Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Click here to ask your question
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
How to add a copyright tag to an existing image
  1. On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page.
  2. 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 the GFDL, an acceptable Creative Commons license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information.
  3. Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{GFDL-self}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page.
  4. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}})
  5. Hit Save page.
  6. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below.
How to ask a question
  1. To ask a new question hit the "Click here to ask your question" link above.
  2. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end.
  3. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page.
  4. 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.



Can I use this information in my book publication?[edit]

Can I use this information in my book publication? I will be selling this book after I publish.

Ralph Waldo Emerson#Early life, family, and education

(Note: The OP copied and pasted all of the text from the above-mentioned section into their post. I am not sure if this was necessary or even allowed per WP:CWW, so I removed the text and added a wiklink to the relevant section instead. The complete original post can still be found in MCQ's edit history, so please revert if the copying and pasting is OK to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC))

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.48.21.148 (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC+9)

Yes, see Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. You will have to provide attribution and the license. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Understanding the scope of the GNU Affero General Public License[edit]

A new editor has recently begun to insert a variety of images derived from public datasets using software provided by Data USA. (Contribution history.) Examples can be found here - Commons:File:Occupations by Share in Michigan.png, Commons:File:Map of Income by Location in New Jersey.png, and Commons:File:Map of Georgia Median Income by County.png. Data USA hit with a splash just a little while ago - I found this NYT article for example - and it looks like a great resource, but I'm not confident that the images are being properly used here and I'm hoping for a little enlightenment. The website's Terms of Use are found here - http://datausa.io/about/usage/ . The TOS say, on the one hand, that "All of the content on the site is presented under a GNU Affero General Public License v3.0 (GPLv3)", which seems pretty broad; but the very next paragraph, captioned "WHAT CAN YOU DO WITH DATA USA CONTENT (DATA, TEXT AND VISUALIZATIONS)?" recites, "You can copy, download or print content for your own use, and you can also include excerpts from Data USA, databases and multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable acknowledgment of Data USA as source is given."

I'm struggling to reconcile the broad AGPL license with what looks like a simple "personal use" exception ("your own use"; "your own documents, presentations", etc.) for images etc. derived using the (quite freely licensed) software. If the GNU license covers source, data & output then the (comparatively) narrow permitted use of output set forth in the TOS does not seem justified or indeed permissible. But if these image restrictions are permissible, then use in Wikipedia does not seem to fall within them. Is the GNU license is narrower somehow - e.g., covering the open source software, and the public data sets; but not the output directly rendered from the Data USA website? I don't spend a ton of time comparing and contrasting the various flavors of available licenses out there and am hoping that someone who has a bit more facility with these things can enlighten me a bit. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

It looks to me as if they are additional rights granted. It makes no mention that commercial use is prohibited. So you should be able to purely make use of the AGPL license. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. But that's precisely what makes no sense (at least to me)! If the AGPL is broad enough to cover commercial use of the output (i.e. it's not expressly prohibited, therefore it's allowed) then surely it also already covers the lesser personal, non-commercial use too; and if that is the case then additional language is superfluous. There's no reason to grant any extra rights if they're already part of the package. This is what makes me think that the AGPL covers the code, but not the output. JohnInDC (talk) 02:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

FC Basel File[edit]

Hey , in the english Wikipedia is to the FC Basel the old logo. I found a new one and i have the qwetions is it ok for Wikipedia or not LINK: http://logo-share.blogspot.de/2014/03/fc-basel-logo.html --Seescedric (talk) 06:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

That logo is copyrighted and therefore it can only be used on Wikipedia under the fair use guidelines. That means, if it were to be used, it must be explained explicitly where it was found, the authors, etc. On the page, beneath the logo, there is a disclaimer. "The FC Basel Logo design and the artwork you are about to download is the intellectual property of the copyright and/or trademark holder and is offered to you as a convenience for lawful use with proper permission from the copyright and/or trademark holder only. You hereby agree that you agree to the Terms of Use and that the artwork you download will be used for non-commercial use without infringing on the rights of the copyright and/or trademark holder and in compliance with the DMCA act of 1998". For more information, read Wikipedia:Logos. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
That means i can nuse it for the english wikipedia ? are what ?! --Seescedric (talk) 10:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, with restrictions, you can use it on the English Wikipedia. Read the links above before acting, though. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
And how i can use the FC Basel logo for other Wikipedias--Seescedric (talk) 11:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I belive i have make a mistake https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Logo_FC_Basel.png , can you help me --Seescedric (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

