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)

hello

i made a page about lton towns u18,they have the same logo,how is it copyright? DimiLikesHistory (talk) 06:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi DimiLikesHistory. The reason why a bot removed the file you added to Luton Town U18 was because it didn't comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy with respect to that article. Each time a non-free file like File:LutonTownFC2009.png is used on any Wikipedia page, the use needs to satisfy all ten of the non-free content use criteria listed here. Since you added the file to the U18 article without adding a corresponding non-free use rationale to the file's page explaining why, the bot removed the file for not complying with non-free content use criterion #10c. This is why the bot keep leaving a link to WP:NFC#Implementation in edit summaries when it removed the file. Non-free files are required to have two things: (1) a non-free copyright license and (2) a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use. A non-free file pretty much only needs one non-free copyright license regardless of how many times it might be being used, but it does need to have a specific non-free use rationale for each of its uses. If it's missing a rationale for any particular use, it will be removed either by a bot or a human file reviewer.

Now, having posted all of that, there were actually more serious problems with the article you created that have nothing to do with the image you tried to add. Article about sports teams are, as explained here, required to satisfy Wikipedia's General Notability guideline for them to be considered acceptable. Generally, the way this is done is by supporting the article's content with citations that establish the teams has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Because the article you created did not clearly establish that the U18 is Wikipedia notable, a Wikipedia administrator named GiantSnowman redirected the article to Luton Town F.C.. For what it's worth, GiantSnowman is a very experienced Wikipedia editor when it comes to articles related to soccer (football), and I'm sure they would be happy to explain what kinds of things are typically considered significant coverage for a U18 team if you ask them. You can also ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

i´m not sure what i have to do, please send me an step by step manual

The uploaded maps and map details are all over 100 years old, but of course they are kept in some libraries, so I have also added their information in the text, but how, where and in what the way I add a "license tag" Unfortunately, it is not to understand, by the instructions only seems to be written for technicians. ;-((( at least I don't understand this. Maybe there are step-by-step instructions and a selection of the tag, normally I would have used the fair use tag, but which one is that???, although all the cards are more than 100 years old.??? ? Please help. Qanatir (talk) 08:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@Qanatir Before this can all be sorted out, you need to be specific about the exact source of each map, not just, for example, "jewish national library" but a full url to the map so the background can be checked out. I suspect that most, if not all, are out of copyright but it needs a lot more detail to determine exactly why each is in the public domain and then tagged appropriately.

If you use the Wikipedia:File upload wizard for any future uploads it will guide you through the process and help you add appropriate information, not only about the copyright status, but also about the image, what it portrays etc. Nthep (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I rearranged the information on two of your uploads, File:03-Map by Burton and Drake 1871 with the two Trachones.jpg and File:00-kiepert-HAURAN-1860-k.jpg, and added the appropriate license tag, {{PD-old-100}}. Do you think, Qanatir, you could do the same for the remaining files? Felix QW (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Felix QW yes, many thanks, sorry for your time! But there are so many different licence tags i was not sure what was the right one. regards Qanatir (talk) 10:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Can screenshots of your own Minecraft builds be shared under CC licences?

If you went out of your way to use a freely-licensed resource pack and ensured that no natural MC terrain is visible (only your own build can be seen), could you release the screenshot under a CC licence, since you're essentially using MC as a 3D modelling program and you are not showing anything that is copyrighted by Mojang/Microsoft? Félix An (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Félix An I would say no. Even if you're not using specific graphics or sprites from Minecraft, the Minecraft IP itself, including its style, are still the intellectual property of Mojang. Even if you were to open up a 3D modelling program and create a Minecraft-style model, it would be infringement. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

But there is an open-source block-based sandbox game with a similar appearance to Minecraft. Félix An (talk) 05:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The JJMC89 bot removed 2 files from a page

