Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2018/December

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Murals in New Zealand

Apologies - I realise the subject of murals has been covered here before, but the archived information seems to be contradictory in places and also jurisdiction-specific. What is the copyright status of photographs (taken by me) of murals in public spaces in New Zealand? Is it okay to upload them as CC, or do I need a fair use rationale, or are they verboten? If they're fine as CC, can I upload them straight to commons, or would it be safer to upload them simply to wp-en? Grutness...wha? 12:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Grutness. According to c:COM:FOP#New Zealand, there is freedom of panorama in New Zealand for "2D works of artistic craftsmanship", but there isn't for "2D graphic works". Now, I'm not sure which of these murals fall under, but if you look at c:COM:FOP#United Kingdom is states that murals are considered "graphic works" in the UK. So, my guess is that Commons most likely not going to accept such a photograph without the permission of the artist who created the mural. Of course, if you're talking about a mural which is too old to be still protected by copyright and considered to be PD (per c:COM:HIRTLE), then you probably can. Sorry, but that's the best answer I can give. As for uploading something locally to Wikipedia as non-free content, it all kind of depends on where and how you intend to use the file. You're going to need to provide a non-free use rationale and non-free copyright license for the mural, and most likely a free license for your photo. You're also going to need to demonstrate in your non-free use rationale how each of the ten criteria listed in WP:NFCCP are met, which can sometime be trickier to do than it sounds. Generally, a non-free image would likely be allowed to be upload and used in a stand-alone article about the mural itself for primary identification purposes, or perhaps as an example of the particular style and technique used by the artist in a stand-alone article about the artist. The former type of non-free use is fairly straightforward, but the latter often depends on whether sourced critical commentary about the mural itself or the style it represents is also provided. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
OK - thanks for that. Grutness...wha? 02:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Images from LANL website

The Los Alamos National Laboratory website has the following copyright text [1]:

Unless otherwise indicated, this information has been authored by an employee or employees of the Triad National Security, LLC, operator of the Los Alamos National Laboratory with the U.S. Department of Energy. The U.S. Government has rights to use, reproduce, and distribute this information. The public may copy and use this information without charge, provided that this Notice and any statement of authorship are reproduced on all copies. Neither the Government nor Triad makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any liability or responsibility for the use of this information.

This seems pretty similar to a CC-BY license. Are images from this website acceptable to upload to Wikipedia? CapitalSasha ~ talk 23:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

No, because it's missing the character of stability that a free license must have. It says : "We reserve the right, at our discretion, to change, modify, add, or remove portions of these terms and conditions of use at any time." -- Asclepias (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
It also does not grant the right to make derivative works. —teb728 t c 17:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I thought "use" was a bit ambiguous with regard to derivative works, which was why I asked. CapitalSasha ~ talk 02:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation pic on offer

Ye gods and little fishes, what a painful pile of hoops you guys make one jump through! All I wanted to do was offer an svg version of a rubbish jpg pic on Wikipedia. I was trying to be nice... but now I'm exhausted from reading insns, hopping around, trying this, that and the other...

Anyway: The file is the logo for this page: Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation I fell over the pic in a .pdf on ADNOC's website a little while ago, and schlurped it for my own use. I just noticed the W'pedia version is a truly dire jpg. I have no idea where the .pdf lives on the ADNOC site, I was poking around a fair bit. I truly doubt I could find it again.

I assume - because I don't know - that the logo is copyrighted, so fair use applies. But I note in the comments on the .jpg version that it says "... simple shapes... no copyright... " - can this be right? Apple's logo is pretty simple, but I bet it's copyrighted to the moon and back again.

Although I do edit W'pedia from time to time, I don't log in, far too much bother for the tiny edits I make. So my a/c is not confirmed, nor likely to be so anytime soon.

What to do?

GrayanOne (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia article on my grandfather, who died in 1930. My father, a keen amateur photographer, died in 1979, and I inherited his photos, which included photos of his father (my grandfather).

What is the correct way to declare that by inheritance I am now the copyright owner of a previously unpublished photo. The photo I am proposing to upload was taken in Scotland circa 1918. Should I invoke EU Publication Right?

I am happy for the photo to be freely available for non-commercial use. What licence is appropriate?