How do I upload this and do I need permission?[edit]

Hi. I am working on the page for LGBT Rights in the US and found an image online I would like to upload.

It's a photo from the same-sex marriage advocacy group, "Freedom to Marry."

I found it on Google images (after searching "Freedom to Marry"), which linked it to a Huffington Post article (without the picture) , so I looked in the archives in the Way Back Machine, where the article was reproduced on the Freedom to Marry webpage (which noted that this article was also on Huffington Post) and the link on the archived page for Freedom to Marry's blog had the picture. Note that after same-sex marriage was legalized nationwide, Freedom to Marry shut down. Their current webpage, which is no longer in blog form is here: http://www.freedomtomarry.org/

At the bottom of the page is a link with an email address for "inquiries." Should I use that?

I don't know how to upload the image onto Wikipedia. I am also wondering if I need to get permission from 1. Freedom to Marry; 2. The couple in the picture; 3. The photographer; 4. The Huffington Post.

I also don't know if it is copyrighted or not.

I found the image here (#3) https://web.archive.org/web/20140202015202/http://www.freedomtomarry.org/blog/entry/top-10-freedom-to-marry-moments-in-2013 Here https://www.google.com/search?q=freedom+to+marry&client=safari&hl=en&biw=320&bih=356&tbm=isch&prmd=niv&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUrPKAxcLNAhVCMyYKHWiXDvwQ_AUIBygC&dpr=2#imgrc=UCrSpVmUxe0f9M%3A

The Huffington Post articleis here: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4467689.html

Can you help me out? (I would like to make the edit as soon as possible)

Thanks! -TenorTwelve TenorTwelve (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Or am I asking at the wrong place? If I am, please redirect me to the right place to ask this. Thanks! -TenorTwelve TenorTwelve (talk) 21:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The images and material would be subject to copyright. It makes no difference if the company that owns it has gone out of business. These may be orphan works where permission cannot be granted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Is this copyright expired?[edit]

It says here [1] that media belonging to Charlton Comics is mostly expired. Does this means I can upload pictures from here? Without restriction? [2]. I am looking to put it in the Space Western article.

If anyone knows, please can someone leave me message as I will be away from Wikipedia. Thanks.--Taeyebaar (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, I went to copyright.gov and entered Charlton Comics in the "name" category and found nothing that pertains to this comic. Then I used the search for "Space Western" in the "title" search, since that's the title of the comic. All I found was a newer original registration for music, which doesn't pertain to the comic. I found no renewal for the comic. This type of lookup works for anything either registered or renewed from 1978 onward. There are books you can use to look up earlier registrations and renewals at UPenn if you're interested in checking on anything earlier. Will leave you a note on your talk page about this. We hope (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I am going round in circles[edit]

Dear Administrator, I am very sorry to trouble you, but I am going round in circles, as I cannot quite understand where and what to press to insert a tag to the image that I have downloaded while working on a page for Walter Noetico Artist. I must confess, it has not been an easy task for me to work on Wikipedia on a self-learning basis. I would appreciate greatly if you could be so kind to point me in the right direction. At times all goes well, but with this image, I am not quite sure what has gone wrong, as I always do the same thing, but having downloaded, I was unable to get back to my Sandbox working area for Walter Noetico and thus am having a double image for "letter A", and cannot even find it on my working page in Sandbox. Thanks a million. Best wishes, Richard Morris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard F Morris (talk • contribs) 01:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome[edit]