The JJMC89 bot removed File:United_Right_Poland_logo.png and File:Logo_of_the_Law_and_Justice.svg from the 2020–2021 women's strike protests in Poland page because of WP:NFCC. Is it possible for bot to make a mistake or something is not right? If so, how can I add these images to the article? DerekTDR (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@DerekTDR please see the first paragraph in the section hello above. It's precisely the same situation and the bot is functioning correctly. Fair-use files like the two you are talking about need a separate rationale adding for each and every article it is desired to use them on. Nthep (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Should I use Template:Non-free use rationale logo on the file's page? Like on the bottom or top of the file's page? DerekTDR (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The use of non-free content must meet all of the non-free content criteria. I don't see how WP:NFCC#8, the significant context, would be met by the addition of the logos. You used them in the infobox as logos to accompany the name of the organisation. The lack of these logos would no detract from reader's understanding of the topic. Their usage is essentially decorative. So even if you fill in a non-free usage rationale template to use in the protest article, I do not think that use would comply with non-free usage policy. -- Whpq (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi DerekTDR. While I'm sure you couldn't have see Whpq's above reply before adding non-free rationales for "2020–2021 women's strike protests in Poland" to several non-free file pages like the two you mentioned above, there is pretty much zero chance that said type of non-free use would be considered acceptable per relevant Wikipedia policy. Non-free logos are simply never going to be allowed to be used as infobox icons per multiple WP:NFCCP. Adding the rationale does stop the bot from removing them, but it doesn't make the use a valid one per WP:JUSTONE. So, I removed the invalid rationales from the file's you added them too and also removed the files from the article. You can, of course, disagree with this assessment, and start a discussion about the files at WP:FFD if you want; however, once again, I don't see how a consensus will be established in favor of this type of non-free use. Lastly, one good thing was that some of the files you added rationales too actually don't need to be treated as non-free content by English Wikipedia. They are too simple to be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law even if they're still considered to be eligible for such protection under Poland's copyright laws. I converted these files' license to something more appropriate, and their use is no longer subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

So, how can I use these file? I tried to add templates on files' pages. It is so hard to do it and this is my first situation about it. I thought adding a template is enough. DerekTDR (talk) 04:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

You can't use them in that particular way in that article. Adding a non-free use rationale template to a file's page doesn't automatically make a particular non-free use compliant as explained in WP:JUSTONE. The other remaining non-free content use criteria still need to be satisfied, and there's really no way to justify using a non-free logo as an infobox icon per non-free content use criterion #1 (WP:FREER) and non-free content use criterion #8 (WP:NFC#CS). In fact, it could be argued that using freely licensed and public domain logo files in that particular way in that infobox doesn't comply with MOS:LOGO and MOS:INFOBOXFLAG since there's really no encyclopedic information gained by the reader from seeing them since they're essentially be used as "flag icons" for the various organizations listed in the infobox. The primary logos of said organizations can be seen by readers by clicking on the links and looking at the main article about each organization. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

After reading some "WP:" articles and your notifications of deletion, I understand kind of how it works. I do not understand WP:JUSTONE still. DerekTDR (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:JUSTONE is just the name of a short-cut link to the "Assuming that meeting only one criterion is sufficient" section of the page Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions. A non-free use needs to satisfy all ten non-free content use criterion for it to be considered policy compliant. Adding a non-free use rationale to a file's page is one of the ten criteria (WP:NFCC#10c), but it's only just one of the ten (actually it's one part of one of the ten). This means that there are nine other criteria that still need to be satisfied, and failing to satisfy even just one of them means that the non-free use in question is not considered policy compliant (i.e. not a valid non-free use). Some users mistaknely think that adding a non-free use rationale takes care of everything else, but that's not the case at all. What the rationale does or is supposed to do is explain how a particular non-free use meets all ten non-free content use criteria given the way the content is being used. The rationale template is just a convenient way of adding such information to a file's page, but a template doesn't need to be used as long as the relevant information is added in some way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Threshold of originality for fancy text?

I'm looking at File:95GMO WGMO-FM.png, which consists of the text "95 GMO" with some shadowing and shading effects. Is this potentially creative enough to be eligible for copyright in the US? The Quirky Kitty (talk) 05:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

FUR for living person?