Jim Craigie (talk) 03:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Here at Wikipedia (and commons) we require the photo to also be available for commercial and any use. If you are willing to grant a free license see commons:Commons:Transfer of copyright#Transfer through inheritance. You can upload it yourself to commons and apply these templates, and request attribution. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Graeme Bartlett, thanks for this. I tried uploading File:James_Hoey_Craigie.jpg to english wikipedia, but the template c:Template:Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs doesn't seem to be recognised here, and I haven't found the way reference a commons template from there
Jim Craigie (talk) 06:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
You're trying to use a Commons template on a Wikipedia file. Wikipedia and Commons are two separate projects and all though there's some overlap when it comes to image licensing, you generally need to use Wikipedia templates for files uploaded to Wikipedia and Commons templates for files uploaded to Commons. I'm not sure if there's a Wikipedia equivalent template to the Commons one you're trying to use, but whatever that template is is the one you should be using. Another option would be to re-upload the file to Commons using c:COM:UPLOAD and then use the Commons template.
One more thing, "Evidence: Will be provided on request" is pretty much never going to be considered acceptable by either Wikpedia or Commons and it's probably just unnecessarily confusing in this case. You could leave that section blank and "See below" will be added by default. At the same time, if you're really concerned that someone might challenge your copyright owenership over the file, you could follow c:COM:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS? just to play it safe. In the latter case, send a WP:CONSENT email to Wikimedia OTRS and an OTRS volunteer will take care of the rest.
Finally, you do understand that uploading this photo, means that basically you're giving permission for anyone in the world to download it at anytime and use for any purpose, right? You mentioned non-commercial use in your original post, but you can't restrict that with this type of license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
The picture has been successfully uploaded to commons with a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license which at the moment credits Jim Craigie. You can also add to the description, say the place it was taken, and what the clothing, helmet and sword are. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Jim Craigie. In addition to what Graeme posted above, you should also be aware of c:Commons:License revocation. Basically, once a file has been uploaded to Commons (or Wikipedia) under one of the free licenses acceptable per c:Commons:Licensing or Wikipedia:Copyrights#Contributors' rights and obligations that license cannot subsequently be revoked or cancelled if the copyright holder changes their mind at a latter date. Another thing to consider is that the uploading the file doesn't automatically mean that the file would be deemed appropriate by others for how you intend to use it. Wikipedia articles are not really intended to be image galleries so suddenly adding lots of personal images to your the Wikipedia article written about your grandfather my not be seen as an improvement by other editors; if that happens, you might have to establish a consensus to add the photo(s) to the article through article talk page discussion.
Finally, unrelated to image copyright, if you're going to edit a Wikipedia article written about a family member, you should take a look at WP:PSCOI and WP:COISELF and make sure your edits comply with the COI guidelines. Assuming your last name is the same as that of your grandfather, suddenly editing such an article might draw extra scrutiny for that reason alone; so, it's best to understand which types of edits are generally considered acceptable in such a case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 December 4#File:Dril.jpg

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 December 4#File:Dril.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

File:USS Coronado 1993 Change of Command.jpg

There's a couple of things about this file which seem odd. The first thing is that there's no source provided other than "US Navy Image"; I think that there's a good chance it is a {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}, but there's no certain way to know for sure without knowing more about the image itself. The next problems is the quality; this file's name seems to imply this photograph was taken in 1993. Most photos of this sort taken around that time would be color photos, wouldn't they? This, however, looks more like a scan of a photo which appeared in some publication (perhaps an official navy publication), so I'm not sure how the photo's copyright status might be affected if this didn't come from an official US Government publication. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Photo by Doug Musolf, published in the Coronado Journal, 8 April 1993, page 14 (second photo). The newspaper is copyright Worrell Enterprises Inc. This photographer is credited for most photos published in this newspaper. He could be a staff photographer for the newspaper. The copyright on the photo could be owned by the photographer or the publishing company. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for digging that up Asclepias. That would seem to indicate that this might actually not PD. Perhaps the uploader EricCable can clarify this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Some deletionists recently removed all the pictures from the Ship's article so I don't care anymore. Go ahead and delete everything I've ever uploaded. Like I said. I just don't care anymore. Eric Cable  !  Talk  14:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

map of Tubuai?

May this map of Tubuai be uploaded to commons? If so, under what license? According to this page it was created by Great Britain. Admiralty. Naval Intelligence Division, 1943-1945. --Ratzer (talk) 11:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Such a work would fall under Crown copyright. Now assuming that the map was published in 1945 its UK copyright has lapsed per {{PD-UKGov}} and while it's still in theory copyrighted in the US under URAA, the link in the template says that the UK government won't enforce this still persisting copyright. So yes, you can probably upload it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Panathinaikos-football-seal.png

Wondering if these needs to be licensed as non-free. I believe the Greek lettering would still be considered simple text, so that only leaves the shamrock shape in the center of the logo. There's quite a few similar shamrock images in c:Category:Shamrocks, so maybe the imagery is generic enough to be PD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Find a Grave