At both Talk:Asperger syndrome#RfC: Proposal to change lead image to photo of Hans Asperger and Talk:Asperger syndrome#Non-free historic file version of image I have tried to assist with the suitability for the article Asperger syndrome of an image (the current suggestion being File:Hans Asperger Vienna.jpg) which others have acknowledged to be non-free. However, my efforts have not all been appreciated, drawing comments like this and this from Jytdog (talk · contribs), who apparently does not appreciate just how seriously we take the matter of copyright. Any assistance would be appreciated; please contribute your comments there rather than here, so we can keep it all in one place. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

  • The discussion is a bit confusing: Is the question about using the image in the infobox or in the history section? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
An RfC to resolve the question of what image to be use, would help settle things. Now one starts to get into the weeds of the image-rules thicket in WP. The people working on the article should not waste the community's time with an RfC with an image-selection that they cannot ultimately use - indeed they "should not contemplate" the RfC until they are sure.
Of course, a non-free image that is not used in an article is subject to deletion. So they need to use the image in the article, while they are figuring out if they can use it. OK....
The image is very useful to illustrate the history. To help the people trying to solve the problem at the article, I put the image in the History section of the article; and at the image file, I reduced the resolution and tried to provide a better rationale, and removed the deletion tag, as you can see here
The questions that people trying to solve a problem at the article need to know, are
  • a) is the justification for the use of this nonfree image in the History section now OK or not? If not, can you please help improve the justification or let the people working on the article know that it cannot be used there, and the image needs to be deleted?
  • b) Is that justification also OK to use the image in the infobox section instead of the history section? If not, can you please help fix that, if it is fix-able?
It would be great - really great - if somebody could apply their knowledge of nonfree image policies/guidelines/interpretive norms to this image and this situation and actually help the people who are trying to solve a problem at that article. Jytdog (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Highway 407 extension roadmap alternatives[edit]

As I can no longer use the official copy of the Highway 407 road plan (which I initially uploaded here: File:Highway 407 East Extension Plan.png), I am considering recreating my own version of this route plan. I was wondering if you know of any online software that I could use to generate route plans/road maps. I would appreciate it since my current upload will be deleted in 2 days. Thanks! RehmanK786 (talk) 05:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

This or some other OpenStreetMap.org version of the area might be what you are looking for, or you could ask the Commons Map workshop to make one for you. ww2censor (talk) 09:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of File:Sayadaw_U_Tejaniya_and_Bhikku_Kumara.JPG[edit]

Hello --

I emailed the note below about ten days ago to permissions-en@wikimedia.org in response to a notice of pending deletion. I have not received a response and the image has been deleted. Can someone kindly update me regarding the status of this matter?

Forwarded message ----------

From: Martin Kaminer Date: Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 7:39 AM Subject: File:Sayadaw_U_Tejaniya_and_Bhikku_Kumara.JPG To: permissions-en@wikimedia.org

Hello --

Regarding the deletion notice for this file, please see the information below from the creator of the photo:

I've gone to that page and notice that the link provided as "Source" is invalid: https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/view?q=tejaniya&uname=martin.kaminer&psc=G&filter=1&imglic=creative_commons#5780439876120268434 If you provide this link https://picasaweb.google.com/101051982781335466771/MeWithOthers#5780439876120268434 the CC reuse allowance can be seen.

Please update the source link and let me know whether this resolves the issue.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iguana0000 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

IHS emblem of the Jesuits - the Society of Jesus[edit]