Hi all, I'm not convinced by the fair use rationale at File:Jeremy Dewitte.jpeg, but don't know that much about image copyright. Could someone with more knowledge take a look? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

It is not appropriate. The guy may be in and out of jail but a public image is still possible. Also the image of a guy in a helmet with no face visible is not really helpful for identifying a person. Masem (t) 23:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @Masem, I've nominated for deletion at FfD Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I generated the request email for File:M87blackHoleAccretionDiskSharpenedByCorrelations-s800-c85.webp‎

The request is addressed to Lia Medeiros Ph.D., of the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ: lia@ias.edu

The request is for an Attribution 4.0 International (CC-by-4.0) release for the image File:M87blackHoleAccretionDiskSharpenedByCorrelations-s800-c85.webp .

I used the relgen.js form; I hope the data went to the right place. If I need to fix something, please message me on en.wikipedia . I filled in the Commons:Email template; looking back, it looks unlikely that the email request went anywhere.

Lia Medeiros Ph.D. ( lia@ias.edu ) clearly indicated her intent in the NPR interview, that the image be propagated; could a volunteer on the Commons:Volunteer Response Team please pick up the ball from here?

-- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ancheta Wis: If you're seeking assistance from a Commons VRT member, you probably should post something at c:COM:VRTN. My understanding is that it's not part of a VRT member "job description" per se to directly contact copyright holders out of the blue to try and get their consent; that's the responsibility of the user who uploads the file. So, you can try emailing the copyright as explained in WP:PERMISSION or WP:ERFP and ask them to email their consent to VRT. There needs to be some way for VRT to verify (1) copyright ownership and (2) copyright owner consent, and verbal consent generally seems to not be considered acceptable. The copyright holder saying theshe wants the image to "be propagated" seem a bit vague and could mean something other than "freely reused by anyone anywhere for any purpose including commercial and derivative reuse". -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ancheta Wis, the images in the NPR story come from an open access article in the Astrophysical Journal. The journal uses a Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 license, see here, so it can be on our Commons. Add the license and use these sources to support it. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Image taken from an historic document

I want to use an image taken from this historic document: https://archive.org/details/victoriahistoryo00doubuoft. The information (copyright-evidence) states "no visible notice of copyright". Can I upload it and use it in a Wikipedia article on this basis? Ceperman (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

That was published in 1904 so you should be okay with licensing it as {{PD-US-expired}}. -- Whpq (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Question about copyright of images

I came to the article to fix a referencing error, and after some checking found that the missing source was this image from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The problem is that the reference is for this image, which is very similar to the one from the UNDP. I don't know how close images have to be to be a copyright issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

The base maps and legends are different. The thing that is the same is the flood spots but those flood spots cannot be changed as they represent the flood data. -- Whpq (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

But is it infringing? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Fact can't be copyrighted and you really can't draw the zones elsewhere or make them different shapes without misrepresenting the data so I do not think this is infringing. -- Whpq (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Image for Template:Did you know nominations/John Green

Looking for some help with a situation involving a photo for the front page at Template:Did you know nominations/John Green.

The situation is as follows:

• The image is a screenshot of author John Green from a video he created on his Vlogbrothers YouTube channel. The video is explicitly marked Creative Commons. In the screenshot, John is holding a shirt with an image on it called "Pizza John".
• Pizza John is fan art created from a screenshot from this video by John Green (around 3:56) as detailed by this video from his brother Hank Green (around 1:40). The presumed copyright holder, the original fan who created the Pizza John image, has decided not to release Pizza John into CC after it was requested.
• This leaves the other option: determining if the art is not adequately transformative from John's video to entail a new copyrighted work. Since the image is just a filtered image from a video the John hold's the copyright to (+the word "Pizza"), it seems that perhaps the work is still under the same permissions as John's original video. If it is non-transformative, then the only hitch is that the video is not tagged as Creative Commons due to technical limitations, but the Green brothers have stated that all Vlogbrothers videos are CC.

