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)

File:Owl WTP.jpg

The image file, File:Owl WTP.jpg, must be uploaded onto either Wikimedia or Wikipedia, preferably Wikimedia, by someone who has an account. Oh, and in case you're wondering, it must be a picture of Owl from the Disney Winnie the Pooh franchise, and it must be this image here. Just click on the link [1]. 2601:401:4300:3720:4EB9:5BA8:5D2C:AEAF (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

There are couple of issues with your request. The first one is that it's not clear why it must be that particular image Wikipedia uses when any image of the character could possibly be used to serve the same encyclopedic purpose. If an image is needed, one from the original book itself or as close as possible to when the book was published would be much more preferable than someone's fan art image since it would be likely a much more accurate representation of how the book's author and its illustrator "saw" the character.

The other problem is that the provenance and copyright status of that fan art image is unclear, which most likely means it would need to be treated as non-free content. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is quite restrictive and non-free images are generally not considered acceptable to use for illustrating individual entries in list articles. This is probably the reason why there are only five images currently being used in that list article, none of which are licensed as non-free content. Since there doesn't seem to be an individual stand-alone article about the character "Owl", the list article is probably the only place to use it on Wikipedia, and given that the book itself seem to now be within the public domain, and images taken from it are also most likely within the public domain; this makes justifying the use of any non-free one in any article is likely going to be quite hard. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

There aren't any images of Owl from the Disney Winnie the Pooh franchise on Wikipedia, nor Wikimedia, for that matter. I need it for my draft article I'm working on Owl from "Winnie-the-Pooh". I need an image of Owl from the Disney Version of Winnie the Pooh. 2601:401:4300:3720:E295:6640:4B95:4922 (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

1. Such a use in an article is going to be a blatant copyright violation, not fair use; and Disney's copyright lawyers are notoriously merciless and well-funded. The same goes (but even more so) for uploading such an image to the Wikimedia Commons.

2. Fair-use images can't be used in drafts anyway. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't Gopher (Winnie the Pooh), with its fair use image, contradict this? Commander Keane (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Gopher (Winnie the Pooh) isn't a draft so Orangemike's point 2 above (i.e. WP:NFCC#9 and WP:Drafts#Creating and editing drafts) doesn't apply. As for point 1, the Gopher character seems to have been introduced by Disney in 1966 (i.e. it's not a character from the original book); so, it's use for primary identification purposes in a stand-alone article about the character is probably OK per relevant policy. It's use in other articles or in other ways, on the other hand, probably wouldn't be considered to be policy compliant; for example, trying to use in List of Winnie-the-Pooh characters is likely not going to be allowed per WP:NFLISTS and item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI. It's probably not a copyright violation per se (fair use could be argued perhaps) to try to use the file in such a way, but Wikipedia policy is much more restrictive than fair use. What could possibly be a copyright violation per WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion and WP:COPYLINK, though, is uploading an image posted on an online forum or fandom site, unless it's clear the site is either under the control of Disney or the image was uploaded by Disney. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I think I found something. Just click on this link right here [2]. 2601:401:4300:3720:ADE:BAB7:7DA:FE5E (talk) 20:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Can an image on Commons be deemed ineligible for Wikipedia?

I've been looking into closing Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain. One argument there is that a deletion discussion on Commons was incorrectly closed and that the image (option A in the RfC) violates WP:C if used on Wikipedia. Is there any part of the WP:PAGs that indicates that an image uploaded to Commons can be unsuitable for WP? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Commons only hosts free media, so in principle there's no way for media on Commons to be ineligible for use on Wikipedia on copyright grounds. It seems there was confusion about the copyright status of the particular image in question that was later rectified. Remsense ‥ 论 22:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, as it has now been closed, the mentioned image has been ruled ineligible on copyright grounds despite being hosted on Commons and surviving what were effectively two Commons deletion discussions now. I really don't know what to think of this; on the one hand, Commons "is an independent project", as we always say when people ask here about Commons images, and therefore it is strange that English Wikipedia would be bound by their decisions on copyright grounds. On the other hand, we usually refer people to Commons for questions about uploading a PD image and generally treat Commons as the correct place to host and evaluate images believed to be in the public domain. The current situation, that an image is treated on English Wikipedia as a copyright violation, but Commons deems it fine to host as PD, indicates to me that there is a fundamental issue with this system. Felix QW (talk) 07:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this doesn't make sense. This is in the public domain in USA, as per PD-US-alien property, after a looong discussion. Also I don't see that the RFC concluded in a clear cut decision. Not that I care much about which image is used here for the article. Yann (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually, there is a question of the copyright of the coloring, but it is original: File:Portrait de Philippe Pétain, btv1b10336769n 24.jpg. Yann (talk) 10:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I too am less bothered about the Philippe Petain article and more worried about the precedent. For what it's worth, the main argument remaining from that RfC discussion (apart from the aside about colouring, which clearly is original) is that there is no proof that it is a government work. However, that situation seems the same for the image they did settle on in the end, so I don't know how much sense all that made. Felix QW (talk) 08:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The source says that these are official portraits. That clearly means to me that they were commissioned by the government, either to a government employee or to a private photographer. And since the photographer is not mentioned, the result is that the copyright was owned by the Vichy State. That's pure common sense, not rocket science. Yann (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I got the sense that no one really knew the answer, but enough strong opposition was raised on the copyright question that it was closed that way out of abundance of caution than on solid policy grounds. Nemov (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The innumerable complexities of copyright law (spanning decades, nations, and regimes) are more akin to rocket science than common sense, alas. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the specifics of the image at issue here, but in principle: per WP:CONEXCEPT, sister projects are "independent, co-equal communities operate however they deem necessary or appropriate, such as ... accepting or rejecting some contributions". In other words, Commons can come to a consensus that's different from the consensus that we come to here; we're not bound by their outcome any more than they are by ours. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The closer also pointed out on his talk that WP:IUPC requires proof of public domain status, which indeed seems a lot stricter than the (current interpretation of) the precautionary principle on Commons. Felix QW (talk) 09:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Logo of the Mișcarea Politică Unirea.png

