| 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 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| |||
| This page is automatically archived by lowercase sigmabot III. Any threads with no replies in 14 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived. |
Egypt copyright law (1954)
Hi there. I see User:Ashashyou has placed this image Mahmoud Khalil Al-Housary under public domain by the virtue of Egypt's 1954 law that was applicable on works published prior to 2002.
So, would the Qur'an (audio) recitations of the famous Egyptian reciters (El Minshawi, Al Hussary, Abdul Basit Abdus Samad, Mustafa Ismail) fall under public domain too, especially since most of them published their works well before 2002 regardless of whether anyone claims legal rights to the recitals (record companies or firms that acquired rights to the recordings post their deaths or secured rights in other countries)?
Thanks.
Originally asked here: User_talk:Ashashyou#Egypt_copyright_laws and here Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1068#Egypt_copyright_law_(1954).
Book cover for Anthony Czarnik
Hello, Dr. Czarnik is a Wikipedian using the account AWCzarnik, he has requested that an image for a cover on one of his books be added to his article. (For reference, see his talk page for more info on this.) A previous attempt was removed, but he apparently has permission from the publisher to use the image. Is it OK to reupload, or is there still a problem with doing so? Thanks in advance. - Indefensible (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- You'll need to check with the Editor of this article. I don't know. - AWCzarnik (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Indefensible and AWCzarnik. The answer is most likely no unless the copyright holder of the book cover art (which generally seems to be the publishing company or in some cases the book’s author) agrees to upload the files under an acceptable free license as explained here and here. Most book covers tend to be protected by copyright. Wikipedia does allow copyrighted content to be uploaded and used as non-free, but the use of copyrighted book covers (see item 1 of WP:NFCI, but this use tends to be limited to stand-alone articles about the books themselves as explained here. Another thing to consider besides copyright is whether seeing the book covers is encyclopedically relevant to readers. Simply adding book cover images to articles for the sake of adding them is probably not going to be considered appropriate by others even if the covers are freely licensed.One image that would really improve the article would be an image of the subject to use for primary purposes in the main infobox. So, if AWCzarnik can provide such a free image, then that would be better for the article than images of book covers. — Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply Marchjuly. - Indefensible (talk) 05:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, Marchjuly and Indefensible I found quite a few examples of using low resolution images under fair use rationale license, which is used for many books and illustrations. This particular license might fit near the relevant book section for educational and encyclopedic purposes only and doesn’t present any danger of commercial use due to its very low resolution and irrelevance.
- Thanks for the reply Marchjuly. - Indefensible (talk) 05:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Indefensible and AWCzarnik. The answer is most likely no unless the copyright holder of the book cover art (which generally seems to be the publishing company or in some cases the book’s author) agrees to upload the files under an acceptable free license as explained here and here. Most book covers tend to be protected by copyright. Wikipedia does allow copyrighted content to be uploaded and used as non-free, but the use of copyrighted book covers (see item 1 of WP:NFCI, but this use tends to be limited to stand-alone articles about the books themselves as explained here. Another thing to consider besides copyright is whether seeing the book covers is encyclopedically relevant to readers. Simply adding book cover images to articles for the sake of adding them is probably not going to be considered appropriate by others even if the covers are freely licensed.One image that would really improve the article would be an image of the subject to use for primary purposes in the main infobox. So, if AWCzarnik can provide such a free image, then that would be better for the article than images of book covers. — Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
| Media data and Non-free use rationale | |
|---|---|
| Description | The "Fluorescent Chemosensors for ion and Molecule Recognition" book cover |
| Author or copyright owner |
Unknown |
| Source (WP:NFCC#4) | https://pubs.acs.org/isbn/9780841227286# |
| Use in article (WP:NFCC#7) | Anthony Czarnik |
| Purpose of use in article (WP:NFCC#8) | to serve as the primary means of visual identification of the most notable work written by A. Czarnik and published by ASC Combinatorial Science, where he played a role of a founding editor. This file will be used only once in the "Books" section next to the corresponding publication and identified as "Fluorescent Chemosensors for ion and Molecule Recognition" |
| Not replaceable with free media because (WP:NFCC#1) |
It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value. |
| Minimal use (WP:NFCC#3) | Low resolution, just for identification purposes. |
| Respect for commercial opportunities (WP:NFCC#2) |
Resolution too low to be reproduced for pirated copies, old version of cover used. The use of the cover will not affect the value of the original work or limit the copyright holder's rights or ability to distribute the original. In particular, copies could not be used to make illegal copies of the book. |
- Sorry for this table here - it is just a sample.
