or if one's PD, then both are PD). My feeling is that even if we're careful and assume Ireland's TOO is similar to c:COM:TOO United Kingdom, then this would still be PD in the US per c:COM:TOO United States. So, I think it's OK to change both licenses to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}, but want some other opinions about this. FWIW, if the only reason the vector version is non-free is because it's a user-created vector version, then it would fail WP:FREER because a non-vector version could be used instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

PD-US-expired?

File:Alexander Archipenko, ca. 1920, Atelier Riess, photographer. Alexander Archipenko papers, Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution..jpg was uploaded in 2013 as non-free. The file's description says it's a photo from ca. 1920. The source link states the photo's current copyright status is "undetermined". This file has been replaced in the main infobox Alexander Archipenko by a free image; so, if it needs to remain non-free, then it's not needed any more per WP:FREER. Given the photo's apparent age, however, I'm wondering if it's now OK to relicense as {{PD-US-expired}}. I don't know when the photo was first published and if that was after January 1, 1927, then perhaps the photo could be relicensed as {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Another thing that might need to be taken into account is that Archipenko apparently didn't come to the US until 1923 (he was naturalized in 1929). So, it's possible the the country of origin and first publication are not the US. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we do not seem to have any evidence that the image was published prior to its being microfilmed and made available to researchers by the Archives of American Art in 1967. See Provenance note and Journal article. If the 1967 date is the date of first publication, automatic renewal would apply with a total copyright term of 95 years. While there is mention that the originals were on deposit at Syracuse University prior to 1967, merely being on deposit without making copies available would not constitute publication as far as I can determine. See Definition of publication ("Generally, publication occurs on the date on which copies of the work are first made available to the public.") 68.189.242.116 (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Would automatic renewal still apply to works published in 1967 without a copyright notice? — Marchjuly (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

If we could examine the 1967 microfilm and determine if no notice was included, {{PD-US-no notice}} could apply, but I don't think that the current webpage saying that the copyright is undetermined would suffice to demonstrate that it was originally published with no notice. Perhaps others will disagree. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

At the risk of adding too much information, if the attribution to "Atelier Riess" is a reference to the Berlin studio of Frieda Gertrud Riess (d. c. 1955), German copyright law would protect even an unpublished work created in the 1920s for the life of the author plus 70 years, which would be either until 2025 or 2027, depending on differing dates of death (see, e.g. MOMA). If "Atelier Reiss" might refer to some other anonymous photographer in that studio, German law would protect copyright for 70 years from first anonymous publication, for which our first evidence is still 1967. Even if the 1967 microfilming was the first publication and no US copyright notice was included, the 95 year term from first publication would be honored after the URAA copyright restorations. Commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Germany has a helpful summary of these rules. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for continuing to try and sort this out. The more information the better. It's looking as if there's still quite a bit of reasonable doubt regarding the file's copyright status, which means (at least in my opinion) it's probably best to err on the side of caution and keep the file licensed as non-free. Unfortunately, that means it really can't be kept per WP:FREER, but there's no real away around that given a free image of Archipenko was found and used to replace this non-free one in the main infobox. The file will be deleted per F5 in a day or so if it continues to remain unused and continues to be licensed as non-free. F5 deletions are, for the most part, considered non-contentious and the file can possibly be WP:REFUNDed at a later date if it's copyright status can be furthered clarified and shown to be PD for some reason. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your conclusion and am glad if I have been of some help in working through some possibilities. It is a shame to have to lose such a great photograph. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

NFCC eligibility of a famous photo

Please comment at Talk:Jean_Moulin#Suggestion_to_add_"the"_photo. (Summarized: can we include a copyrighted photograph when there is a free photograph for visual ID but the copyrighted photograph is itself the subject of sourced critical commentary?) Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 12:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

In the exceptional cases where a particular non-free artwork, such as a painting, engraving or photograph, is truly admissible as legitimate fair use for the reason of having attained in itself an iconic status, then the existence or the non-existence of anything else is irrelevant. Because, by definition, that particular artwork itself is the only thing that can illustrate that particular artwork. It is not in competition with anything else.

But if, on the contrary, one is thinking of an artwork as competing with a different image representing some subject also represented in the artwork, then that is an indication that the use contemplated for the artwork may not really be a fair use.

A test can be to ask if the artwork deserves its own encyclopedic article (e.g. A, B) or a major section in an article about its author. IMHO, the photo you refer to may indeed be one of the rare cases that can meet the notion of a work having attained some iconic status, thus usable in fair use to illustrate itself. It has its story and it has been used and derived in numerous monuments, plaques, homages, drawings, stamps, etc. Even its apparenly unclear copyright may be part of its story.

A weak point is that you plan to use it essentially in an article about a subject represented, which may be an indication a non-fair use. Would it be feasible to find enough relevant references to create an article about the photograph, and then mention it in the other article?

By the way, what is known of the copyright status of this photograph? In a quick search, I found these mysterious statements from a 1983 interview [1] of Marcel Bernard, saying he is not officially recognized as the author of this photograph and could never perceive rights on it ("dont il n’a jamais été officiellement reconnu l’auteur et pour laquelle il n’a jamais perçu de droits") and that his interview allows better knowledge of the history of the photograph but it does not clarify the ownership ("s’il permet de bien préciser l’histoire de la photographie, il ne donne pas d’éclaircissement sur la propriété du cliché"). -- Asclepias (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)