Cerebral726 (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

About Promotional Photos

I was editing and taking care of pages related to World Baseball Classic , i noticied that the trophy put in the page was not updated for the 2023 version, but the only good photo closest to free use of the updated trophy is from a promotional photo shoot took by tournament and the makers of the trophy

Is this type of material (Promotional material promoting the upgrade of the trophy) allowed for multiple articles about the trophy? Meganinja202 (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Non-free content inquiry

Hi there. I'm writing a draft article for a now-deceased public figure. I found a contextually relevant portrait photograph of the figure that was published in a newspaper in 1978. Would this situation allow for the publication on Wikipedia of this photograph so long as the ownership be attributed to the photograph's owner? Thank you. Ormeos (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Non-free images of deceased individuals are generally allowed per item 10 of WP:NFCI as long as the use in question meets all ten of the non-free content use criteria. In most cases, this means that there are no free-equivalent images that can either be found or created per WP:NFCC#1 (WP:FREER). While it's true that a new photograph of a deceased person can't be taken, that doesn't preclude finding an already existing image that has already been released under an acceptable free license or could be released under an acceptable free license. As long as you've done a reasonable such for such an image, a non-free one should be OK. How "reasonable" depends on who you ask, but I would say it involves a bit more than a quick 5-minute Google search of "free image of Person X" and coming up empty. Some users will actually try to contact copyright holders to see whether they can obtain a free image that way. What you do is up to you, but you should be prepared to explain what you did if the validity of the non-free use ends up being challenged.

For reference, doing a Google image search of "Marvin Fishman" seems to come up with lots of potential images and it's possible that one of them might actually now be in the public domain. Prior to January 1, 1978, individually published photographs were required to have a visible copyright notice (somewhere on the photo,front or back) for the photograph to be considered copyrighted. Photos published in newspapers, however, usually lack such a notice but are instead covered by the copyright notice for the paper itself unless attributed to some other third-party. In addition to notices, copyrights also needed to be renewed after a certain number of years for them to avoid expiring. So, it's possible that there could be an old pre-1978 photo of Fishman floating around somewhere that might be {{PD-US-not renewed}} or {{PD-US-no notice}}. Any photo published between January 1, 1978 and March 1, 1989 could also be within the public domain per {{PD-US-1989}}, but the conditions are slightly different since US copyright law was revised in 1977. Anything after March 1, 1989, almost certain is still copyrighted since US copyright law changed yet again in 1989 due to the US agreeing to participate in an international copyright treaty.

Finally, one thing about a non-free photo of a person is that it's almost always going to be considered unacceptable per FREER whenever a free equivalent image can be found to use instead, even if the free equivalent is of a lesser quality and shows the person at a different point in their life. You might want to ask about this or or this over at c:COM:VPC. Even though they're being sold on Ebay and have been watermarked, there doesn't appear to be a visible copyright notice on either the front or back of the photos. One photos seems to date back to 1973 and the other to 1969 which means they could be eligible for a "PD-US-no notice" license and thus OK to upload to Wikimedia Commons. Once uploaded, you can ask someone at c:COM:GL/P to clean up and perhaps even crop the photo if you want. The watermark is for the company selling the image and has nothing really to do with the original copyright holder of the photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Images of paintings by deceased artist who used incorrect copyright permission name in 2007.

Dear friends

I would like to See the artist Samizu Matsuki's works once again visible on her wikipedia page. In 2007 Samizu Matsuki gave me permission to post 14 images of her photographs and paintings on wikipedia under a free license "GNU License Attribution 2.5". (See below emails) These would be made available on the Samizu Matsuki biographic entry on Wikipedia. An error in naming the free license under which her works were made available on wikipedia was not corrected - even after being notified and pictures removed. Samizu passed away on August 4, 1018 I would like to return her works and photos to wikipedia if there is a route to do so Ron Huber

---

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

From: Samizu Matsuki < samizu.matsuki@gmail.com> Date: Oct 25, 2007 12:33 PM Subject: WIKI license for images - Samizu Matsuki To: coastwatch@gmail.com

Dear Ron

I am pleased that you are posting images of my paintings and photographs on Wikipedia. Below is my permission according to the format requested.

