Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2020/June

J. R. R. Tolkien photograph

This photograph of Tolkien at military service from 1915 during WWI. According to The Tolkien Society website, this photograph taken from 1962, which is only used with permission. Hence, there is no way to find free equivalent images of Tolkien during his later life. --TheMuscovian (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I've been already emailed for granting copyright permission, only for English Wikipedia. --TheMuscovian (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Thing is, Tolkien wasn't a public figure , so there's no pressing need for a non-free of him because there's no public figure image people normally associate with him. If you can get them to grant a free license use, great, but we'd likely not allow a non-free replacement. --Masem (t) 01:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Image contributions to the National Heritage List for England

Hi all. Am I correct in my reading of clause 5.4 of the National Heritage List for England's 'Enriching the List - Contribution Terms and Conditions' that any images submitted to them become public domain once published?

"You (or the copyright owner) remain the owner of copyright in your Contribution but in addition to clause 5.3 (see paragraph above) you agree that users of the Website may copy, modify, edit, reproduce, display, publish or otherwise make use of all or part of your Contribution on a royalty free basis." Source: https://historicengland.org.uk/terms/website-terms-conditions/enriching-the-list-contribution-terms/

There is a wealth of image contributions on the List which would be very useful for illustrating articles. Adam Kehrle (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not believe so. At this page it says "All copying is subject to the copyright status and physical condition of the original. To use copies for any purpose other than private study, you must ask for permission to do so." – O-dog222 (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi O-dog222, thanks for looking at this. I think the page you linked to is referring to Historic England's Archive, while the images I'm suggesting we can use are 'Contributions' to the NHLE as part of the 'Enriching the List' scheme for the public. Clause 10.1 and 10.2 explicitly exclude contributions from being part of the official List (and therefore, I assume, Historic England's Archive too). Adam Kehrle (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Adam Kehrle: you might want to ask this question at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright where you'll get wider opinions including how suitable, if at all, the images are to be hosted on Commons rather than just locally here on the English WP. Nthep (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Nthep:, I'll do that now. This question can be archived or removed etc - I'd do it myself but don't know how. Adam Kehrle (talk) 09:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

File:PercyPigs.jpeg and File:PercyPiglets.jpg

The images File:PercyPigs.jpeg and File:PercyPiglets.jpg are currently used in the Percy Pig article. The former of the two images is also currently used in the List of Marks & Spencer brands article. Though the photos are indicated as being freely licensed, there is the question as to whether the product packaging and/or confectionery items in the photos may pose copyright issues.

(In looking at the image File:PercyPiglets.jpg, another issue that comes to mind is that the image was uploaded by User:JackPercival, whose user page includes the text "Jack Percival" and a link to http://www.jackpercival.com/. However, the source and author of the image is given as "Marc Bakos". This raises the question as to whether the photo was taken by someone other than the uploader. For the image File:PercyPigs.jpeg, I feel unsure about the image as far as its origin. The image's description page does not give any source details. If someone were to do a Google image search with the image, that might be interesting.)

In the event that the Percy Pig/Percy Piglets packaging and/or confectionery items are non-free copyrighted works, it may be justifiable for the Percy Pig article to include a photo of one or more Percy Pig confectionery items and/or a Percy Pig product package in order to facilitate identification of the article's subject (the Percy Pig confectionery items) by readers. As mentioned under WP:FREER, such a photo should itself be freely licensed or uncopyrighted. --Elegie (talk) 08:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Album cover

Hi, I've just uploaded the album cover for Ricky Martin's latest album, Pausa but it was removed due to copy-rights. There are thousands of articles that use single/album covers. I wanted to know what was the problem with "this" album?! What should I do?