Does File:Logo of the Mișcarea Politică Unirea.png need to be treated as non-free? It doesn't seem to be anything more than a 3D representation of Greater Romania (see File:Flag map of Greater Romania.svg), and I'm not sure that 3D effect is enough in this case to make it eligible for copyright protection in the US. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there does not seem to be any clear case law about the threshold of originality in Romania, so it' hard to guess where they would draw the line. In practice, Romanians violate copyright a lot, and no one seems much to enforce it. WMF operates under the principle of trying to follow the law even if it isn't enforced, but it gets very difficult on matters where statute is unclear and few if any cases have been brought. - Jmabel | Talk 02:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

For us at the English Wikipedia, it would be sufficient to assess it against the US threshold of originality. Unfortunately, threshold-of-originality decisions are not my strongest suit, so I am not sure. I would assume that if the 3D effect were achieved mechanically (which it how it looks to me) rather than through creative shading decisions, it would not meet the threshold, but maybe others have a clearer idea. Felix QW (talk) 10:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Kemal and Magdalena Hemady.webp

I doubt that the file is subject to the NFCC as the file was first published and presumably registered in 1931 per its description and was in the public domain (at least in the Philippines) as early as 1962 per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#For works created before 1998. -Ian Lopez @ 08:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that is a perfectly reasonable analysis. One might question whether such a family photo were "published" in the sense of US law, a condition for it to be in the public domain in the US, but for that it would have sufficed if a professional photographer took it and sold it to their client. Felix QW (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Upload a file

I was wondering if I could add upload image taken from book. "With a photograph, copyright subsists until 50 years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the photograph is first published." As per rules written in

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Pakistan

any picture from books can be uploaded? Example from this book which was published in 1970 and exceeds 50 years

https://books.google.com.pk/books/about/Raiders_in_Kashmir.html?id=Ab8tWjdbWf4C&redir_esc=y

(Photo of a commander who led the troops in this battle Battle of Pandu) Rahim231 (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Rahim231 you're right about the copyright status in Pakistan, but the US copyright status needs to be determined as Wikipedia is hosted in the US. Was the book ever published in the US? If so, when? And was copyright claimed at the time. All this has a bearing on how any images in the book can be used here. Even if it turns out, the book is still under copyright in the US (which I suspect will be the case), the image you're asking about may still be usable under the non free content policy. Nthep (talk) 08:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The book was originally published in university of Michigan in 1970 however im not sure when was the copy right claimed. I' not aware how can i use it under non free content policy. So should i just upload it normally like any photo is uploaded ? Rahim231 (talk) 11:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Rahim231 please see the thread above #File:One of Them Days.jpeg with links on uploading non-free files. Nthep (talk) 08:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Which copyright option to choose (during upload) when edited public domain image?

I edited image from USGS, that is Public Domain and wonder which copyright option to choose during upload. Osetnik (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Osetnik. Your question is a little unclear (at least to me), but I think its a good idea to either the same or at the very least a less restrictive license when modifying a file uploaded to Commons. Since there's really nothing less restrictive than public domain per se, you probably will be fine using the same license as the original file. You should also upload the file to Commons Iif you haven't already done so) since it will be easier for others to use if uploaded there than if upload locally to Wikipedia. Uploading to Commons also makes it easier to connect the files using templates like c:Template:Extracted image, c:Template:Derived from, etc. Finally, if you've added information to the image and are doing something more than a minor correction (e.g. straightening, spelling correction), it's probably better to upload your version as a separate file because instead of c:COM:OVERWRITE because it still gives others the opportunity to use the original file if they want. Overwriting the file means that it will automatically be replacing the original wherever it was being used, and in some cases this might not be desirable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Internet Archive outage notice: non-free or PD-text?