- --DrIlyaTsyrlov (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- What you've added above is not a copyright license, but is rather a non-free use rationale. If you upload a non-free file, you will need to provide both a copyright license (like {{Non-free book cover}}) and a non-free use rationale. In most cases, one copyright license is all that is needed, but a separate specific non-free use rationale is need for each use of the file (i.e. if the file is used twice, a rationale needs to be provided for each use). The rationale you provide above would probably be OK if the file was being used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about Fluorescent Chemosensors for ion and Molecule Recognition. However, it looks like you intend to use the file in a Anthony Czarnik#Books just to show the cover of the book. I don't think that's going to be considered acceptable per WP:NFC#cite_note-3. If you think the book is notable per WP:NBOOK, then perhaps you can create an article about it and use the book cover image there. Otherwise, you're going to have to add sourced critical commentary about the book's cover itself (not just the book) to the Czarnik article if you want to try and justify the file's use in that article. To be completely honest, there's almost no way to justify the use of any non-free book covers in the "Books" section of the Czarnik article per WP:NFC#CS and WP:NFLISTS. The section is noting but an embedded list of books written by Czarnik and non-free images are simply not allowed to be used to illustrate bibliography, discography, filmography, etc. types of sections in article about authors, musicians, actors, etc. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Is uploading a deceased person's uncopyrighted resume free use?
Hi, is uploading a deceased person's uncopyrighted resume considered free use? The person (Bill Nimmo) gave me a hardcopy of his resume a few months before passing away. The resume is used several times as a source in the wikipedia article about him. Invent4hir (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what value there would to uploading a copy of Nimmo's resume/CV per WP:TEXTASIMAGES since most likely the information contained on the resume could be added to the article as prose. Now, if you're asking whether the resume would be considered a reliable source to support content about Nimmo, then that's a completely different question altogether that doesn't really have anything to do with copyright. My guess is that the resume would be considered a WP:PRIMARY source which means there are limitations on how it can be used. You might want to ask about this by starting a discussion at Talk:Bill Nimmo or asking for input at WP:RSN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think an unpublished resume is a reliable source for much of anything. It's a bad case of hearsay, even worse than the usual self-published sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- And the resume would still be covered by copyright. Only if it stated that it was public domain or something like that could copyright be waived. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:Billbeee
All pictures can be found on http://www.builderbill-diy-help.com/index.html, uploader says it's his website, explicitly here. Is this a credible evidence of permission? (Can the images be moved to commons?). --TheImaCow (talk) 12:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hi TheImaCow. Since Wikipedia pages can be pretty much edited by anyone and Wikipedia accounts can be pretty much created by anyone, I'm not sure that such a user talk page post would be considered an acceptable form of license verification, except perhaps if the account holder's identity is verified by WP:OTRS per Template:Verified account. If, however, they are going to go to that trouble, then it would also seem to be just as easy to verify their WP:CONSENT to release all their uploads as licensed, by simply emailing OTRS about the files; one email could be sent to cover all of the files from the website. Another option (as explained here) might be to simply add an acceptable license to the website for all of the images. Finally, any photos of other possibly copyrighted objects (like File:Billbee-angkor-thom.JPG and File:Angkor-dead-shores.jpg) might be a bit tricky to resolve in some cases if they are deemed to be a WP:Derivative work in which there are two copyrights involved. I doubt Angkor Wat is still protected by copyright since it is so old, but photos of other buildings or artwork (even publically displayed works) could depend upon whether there's freedom of panorama in the country of origin. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Just want to add that a simple statement on a file’s page did use to be accepted as sufficient verification of licensing in some cases before the OTRS system was set up back in 2006. See c:COM:GRANDFATHER for more details. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
File:Hokiebird.jpg From Virginia Tech Hokies file can be transferred?