You're upkoading images without any explanation as to why they are permitted under the non free content criteria The album cover is probably acceptable but you, as the uploader, have to demonstrate that compliance. Nthep (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Rock_'n'_Roll_Liverpool_Marathon_&_1/2_Marathon

The image File:Liverpool-Rock-and-Roll-Half-Marathon-Finishers-Medal.jpg was used in this article to show memorabilia used to promote the event and distributed to participants. What licensing categories should I have used when I uploaded the image to be compliant? RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Prometheus (1930) de José Clemente Orozco en Pomona College.jpg

This image has been on Wikipedia since 2011, but it's been questioned at Template:Did you know nominations/Prometheus (Orozco), so bringing here for review. Please comment at the DYK page to help move the nomination forward, and if this particular instance doesn't turn out to be freely licensed, it'd be helpful to know if the painting is available freely licensed anywhere else on the web. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 June 4#File:Derek Chauvin.jpg

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 June 4#File:Derek Chauvin.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 May 29#File:George Floyd.png

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 May 29#File:George Floyd.png. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Band logo is usable on band's page but not page about logo?

I added the same logo that's on the Einstürzende Neubauten page, using almost the same markup, but a bot removed it as a copyright violation; why is it an NFCC violation on this page but not an NFCC violation on that page? Is there a way to appeal that decision? Here's the relevant diff. JJzw (talk) 04:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi JJzw. The file was removed from the article about the logo because it didn't have the separate, specific non-free use rationale required by WP:NFCC#10c as explained in WP:NFCCE and WP:NFC#Implementation; so, not having that rationale means the file doesn't comply with all ten WP:NFCCP for that particular non-free use. Whether the file's non-free use in the band's article satisfies all ten NFCCP is something that might be worth further discussion per item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI, but the file does have a rationale for the band's article which is why the bot isn't removing it. The bot is only looking for files being used in articles that are missing rationales for those uses; it's not assessing the non-free uses which have rationales to determine whether they are valid. The bot removing the file is operated by JJMC89; so, if you'd like to know more specific information about it, you can ask him at User talk:JJMC89. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

File:SenateHouseExhibition.jpg

File:SenateHouseExhibition.jpg was uploaded as non-free content and I tagged it as failing significant context. However, the licensing for the image may be free. See File talk:SenateHouseExhibition.jpg. The uploader is in error when stating the image is public domain because of India's Government Open Data License (GODL), but it may fall into GODL scope. I am not familiar with GODL and its limits so I though I'd ask here. -- Whpq (talk) 16:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Lorraine (TV programme)#Logo gallery

The non-free former logos being used in this logo gallery seem like clear violation of both WP:NFG, WP:NFC#cite_note-4 and even possibly WP:NFCC#3a, but perhaps they are simple enough to re-license as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} per c:COM:TOO United States (like File:Lorraine (TV series).svg) since they probably aren't {{PD-logo}} per c:COM:TOO United Kingdom; if not, then I think they may need to either be somehow better incorporated into the body of the article supported by sourced commentary about them or deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly: {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} would seen appropriate as the British threshold is very low, so for sure the one with the multicoloured orb and and drop shadow on the text, and the multiple circles with text will be copyright though the other 3 are likely PD even in the UK. ww2censor (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Ww2censor, at the very least these are probably "PD-ineligible-USonly". -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

'The Army at War'

I've been creating an article for Rudolph von Ripper, and wondered if someone could help me with copyright on this publication: The Army at War

It seems to me that this is a work of the US government, containing works created by employees of the US government as part of their official duties, as is therefore public domain in its entirety, including all the art within it. My particular interest, von Ripper, says in his profile in the catalogue, "The things I am doing now will again belong to the War Department and some to the Division, with the exception of my small preliminary sketches".

Can anyone confirm or deny this? Have I missed a subtlety? TSP (talk) 15:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

in-performance images of Dadi and Athena

I have had problems expressing how i can upload the public domain images of singer-songwriters Dadi Freyr and Athena Manoukian, provided by their broadcasters, onto their respective articles. I have listed the websites that these images are derived from, and their free-use rationale as well as that the broadcasters and the singers (who write all their songs) have the licenses, but i don't know how the uploading can be done correctly, when these images aren't mine, and i really want support to ensure it can be done right.Elaych22 (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC).

Logo of an association

Hello, I am writing the translation in English of this article in the French Wikipedia. You can find the English version here (it is still a draft at this time). I am lost in the amount of information I have found about the right to publish an image or not.