Samizu Matsuki

---

To whom it may concern at Wikipedia

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the following photographs and paintings. My California photo ID 1982 is public domain. News clipping 1978 from Oregon newspaper Gazette Times.

Photographs

Samizu Matsuki, 23 years old, Tokyo 1959. I cut my picture out from a group photo of teachers at the National Museum, Tokyo. 1959. http://penbay.org/samizu/photos/samizu_teacher_23yo1959.jpg

Samizu Matsuki, in another group photo of Japanese junior high school teachers, Tokyo, 1960. http://penbay.org/samizu/photos/samizu_shimura_daisan_jrhighsch_tokyo_1960.jpg

Samizu Matsuki, on boardwalk at beach on Long Island, New York, 1976.

http://penbay.org/samizu/photos/samizu_longislnybeach76.jpg

"Artist Moonlights with Mop" photograph while working at Oregon State University Oregon. From Gazette-Times newspaper article. 1978

http://penbay.org/samizu/photos/samizu_osu_custod_1979.jpg

Samizu Matsuki California photo ID 1982

http://penbay.org/samizu/photos/samizu_cal_license82.jpg

Samizu Matsuki in home studio, Rockland, Maine, 2006

http://penbay.org/samizu/photos/samizu2006_maine_hochepntg.jpg

Painting Images.

Triumphant Return http://penbay.org/samizu/artwork/paintings/triumphal_return.jpg

A Celebrator http://penbay.org/samizu/artwork/paintings/celebrator.jpg

"Ah!" http://penbay.org/samizu/artwork/paintings/ah.jpg

"Still Life" http://penbay.org/samizu/artwork/paintings/still_life.jpg

"Barbara and the Fortuneteller"

http://penbay.org/samizu/artwork/paintings/barbarafortuneteller01.jpg 

"__opia!" http://penbay.org/samizu/artwork/paintings/opia.jpg

"Blue Ghost" http://penbay.org/samizu/artwork/paintings/blue_ghost.jpg

"Self Portrait, 1970" http://penbay.org/samizu/photos/samizu_longislnybeach73.jpg

I agree to publish these works under the free license GNU License Attribution 2.5.

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the works in a commercial product, and to modify them according to their needs.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my works, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the works will not be attributed to me

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the images may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

October 25, 2007

Samizu Matsuki

-- Samizu Matsuki 39 Summer Street Apt 4-Q Rockland Maine 04841

(207) 593-9242 
samizu.matsuki@gmail.com 

-- END FORWARDED EM Ron Huber (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hand-drawn dungeon map from computer game

Is this type of map, hand-drawn by me, acceptable under a public domain or Creative Commons license? I drew a map of a dungeon level for the article on The Bard's Tale II, but am unsure about it since it draws from a copyrighted game.

I have not posted my map yet. It's a hand-drawn version of this map online, which appears hand-drawn in various online walkthroughs as well.

The image of the one I drew did not draw from these or any published map and is a bit more artistic—a diagonal close-up of part of the map on bent graph paper with different symbols for doors and objects, and a highlighted portion. Thanks! Airborne84 (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• If the map is essentially a copy of an in-game element, then the map is the property of the original creators. Making a copy doesn't transfer rights. If it's not a copy of an in-game element, then it wouldn't have any business being on an article about the game. So, it's kinda pointless. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Hammersoft. It's not a copy of the game map. There is no game map for this level from the publisher. It's just what someone draws while exploring the level. The game's player's manual does have an image of a map of one of the dungeon levels, but it's just one of many as an example. The one I drew is not that level.

Perhaps we're saying the same thing though. Airborne84 (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

If it isn't a copy of something, it is WP:OR, and doesn't belong in an article anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)