I am trying to determine whether or not this "IHS emblem of the Jesuits" is copyrighted (see here: File:Ihs-logo.svg). I have been conducting searches on the web and am unable to determine if it is public domain, some sort of free media, or if it is copyrighted. Just because the downloader of this symbol claims public domain and that it is their "own work" doesn't mean that it is. If this is copyrighted then its permitted use on Wikipedia is very limited, rather than the current number of English Wikipedia articles into which this symbol has been placed. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Steve Quinn. I was able to find a variation of the logo used on the Society of Jesus's official website as far back as June 2002 so this looks likely to be not the "own work" of the uploader to me. No source for the image was provided and it was uploaded in 2008 by an editor who no longer seems to be active and only made a few edits overall, so not sure where the image actually came from. You could tag the file for speedy deletion using c:Template:Logo or c:Template:No permission since, or start a deletion request for the file via c:COM:DR, but it might be a good idea to ask for opinions at c:COM:VP/C first. Since the file was uploaded to Commons, I'm not sure what we can do about it on English Wikipedia other than removing it one by one from the articles, etc. where it is currently being used, which seems to be in the hundreds. Such a mass removal, however, might be seen as disruptive by some if no attempt is made to discuss this on the various article talk pages first, especially if the file still can be found on Commons. One thing to consider is the age of the logo; it may not be simple enough to qualify for c:Template:Textlogo, but it may be old enough to qualify for some other type of public domain license depending upon it's country of origin. For example, File:Jesuit's Great Seal With The Monogram Of Jesus.jpg is c:Template:PD-US while File:IHS Rom 1650.jpg is c:Template:PD-Old. Lots of files are uploaded to Commons as "own work" by mistake, but they still may qualify for public domain for some other reason. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Here's the altar of the Church of Gesu in Rome... opened around 1584. Obviously this is one of the sources for hte image or could be considered a source. Now, newbie question: is the copyright dicussion above around about who made and holds the copyright on the digital file, rather than the content of the image? It seems like there is nothing original (i.e. "new work") to put a copyright on in terms of this image, as the original design has existed for several centuries at least. 06:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure this can be considered a source for the logo in question. The image to which you are referring is a sculpture or a statue that includes angels and other beings. At the moment I am having difficulty considering this a registered trademark, which is what a logo is. Also, this is different from the logo in some details. For example, this does not have the three arrows in the logo - which I forget what those represent. Additionally, when challenged, public domain must be proved for a logo wp:logo, such as the one we are discussing. I think we should leave out of the discussion - the image to which you have linked. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Correction - apparently a logo can be protected under "trademark" protection. It is not a "trademark". It seems that one key to trademark protection is its continued use: [3]. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
The Gesu monogram suggests but doesn't prove that the design of this emblem may be too old to be under copyright. One should probably ask around if people have seen the emblem elsewhere already.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I did some more poking around and the basics of the image (circle, the IHS etc) are about a thousand or more years old.

Looks familiar

Regarding the image in question, it does not contain any "original" work and thus can't be eligible for copyright. It's not new, as evidenced by the many many examples that are easily found. On the other hand, there do seem to be some Jesuit trademarks (example) that incorporate aspects of the older image we are talking about. But those are new, derivative works that incorporate originality in some way. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 04:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

As I posted above, I'm not sure what we at Wikipedia can do about a Commons file. The file is not only used on English Wikipedia, but also on many other Wikipedia's as well. All we can try and do is assess whether its usage complies with WP:IUP on English Wikipedia. So, questions about the copyright status of the file probably need to be resolved at Commons. If such a discussion results in the deletion of the file from Commons, then it can be re-uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content or under some free license such as {{PD-USonly}}. If non-free, its use will have to comply with not only IUP, but also WP:NFCC. If freely licensed, then it will not be subject to the restrictions of the NFCC, but still will be subject to the IUP.
It looks this discussion is related to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Jesuit Social Research Institute et al, but that is more of a content-related dispute than a copyright-related dispute. Outside of copyright/non-free concerns and obvious vandalism, images are basically like text in that their use in a particular article not only needs to satisfy the IUP, but there there has to be a consensus to use the image in the article. So, if a image is added to an article by an editor, it can simply be removed by another editor who feels it is not needed. When that happens, the editor wishing to use the image should try an establish a consensus for doing so on the article's talk page. Likewise, if an image is removed from an article by one editor and then re-added by another, the editor wishing to remove the image should try and establish a consensus for doing so on the article's talk page. Content disputes are supposed to be resolved per WP:DR and if the various steps listed there have been followed and there are still some who do not agree with whatever consensus was established, then it might be time to discuss things at ANI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions&oldid=727622172"