I would like to know if I can upload the logo of the association, as it is done in the French version, in the English article. And if I can do so, should I upload it on Commons, or is it a another way to do it ?

Thank you for your help TheSkimask (talk) 10:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi TheSkimask. If a file used in French Wikipedia has already been uploaded to Commons, then you could just add it to the English Wikipedia page. That doesn’t seem to be the case here; so, your options are to (1) upload/transfer the file to Commons or (2) upload the file to English Wikipedia.

You should only do option (1) if you’re sure the file can be licensed in accordance with c:Commons:Licensing. I don’t understand French, so I can’t really discern how the file is currently licensed for use on French Wikipedia. If it’s considered protected by copyright under French copyright law and is not simple or old enough to be in the public domain per c:Commons:France, then option (1) will not work because of c:Commons:Fair use. Commons required that it’s file be freely licensed or free from copyright protection in both the US and in the country of origin; so, if the file is protected under French copyright law, Commons will never keep it.

There are actually two “mini-options” that make up option (2): (2a) upload the file as non-free content and (2b) upload the file as a sort of “English Wikipedia only public domain” using the license Template:PD-ineligible-USonly. Option (2a) is more restrictive because it means that the file will need to be shown to satisfy Wikipedia’s non-free content use policy each time it’s used, but it’s also probably the safest in terms of avoid any copyright related issues. Option (2b) will make the file easier to use, but it involves a judgement as to whether the file is too simple to be eligible for copyright protection in the US per c:COM:TOO United States.

My personal opinion is that the logo is probably too complex as whole to be considered too simple for copyright eligibility in the US, and thus it would be better to upload as Template:Non-free logo using the non-free use rationale Template:Non-free use rationale logo. It should be OK to use for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of an article about the organization per item 2 of WP:NFCI and MOS:LOGO. The “rub” is, however, is that you should only upload the file after you’ve created the article since non-free content cannot be used in drafts per WP:NFCC#9 and WP:DRAFTS#Preparing drafts. Non-free files to be used in at least one article per WP:NFCC#7 and those which aren’t can be speedily deleted per WP:F5.

You didn’t really ask about text content, but if you’re translating an article from French Wikipedia into English, please look at WP:TRANSLATE and WP:TFOLWP because the licensing of the text needs to be taken into account too.

Finally, one last thing to remember is that being written about on French Wikipedia doesn’t automatically make something Wikipedia notable for inclusion in English Wikipedia; so, you should also look at WP:NORG for reference. — Marchjuly (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly,

Thank you very much for having taken the time to provide this detailed answer, and for those advises.

I have been struggling to find such straightforward information.

Warmest regards, TheSkimask (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Robin Cass Premiere of ASAP.jpg

I'm wondering about the licensing of this file. It's licensed as {{PD-author}} and was uploaded back in July 2009. There's EXIF data, a source provided and an author attributed, but the source is a dead link and the file was uploaded under a different name that the person who is supposed to have taken the photo. I check for archived versions of the source and found some, but cannot seem to track down the photo. Moreover, the media page of the source website clearly states that "all content and images were created and provied by giraffe productions all rights reserved. © 2007-2008" here around the time this photo was supposed to have been taken. The uploader of the file doesn't seem to be editing anymore; so, I'm not sure how tagging the file with {{npd}} will lead to a resolution. Does anyone think this can be kept simply based on good faith or should it be discussed at WP:FFD instead? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Resubmit: Question whether it is acceptable to use the Daisie App Logo ~ in the Maisie Williams' own article Reply Suggestion Comment Comment

Hi I hope a resubmission of this question is okay, since my orginal query, a couple of weeks ago, recieved no replies.

I am editing the article on Maisie Williams, who apart from being an actress has, also developed and launched a social media app for creators called Daisie, which had over 130,000 users in 2019 and was reported on in many reliable sources. Would it be acceptable to put a non free image of the logo of her app on her article in the Daisie section, to help re-enforce that this is a real endeavour. I have not created a separate article for the app, as it is early days and I never feel confident to start articles. The Daisie logo can be viewed here @ https://www.daisie.com/

I have uploaded the file File:Daisie Logo.png to Wikipedia, but have not yet used it, being still unsure whether it is acceptable or whether I should use it.