File:Internet archive website, during DOS attack, 13th October 2024.png was uploaded as a non-free image; however, I don't see it as meeting the threshold of originality, especially the original October 13th upload which consisted of only three sentences of text. Unless anyone here thinks this should remain a non-free image, I intend to propose undeletion of the high-resolution versions and moving to Commons as facts, data, and unoriginal information which is common property without sufficiently creative authorship in a general typeface (from PD-text). Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 06:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Dan Leonard: I feel I agree here. Per C:COM:Screenshots, "screenshots must not be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons unless all content in them is under a free license or in the public domain", we have most of the stuff on this file free, including the Archive's logo. Whatever is little, could be considered de minimis. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 17:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

non-free logo rational

where would i put the rationale in the article and can you tell me where? Paytonisboss (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Assuming we are talking about the same thing, the rationale goes on the file page File:PGCPSlogo.png, arrived at by clicking the image in the article it is used in and then "Details".

For more instructions on adding a rationale you may like to read the thread above where the user had a similar problem. Also the resolution of the image is very high. Commander Keane (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Boutiqaat Company.png

File:Boutiqaat Company.png (the logo for Boutiqaat) seems to be nothing more that text (including the "B") and a flower/start used to dot the "i". Any opinions as to whether this can be converted to at least {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} per c:COM:TOO US even if it's still protected in Kuwait per c:COM:Kuwait? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

{{PD-ineligible-USonly}} would be an appropriate tag for this, yes. It is definitely below the threshold of originality in the US, so it doesn't need to be tagged as unfree. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

File:SM City Caloocan in night.jpeg

I'm not too sure about the licensing of File:SM City Caloocan in night.jpeg given that there's no FOP in the Philippines for building constructed on of after November 14, 1972, per c:COM:FOP Philippines and the snowman imagery. The fireworks imagery per c:COM:CB#Fireworks displays, but not sure about the other stuff. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding FOP, I believe we accept {{FOP-USonly}} for images of buildings, regardless of where they are located. I am not sure about the snowman, though. Felix QW (talk) 13:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Deleted as a blatant copyright violation. The image was taken from Facebook. The freedom of panorama issues are moot. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at this IronGargoyle. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

PD-Italy file

Does File:Domenico Chirieleison.jpg need to be treated as non-free content for local Wikipedia use even though it's licensed as {{PD-Italy}}? Wikipedia is really only concerned with the copyright status of this under US copyright law, and if it's copyright was restored in the US as of Italy's URAA date, it would seem that this needs to be treated a non-free content here on Wikipedia. If it's PD in both the US and Italy, then it should be moved to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

If this is indeed a "simple photo" in the sense of Italian law, its copyright there expired 20 years after creation. It would therefore be free in the US too. I fixed the tag accordingly. Felix QW (talk) 12:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at this Felix QW. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Uploading an Image

I'm wondering if my image of Alexander Zverev can be uploaded to replace the one already on his home page, or is it copyrighted and has no excuse to use it. Big4tennis (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Big4tennis: Did you take the image you want to upload or did you find it somewhere online? If you took it yourself, and you want to release it under an acceptable free license as explained here, you can upload the image to Wikimedia Commons if you want. Whether it ends up being used in Alexander Zverev, however, could depend on whether a consensus is established in favor of doing so. If you didn't take the image yourself and just found it online, then you should assume it's protected by copyright and not OK to use unless it can be clearly shown to either have been already released by its copyright holder under an acceptable free license or you're able to obtain the copyright holder's WP:CONSENT to upload the file. Without either of these two things, any such image would need to be treated as non-free content and would not be allowed because it would be a violation of Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

If by home page you mean Alexander Zverev, we call that article around here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

File:CFA-AFC logo.png

File:CFA-AFC logo.png seems simple enough to be {{PD-logo}} per both c:COM:TOO US and c:COM:TOO Canada. The maple leaf imagery is pretty standard, and I don't think it's really eligible for copyright protection; however, there's something in the upper left gray quadrant that I'm unable to quite make out. It's an arc of some type, but it could just be from the low quality of the file. Can anyone determine what this might be? -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Marchjuly, have you checked out the archive link for the stated source? It looks to be a design element (bit of a puzzle piece outline) of the web page, not part of the logo. Commander Keane (talk) 10:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for checking on this. It seems that you're right in that the element is not part of the logo at all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Richard Sharp Smith.png

Given that Richard Sharp Smith died in 1924, there seems to be a pretty good chance that File:Richard Sharp Smith.png can be relicensed as public domain per c:COM:US. Can this be relicensed as either {{PD-US-expired}}? -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I think so, by the same reasoning as in the thread below. Felix QW (talk) 09:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

PD-US-expired?

If File:Frederick Baker 1914.jpg dates back to 1914 as its file description states, then it should have already entered the public domain by now, shouldn't it have? Can the file's licensing be changed to {{PD-US-expired}}? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

If it was published rather than merely created then, it would certainly be in the public domain. Since it very much looks like a formal portrait and sale to the sitter was generally held to constitute publication, I would support that assumption and would be comfortable with relicensing accordingly. Felix QW (talk) 09:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Aspects of twentieth century painting, 1963.pdf

Hi, This is a US publication, in the public domain due to lack of copyright notice, but it contains images of works of art from other countries, which are not in the public domain outside USA. For this reason, it is questioned on Commons. Would it be OK to move it on the English Wikipedia? Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)