File:Mary Scott Hogarth's tombstone.jpg is listed as public domain, but nowhere on Find a Grave can I see that their images are listed as public domain. Could someone please advise whether this image is likely public domain or not? Joseph2302 (talk) 11:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

No, unfortunately Find a Grave is nothing special as far as copyright goes. I tagged it as missing permission, but given the age of the image, doubtful we'll get verification even if it wasn't simply taken from online, which is probably the case. GMGtalk 11:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Who owns the copyright for gravestones, for example at Kensal Green Cemetery, or indeed in any churchyard in the UK? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
The photo is likely to be copyrighted anyway, irrespective on any copyright on the gravestone.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
We have to deal with two separate copyrights, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Actually not for the UK where freedom of panorama is permitted for 3D sculptures, memorial, statues, etc., so you just need the photographer's permission. I doubt gravestones can, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered 2D objects. ww2censor (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
No. You can't take one side of a three dimensional object and treat it like a faithful reproduction of a two dimensional work. You cannot take a two dimensional representation of a three dimensional work and make it devoid of any creative decision making in the same way you can a scan of a 2D painting. Everyone who takes a picture of a tombstone will take somewhat different pictures. GMGtalk 18:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Eichmann, Adolf.jpg

This file is licensed as non-free, but there is a version of what looks like the exact same photo uploaded to Commons as File:WP Adolf Eichmann 1942.jpg. The Commons file has been nominated for deletion three times (most recently in October 2018) and has been kept each time. While the non-free version is a bit cleaner, the Commons version seems more than sufficient to serve the same encyclopedic purpose per WP:FREER; moreover, it might be possible to further tweak the quality of the Commons file to make it less blury. Anyway, I curious as to what some others think about this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion started at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 December 18#File:Eichmann, Adolf.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

social media addiction #thedress image

Hello I was hoping to use #thedress as a well known viral phenomenon, explaining that people see different things on social media for the article social media addiction but this was removed. It is allowed on the dress but unclear why not here, please help? thx E.3 (talk) 12:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi E.3. JJMC89 left this edit summary when he removed File:The Dress (viral phenomenon).png from social media addiction. Basically, the file was removed per WP:NFCCE because it lacked the separate specific non-free use rationale required for the "social media addiction" article. Each use of a non-free file is required by WP:NFCC#10c to be provided with a non-free use rationale which explains how the particular use of the file meets all ten non-free content use criteria. Generally, a non-free image such as this would be considered acceptable when it's used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the work in question or the thing (e.g., company, organization, etc.) it primarily represents; so, album covers tend to be allowed in stand-alone articles about the corresponding albums, team/company logos tend to be allowed in stand-alone articles about the corresponding teams/companies, movie posters tend to allowed in stand-alone articles about the corresponding movies, photos of works of art tend to allowed in stand-alone article about the corresponding works of art, and images of photographs tend to be allowed about the stand-alone article about the corresponding photographs. However, Wikimedia's non-free content use policy encourages to try and keep non-free use as minimal as possible and only use it when it's essential; so, using the same album covers, logos, movie posters, photos of works of art, etc. in other articles not entirely focused on the corresponding subject tends to be way harder to justify.
Anyway, in this case, you seem to be trying to use a particular non-free image to illustrate the more general concept of "social media addiction"; in such a case mentioning the article about The dress and then adding a wikilink or hatnote to it where the actual image can be seen seems like an acceptable way to prevent the same relevant information without actually having to use the non-free image per item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI. That's just my opinion though; if you feel the image should be used in the "social media addiction" article, please provide a non-free use rationale explaining why and then re-add the file to the article. Be advised though that just providing a non-free rationale does not automatically mean the particular use complies with relevant policy, and another editor can initiate discussion about the particular use WP:FFD if they disagree with the rationale. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Is anyone able to assist with whether https://www.flickr.com/photos/rmatthendrick/16074881544 has a valid commons license - scientists believe him, Flickr's Ok, can we believe him please? I really want the image for the article i think its essential but the copyright for the original may not be ok. E.3 (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Nope, not usable. It may be tagged with the right license, but its clearly using the original photo of the dress that caused its' viral nature. That's a derivative work, so that really overall is a copyrighted image.
If you want to illustrate that addiction article, you could use File:Wikipe-tan_wearing_The_Dress_reduced.svg (found on The dress page). That's 100% free to use. -Masem (t) 21:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
The flickr image is CC-ND-2.0, so commons won't accept it because of the "no derivatives". Also the person who put it on Flickr, Matt Hendrick, does not appear to be the photographer of "The Dress". So the Flickr image would be an unauthorised derivative. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the Flickr image would be considered a c:COM:DW which the permission of the copyright holder of the original image would still be needed for Commons (or Wikipedia) to keep such a file. Moreover, even the license of the derivative work Hendrick uploaded to Flickr is not compatible with c:COM:L; so, Commons (or Wikipedia) wouldn't keep the derivative photo even if the copyright holder of the original photo licensed the file under a acceptable free license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