Daisie Logo from the Daisie App Source: https://www.daisie.com/ The Logo was designed Koto (London, UK)

I have been told that the The Logo might be above the threshold of originality in the UK and uncopyrightable in the US, and I could use Template:PD-ineligible-USonly, but I am unsure and inexperienced to know if this is enough.

Fair Use in the Maisie Williams article in the relevent section, this is the logo of her own company. (Currently the is not an article on the App itself.) The sole purpose of the use of the copyrighted image is to visually illustrate and educate readers about the existence of the Daisie App. The image is currently not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value.

Any advice or suggestions would be very much appreciated? :) ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The logo is not necessary, particularly in an article which is not about the app. The appearance of this copyrighted image is not needed to show the reader that the app exists; that's what the references in the article are for. If we were talking about an article about the app itself, that would be a different set of circumstances. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, I just needed a experienced editors advice. I understand and accept you reasoning. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 20:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Signatures

So, I've found a lot of British MP's signatures on their election websites, and I was wondering what the copyright on them are? Naihreloe (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Naihreloe. You'll find some general information about signatures at c:COM:SIG, in particular c:COM:SIG#United Kingdom. FWIW, I don't see any way for a non-free file of a person's signature to be capable of being justified per WP:NFCC, unless it was perhaps used in an stand-alone article about the signature itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

What constitutes publishing a photograph?

I am assembling photographs relative to Emmanuel_Episcopal_Church_(Geneva) on behalf of the church, to use in Wikipedia. The ones I'm interested in date from approx 1880 and were never "published" (AFAIK) as photos in their own right. The photographer is unknown, presumably deceased. (Google and TinEye image searches give no matches.)

I would claim they were never published, BUT, they appeared in a centenary book in 1973, published by the church in Geneva, Switzerland. So is that the date of publication?

I feel that they ought to be out of copyright, but they don't quite meet any of the criteria in the Upload Wizard.

Thanks for any advice - DaPi (talk) 12:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Or to be precise they meet two criteria:

- It was created and first published before 1925 and is therefore in the Public Domain in the USA.

- It was first published outside the USA, and it was in the Public Domain in its country of origin by the "URAA date".
For most countries, this means the author died 70 years before 1 January 1996, i.e. before 1926. Please look up the copyright rules for the specific country at [1].

Should the first option say first published before 1925, anywhere in the world ?

DaPi (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@DaPi: The US copyright law definition of publication is reproduced at Publication#Legal definition and copyright. Swiss copyright law on anonymous images says "Where the author of a work is unknown, protection for that work expires 70 years after it has been published or, if it has been published in instalments, 70 years after the final instalment, unless the identity of the author becomes known during this period." (commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Switzerland#General rules) so if the first publication of these images was 1973 that would appear to place these images still under copyright in both Switzerland (until 2043) and the US (until 2068). If they had never been published and are from 1880 they would be public domain in the US but I'm not sure about Switzerland as the Swiss law doesn't appear to make an exception for old, unpublished, anonymous works in the way that the US and the UK do, for example. Your best options are to a) establish if there was prior publication e.g. were any of them turned into postcards and/or b) see if the photographer can be identified. Nthep (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is correct. GMG^talk 15:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nthep: Thanks very much for considering my problem - I'm out of my depth here. The publication in 1973 was an amateur affair and the editors are now deceased, so I'd have a lot of trouble to determine the exact circumstances of publication. My belief is that they assumed the photos were in the public domain, and in any case could not get permission of the "author", being unknown and/or deceased. So:
- If they were in the public domain, then I would have thought the 1973 publication would not change that;
- If they were NOT in the public domain, then the 1973 publication would have been in violation of any existing copyright, and should not change the copyright status.
Either way it would seem to me that the 1973 publication is not relevant? I'm struggling. DaPi (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The issue here is Swiss copyright law which simply says that material of unknown authorship gains copyright for 70 years from date of first publication. Article 8 of the act allow the editors of a publication to operate the copyright of unknown origin. However in 1973 the material that would have been covered by the 1922 Copyright Act. My German is not good enough to read it but if you want to tell us what that act (File:Swiss Copyright Law of 1922.pdf) says about anonymous works then we can reconsider but the possibility that it was the same or a similar situation exists, i.e. you can use unknown material in good faith and that starts the clock running, remains. Nthep (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much indeed. I'll get on to that. DaPi (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nthep: The law of 1883 (which could be relevant, if they were published before 1917) does not assume photos to be works of art and has a special section for them. Registration of publication is required and copyright extends for 5 years after registration. It does not specify what happens in the cases of posthumous publication or anonymous photographic works. The law of 1922 seems to be very similar to that of 1992 in what follows. My correction of Google Translate (my German is not much better than tourist level, I live in the French speaking part):