This Hokie Bird file of the Virginia Tech mascot has a tag to transfer to commons, was going to try do it but then I looked a bit more and just not sure as it appears the editor that has uploaded it, is more than capable of uploading photos to commons normally and is still editing, so questioned why this was in Wikipedia instead of Commons in the first place and if I was missing somerthing.NZFC(talk)(cont) 07:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- I think sometimes photos like this are uploaded to Wikipedia because that's where the uploader wants to use them. Lots of editors (articularly new editors) of Wikipedia articles aren't aware of Commons; so, they upload their files to Wikipedia instead. There are also some editors who have had some bad experiences with Commons and, therefore, don't want anything to do with it; so, they upload there files locally to Wikipedia. This particular photo was uploaded way back in 2007 (maybe before Commons was widely used), but the uploader is still an active editor; so, you could ask about them about this. One thing about mascot photos though is that they sometimes can be considered a WP:Derivative work as explained in c:COM:COSTUME. If the image of the character is protected by copyright, any photos focusing soley on that character might not be acceptable to either Wikipedia or Commons without the consent of the creator of the mascot imagery. This particular photo probably would be considered a case of de minimis since it's part of a larger scene and the mascot isn't the sole focus of the photo, but this might even be a bit too optimistic of an assessment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Facebook images
Is the use of an image on Wikipedia grabbed from the subject's Facebook page a violation of copyright policies as practiced by Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiffer (talk • contribs) 18:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. GreaterPonce665 (TALK) 19:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Wiffer. In most cases, it would probably be considered a WP:COPYVIO; however, if the file has been released on Facebook under a free license that Wikipedia accepts or is otherwise considered to be within the public domain, then it might be OK to upload such a file to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. There might even be some instances where such a file could be used as non-free content. In order to better answer your question though, you will need to provide more information about the image and its provenance as well as about how you intend to use it on Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I just started an entry for jazz drummer Joel Rosenblatt and would like to use this image from his Facebook page. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10210376342438875&set=t.1022273482&type=3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiffer (talk • contribs) 15:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- The copyright to that one (as shown clearly in the lower right corner) belongs to Jože Požrl. We certainly can't use it without his license under one of the licenses we accept. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
question file deletion
This file (File:1322 Golden Empire Tower Manila.jpg) has been nominated for deletion in september last year, but no action was taken after that. Kind regards, Saschaporsche (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Saschaporsche. That particular file was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia, and the discussion about it is taking place over at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:1322 Golden Empire Tower Manila.jpg; so, there not much than can be done about it from Wikipedia. If you feel that the file should be kept or deleted, you can post a comment stating as much in the aforementioned deletion discussion. If you want to request that a Commons administrator close the deletion discussion, you can do so over at c:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. Just for reference, there tend to be many more files nominated for deletion over at Commons than there are administrators; so, sometimes this can mean that a deletion discussion might remain open for a long time before it's closed, unless you specifically ask an administrator to close it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for your answer. kind regards Saschaporsche (talk) 08:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama and art works in the United States
I mean to illustrate an article with two pictures I've taken. The first one, is a mural in San Antonio, Texas. I've read a little about the copyright of murals, but it is not clear to me who really owns it (or if a copyright even applies to this type of murals at all). It is part of the Community Mural Program of San Anto Cultural Arts, a non-profit. Would the organization own a claim, the artist, the owner of the building itself or no one? The second one is a picture of the panorama of Austin, Texas from Doug Sahm Hill. A memorial plaque is visible, but it is not the main subject of the picture. Now, I guess that plaques are copyrighted such as statues are. But if a plaque/statue is seen on the background, but it is not the main subject of the picture: would it be allowed on the Commons?GDuwenHoller! 19:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- The United States does grant freedom of panorama for architectural works like buildings, but not for works of art (at least not ones installed after 1978) as explained in c:COM:FOP United States. You might some helpful information about murals in c:COM:CB#Murals. My understanding is that it's the artist who paints the mural who holds the copyright on it, unless it was a work for hire or there was a copyright transfer agreement involved. Since the mural you're asking about dates to 2009, my guess is that it's protected by copyright and thus the WP:CONSENT (if you upload the file to Wikipedia) or c:COM:OTRS/CONSENT (if you upload the file to Commons) of the artist is going to be needed to uploaded the file under a free license. It might be possible to upload a photo of the mural locally to Wikipedia as non-free content, but that will depend on a number of factors and whether the way the photo is use complies with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. There is actually another issue at play with respect to this photo because it's not taken straight on. If someone just stood in front of the mural and took a photo of it without any other elements in it, then probably only the copyright of the mural itself would need to be considered per c:COM:2D copying since the photo would be treated as a slavish reproduction. Since the photo was, however, taken from a certain perspective and seems to involve other creative input, it probably could be considered a WP:Derivative work. If it is, then the copyright of the photo also would also need to be taken into consideration. So, the consent of both copyright holders would be needed to upload the file under a free license, and the consent of the copyright holder of the photo might even still be needed just to upload the file as non-free content (per WP:FREER). As for the plaque, there was no link provided for the photo, but it probably depends upon whether it's deemed c:COM:De minimis; if its inclusion is considered incidental and not the focus of the photo, then the photo might be considered OK to upload as is or maybe with the plaque imagery blurred out in some way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: That is interesting information, I may try to contact the artist regarding the mural. About the plaque, I took a number of pictures of it and the surrounding area. I'll try to find one that features the plaque c:COM:De minimis, or just maybe a view from the hill in which the plaque is not at all visible.--GDuwenHoller! 14:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Civil War photo, unknown author
I have this photograph: https://i.imgur.com/3DRm6rj.jpeg of a civil war veteran, taken between 1861-1862. It should be public domain, yes? How can I, if I can, upload the image if I don't know the photographer's name Smt42 (talk) 04:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Smt42: Is the posting to Imgur is the first time this image has ever been published then yes it is in the public domain - see c:Commons:Commons:Hirtle chart#Works except sound recordings and architecture, the first section regarding old unpublished works. If it has been previously published then you need to go by the date of publication in the second section. I don't see it having been published with (copyright) notice. Nthep (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
YouTube CC-BY video for limited time
Hi! I was hoping to get a freely licensed image of Christina Soontornvat from this Youtube link, which will be livestreaming in about 14 hours and has already been tagged with the YouTube Creative Commons Attribution license (commons:Template:YouTube CC-BY). But I just noticed the video description, where they proactively mention that they'll be taking down the recording a month from now, on March 18, 2021. Does this present any issues with capturing a screengrab of Soontornvat for use in the article? Best, DanCherek (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- Nope, Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable, so the content can still be used under the terms of the license even after the content was deleted. Hopefully c:User:YouTubeReviewBot will confirm the license, but you should probably bug a license reviewer if it doesn't as obviously the license will not be able to be verified after it is deleted. Dylsss(talk contribs) 08:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Company logo
Hi, I would like to add a logo to a company page and I took their logo from google, how can I know what kind of license they used for their logo? Is it's from google do I need to specify the type of license? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mareglite2021 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Mareglite2021: The company likely reserves all rights to their logo, unless they state otherwise, if the logo consists of simple shapes or text then it could be too simple to be protected under copyright (c:Template:PD-textlogo). If uploading to Commons, you need to take into account the source country as well, for example the UK has a low threshold of originality (c:COM:TOO UK) so logos created there could be protected even if the logo is simple but has some originality. Images uploaded locally on the English Wikipedia only have to be free in the US, so you only need to take into account the threshold of originality in the US (c:COM:TOO US). However if the logo is not simple enough to be in the public domain, then one logo can be uploaded as a non-free logo being used for identification in the top of the infobox, this should only be done once the article is in the mainspace as non-free images are not allowed outside article space. Dylsss(talk contribs) 00:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Working for businesses in Papua New Guinea and visual complications...
To whom it may concern,
As a marketer, researcher and graphic designer/photographer - I do a lot of work in the corporate and political world of Papua New Guinea. Unfortunately, companies do not know how to engage marketing/design/digital topics but want visibility on wikipedia. As a result, I create a lot of visual content myself (photos, logos, collateral, etc) and am not sure how to approach wikipedia in uploading content I have created for companies or government figures/profiles. (Eg. At the moment, Kina Bank wants me to publish a page that is trying to squash misinformation about Fu Shan.)