File:SamaritanHealthServices-logo.png

Can this be converted to {{PD-logo}}? The text is obviously not eligible for copyright protection, but not sure about the image on the left. It looks like have a heart and some flame imagery and might be simple enough to be below c:COM:TOO#United States. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Alternate facts

Seems like a Venus image [2] is legal to be used in a few in Wikipedia pages but not in others. That is sTOopid and disruptive. Rowan Forest (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The simple solution is provide an adequate non-free use justification for where you want to use it. The image has one for Venus but not for any other article (including Venera 9 and Zephyr - we cannot use non-free files without a specific justification.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
@Rowan Forest: It's not so much a question as to whether using the image is "legal" (as in the Law), but rather whether using the file complies with relevant Wikipedia policy and guidelines. In the case of non-free content, the relevant policy is Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and the file was removed by JJMC89 from some articles because the uses in question weren't policy compliant (more specifically non-free content use criterion #10cwas not met). You might think it's stupid, but if you want to use a non-free image in a particular way in a particular article and said use is justifiable relevant policy, then the burden is on you to add a separate and specific non-free use rationale to the file's page explaining why as mentioned by Nigel Ish above. Otherwise, the file will be tagged for a review and may be possibly removed as a result. Moreover, just because the file is being used in one article or in one way doesn't mean that other additional uses are also policy compliant as explained in WP:OTHERIMAGE and just because it might've been used a long time in a particular way doesn't mean it that use was policy compliant way as explained in WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED.
In this particular file's case, its non-free use of the file was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 8#File:Venera9.png, and the close of that discussion was to use the file only in Venus. As a result, the file was removed from Venera 9 by Explicit with this edit. The fact that someone subsequently re-added the file doesn't void the consensus reached in the aforementioned discussion; it could be that they were just unaware of how relevant policy is applied to images such as this or it could also be that they don't care about the relevant policy. Anyway, if you disagree with the close by Explicit or feel it should be reconsidered, you should follow WP:CLOSECHALLENGE and discuss things with Explicit first. You just created Zephyr (rover) and it's not clear how the previous discussion about the file's non-free use would apply to it; so, it might be good to ask Explicit for clarification of his close for that reason as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

US state license plates

Is there something particular to US state license plates which means they need to treated a bit differently from wordmarks or other text logos? Does File:Delaware 2009 Centennial license plate-.jpg need to be licensed as non-free? What about license plates which incorporate imagery from a state flag such as File:New Mexico 2012 Centennial license plate.JPG (state flag is File:Flag_of_New_Mexico.svg) and [[:File:Arizona Centennial license plate 2012.jpg (state flag is File:Flag of Arizona.svg )? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:47, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Not sure how to shut this bot off

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canada_men%27s_national_under-23_soccer_team&curid=35263259&diff=875169978&oldid=875149190 The image that is being removed is not copyrighted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: File:Canadian Olympic Committee Logo.svg is explicitly marked non-free by the {{Non-free Olympics media}} tag. Is the maple leaf part of the logo PD? —teb728 t c 09:06, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Walter Görlitz: The issue with File:Canadian Olympic Committee Logo.svg is that {{Non-free Olympics media}} has been added to it because of the Olympic Rings. If part of the file is non-free, then the entire file is going to be treated as non-free per WP:NFCC. That is why is JJMC89 bot has been removing it: the file doesn't have a non-free use rationale for Canada men's national under-23 soccer team. So, the bot is kinda doing what it's supposed to be doing. FWIW, the file was originally licensed as {{Non-free logo}}, but the licensing was changed to {{PD-ineligible}} with this edit. The editor who made that change has been CU blocked; so there's no way to know why they made the change. File:Olympic rings without rims.svg and File:Flag of Canada (leaf).svg can be found on Commons and I don't think the combination of them is sufficient enough to consider this file a derivative. RainbowSilver2ndBackup added the non-free license with this edit; so, perhaps they can clarify why. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the licensing. RainbowSilver2ndBackup, please don't give files conflicting licenses. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
For whatever it may be worth, the local copy of the logo has been deleted because there is copy on Commons at File:Canadian Olympic Committee logo.svg (with lower case logo). —teb728 t c 08:36, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I moved it to Commons after cleaning up the licensing and getting the first file revision unhidden. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:59, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 December 25#Non-free Dad's Army character images

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 December 25#Non-free Dad's Army character images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2018/December&oldid=1045692553"