IV. Presumption of authorship. Anonymous and pseudonymous works.

Art. 8. Unless proven otherwise, the author is:

1. the natural person, whose real name is given on the copies of the work in the manner customary for the designation of the author; in the case of works of fine arts and photography, the indication of the real name is to be equated with the affixing of a mark indicating the author;

2. the natural person who is named as the author of the public lecture, the public performance or demonstration of the work or the public exhibition of copies of works with his real name.

In the case of published works, the author of which is not designated in accordance with paragraph 1 or 2, the editor or, if no such is specified, the publisher is entitled to exercise the rights of the author; until proven otherwise, the editor or publisher is the legal successor of the author.

("natural person" i.e. human being, excludes corporate entities.) I concluded that if the first publication of these photos was in 1973, then the church, as publisher, has the copyright under the 1922 law. The publisher can then elect to make them available under a CC licence for Wikipedia. Similarly, any currently unpublished photos could be published now under the 1992 law. Is that right? DaPi (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@DaPi: That would appear to be correct - the church assumed the role of publisher in 1973 and as it has not been proved otherwise the church remains the legal successor of the photographer. So yes the church could licence the images under a CC licence allowing reuse. Nthep (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nthep: Thank you VERY much indeed for your patience - I even got the title of the question wrong! I've leaned at lot sorting this out, particularly about the special case of photos in the 19th century. All the best - Keep safe DaPi (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

My pleasure, it's taught me a lot about Swiss copyright and this interesting concept of "adopting" anonymous images. Nthep (talk) 10:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Copyright on image from 1950s Germany?

I was wondering if I could get some assistance in determining whether this photo is in the public domain. If it is, I think it would be very useful to include in several wikipedia articles. I am worried that it might be copyrighted, since Getty Images sells the rights to it. However, I am aware of their history with copyright fraud and I also can't find the word "copyright" explicitly applied to this image on their website though this licensed usage does use a copyright symbol. I think the image might not be copyrighted since it was taken on May 11, 1950 in West Berlin. As far as I understand German copyright law, this would mean that it is in the public domain if it was published soon after being taken.

In case it's relevant, Getty claims that this image is part of the Bettmann Archive, but it also appears in the online archive of the Ghetto Fighter's House. Pinging Buidhe just in case she has any input (though I know she's super busy). Botterweg14 (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Botterweg14, Whatever its copyright status in Germany (the evidence you have presented is unclear either way and we have to follow precautionary principle) it is virtually certain to have been recopyrighted under URAA and is therefore unsuitable for use in enwp, unfortunately. buidhe 21:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, that's such a shame. But thank you very much for answering! Botterweg14 (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Is the license for this image valid?

Here's the file in question. I didn't upload this image, but I wanted to know if the stated license is valid because if it is, then I could upload other, similar images from the 2011 India Census documents. Thanks, 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 03:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

3 kids in a trenchcoat: It's an Indian government publication so the GODL licence looks fine. Are you questioning the licence? ww2censor (talk) 10:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Ww2censor: The file said it hadn't been reviewed so I just wanted to err on the side of caution before uploading similar files. Thanks for your reply. 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)