Even though companies want me to upload their logos and relevant images to their wikipedia page(s), I am sure to do something wrong in the process. I've gone through legal channels on this issue and they have not been forthcoming with what I can and can't do. Your guidance would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pnginitiator (talk • contribs) 04:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Pnginitiator. Before I try and answer your questions about logos, I just want to point out that the part of your post where you write
Unfortunately, companies do not know how to engage marketing/design/digital topics but want visibility on wikipedia.
makes it seems as if either you or the companies you refer are some important things about Wikipedia; so, it might be a good idea for you to take a look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). In addition, if you're trying to edit or create content about any companies you have a personal or professional connection to, then you probably should take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.As for your question about logos and their copyright licensing, you’ll find some general information in Wikipedia:Logos, Wikipedia:Non-free content, c:Commons:Licensing, c:Commons:Threshold of originality and c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Papua New Guinea. Basically, there are two types of logos you find used on Wikipedia: (1) those considered to be protected by copyright; and (2) those considered to be ineligible for copyright protection for some reason or those which are protected by copyright but which have released by their respective copyright holders under a free license that Wikipedia accepts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
use of photo from relative of Wikipedia bio
I would like to add a photo to a biography that I have recently edited. I was provided a photo by a relative (a daughter) who would like it included. The photo was also provided to a local newspaper when they wrote an article about his life and it is attributed as provided by the family. The bio is https:/wiki/Steve_Edwards_(physicist).Taphys (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Really you need to know who took the photo, and thus who owns the copyright. Then the easiest is if they upload it themselves. Or harder to use WP:OTRS if they want to release the image under a free license. Since the subject is dead it may be possible to have a photo included under WP:Fair use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
About picture
Can you check the possibility of publishing this photo File:Anis al-Naqqash.jpg about a recently deceased person (Anis al-Naqqash)? I think he was the first to post it on his personal Twitter account — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amrahlawymasry (talk • contribs) 00:39, 26 February 2021
- Amrahlawymasry: Most likely not because there is no information about its copyright status, so it is most likely in copyright. Even under our strict non-free media policy WP:NFCC it is too soon to be certain no free images exist. ww2censor (talk) 10:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Article with many block quotes
Quick question about big lie. It uses a lot of block quotes. Mein Kamph (first block quote) is in the public domain so that's probably fine from a copyright perspective, but the other block quotes concern me. Seems like a violation of Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources#What about quotes?, which says "This means that the quotation must not be replaceable with free text (including one that the editor writes)". Looking for a second opinion to make sure my interpretation is correct. I'm getting pushback from the editors at that article, and I would not feel comfortable doing a trim or rewrite because they would just revert it. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- I think it's not an issue on that article. When look at problematic amounts of quotes, we're looking to how much was taken from a single source. Multiple sources are used, and only about two pararaphs at most seem to be used, which is a very small amount relative to the full size of the original works. Given that this article necessarily requires the input of historians of what is considered a "big lie", verbatim quotes seem nearly required, and as long as only short bits are used, it should be fine. --Masem (t) 23:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Article with large quotes, and revdel template removed
Similar question to my above question about block quotes. Over at Gain of function research, I placed a revdel template and the infringer removed it. [1] Turns out there were 4 large paragraphs almost completely in quotation marks, and I didn't notice the quotation marks. (Make sure to scroll all the way down in diff.) Thoughts on the appropriateness of using such large quotations here? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Exceptions include images from flickr that have an acceptable license,
Can this image from flickr qualify as acceptable ? http://kanchotabatabaei.yolasite.com/resources/P1020803.JPG?timestamp=1450876095454g
If not, how can one attain an acceptable license for uploading such image file on commons? Wikichenan (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Do you have a link to the flickr page to that image to check the license? The image alone doesn't help. --Masem (t) 19:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Wikichenan: No, the Flickr image is "All rights reserved" so we can't use it. I found the image on Flickr here as well as on the mentioned site here. You would have to get the copyright holder, who is normally the photographer, to provide a completed permission statement releasing the image under a free licence via the OTRS Team. ww2censor (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)