Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Media copyright questions
    Shortcuts

    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
    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 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}})
    5. Hit Publish changes.
    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 start a new discussion" link below.
    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.

    Click here to start a new discussion

    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

    Cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0 files

    [edit]

    I've always found {{Cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}} to be an odd license that tends to be used by individuals who just want to upload content but who don't have any clue about the content's copyright status. To me it seems like a CC version of {{PD-because}} that's used to try and cover every possibility because none of the better defined copyright license seem to work or because the uploader assumes everything should be OK to upload to Wikipedia. FWIW, there are probably some valid uses for the license, but lhe license is being used on everything from logos, maps, product photos, Wikipedia screenshots, billboards, graphics, etc. Just clicking on a few of the files in Category:Cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0 files (there are more than 200), finds pretty much no information about the provenance of the content other than perhaps a claim of "own work" or a brief description. The category was created in 2016 but a form of the license dates back to 2007. Does anyone who might've been around back then remember any discussion about this license and perhaps why it was needed? Does anyone know whether the category is regularly monitored? It might be a good idea for one or more to go through this category and try to sort things out: relicense what can be relicensed and tag/nominate for deletion/discussion those that are in need of further attention. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd be happy to look through the files using that tag and nominate the more egregious cases for discussion. As it allows reuse under each one of those versions of the CC-BY-SA license, this license actually requires more license releases than any individually versioned CC-BY-SA license, so as far as I can see it should really only be used on own work or where this particular license combination is explicitly indicated at the source. Felix QW (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Persée

    [edit]

    Hello, what is the copyright situation of articles that were uploaded to Persée site? Can I take an image from an article and upload it to Commons?

    I'm asking because I want to upload the cylinder seal that appears here Pl. XV (an article in Syria by André Parrot, appears also here), but I would also like to get a more general answer about this website since I often find there images that can contribute to Wikipedia articles. פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 16:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If you are planning to upload to Commons, then it would be best to ask on Commons at c:COM:VPC. I will note that the site's Terms & Conditions state that the material is to be used only for strictly non-commercial and/or non-profit purposes which is insufficiently free for Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just going to add that such licensing is also too restrictive for Commons per c:COM:LJ. Sometimes files licensed as such can be uploaded locally to Wikipedia as non-free content, but each use of the file would need to satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. Commons doesn't accept non-free content of any type per c:COM:FAIR; so, don't try to upload such content there. Finally, one possibility to consider could be whether the photos you want to upload might not already be within the public domain per c:COM:FRANCE. The Syria article you linked to above was first published in 1954, which is probably when any copyright on its contents went into affect. The fact that Persée digitalized the article and reposted it on its website doesn't necessarily mean that the copyright timer reset back to zero and that makes it the copyright holder of the article/photos. I'd imagine that would be Parrot in both cases, assuming he took the photos. Given that Parrot died in 1980 and that France at the time had followed a principle of 50 p.m.a at that time, they might still not be in the public domain for a few more years; it wouldn't, however, hurt to ask about that at Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC); post copy edited. -- 02:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Whpq and Marchjuly! Marchjuly, I think you are right, but it indeed won't hurt to ask on Commons. פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 16:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit]

    Hello. I would like to use the official images of state officials from state manuals such as the ones here or the ones here. However, I couldn't find anything about the copyright status. I was wondering if someone could help me find a way to figure out the status of these works and whether I could use them without violating copyright law. I appreciate any help I can get. FountofInterestingInfo (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi FountofInterestingInfo. There's some information on this in WP:PD#US government works. In principle, any creative work released by a government entity below the non-federal level in the US is presumed to be protected by copyright except in cases where state or local laws/statutes designate them to be within the public domain. I can currently think of only two states (Florida and California) which have declared works created by government employees at the state, county and municipal levels to be within the public domain, but there are exceptions for certain departments and certain entities. There are some other states who might be close to that, but Florida and California seem to be the only two that Wikipedia and Commons treat as such. There some more information about this on Harvard's State Copyright page, but it's probably best to assume anything first published after March 1, 1989, is going to be protected by copyright and then try to find something that clearly states it isn't. The copyright status of older materials published before that date is a bit more complicated because US copyright law was different back then and there were certain requirements in effect that no longer apply. There is a sort of summary on them found at c:COM:HIRTLE. It's possible some of the older legislative manuals you've linked to above could be within the public domain not because they're official state publications, but for other reasons related to copyright formalities; those, however, probably would need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. If you have a particular issue of one of those in mind, it might be better to ask about it at c:COM:VPC. One thing to be carful about, particularly when it comes images used in official publications regardless of time period, is that sometimes they were contracted out to a third-party and not taken by a government employee. If that's the case, the government could've entered into a work for hire arrangement and obtained full copyright ownership over the photo, or the third-party could've retained some rights. This can further complicate things because those rights need to also be sorted out. Finally, if some of the photos you want to used are of deceased individuals and you want to use them for primary identification purposes either at the top of or in the main infobox of stand-alone Wikipedia articles about these people, then non-free content might be an option, but the uses need to satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. -- 23:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
    Got it. Thank you! FountofInterestingInfo (talk) 05:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As an example, material in the 1985 South Dakota legislative manual should be in the public domain since it was printed and sold to the public without a copyright statement and has not been registered for copyright according to a search in the US copyright catalogue. Felix QW (talk) 12:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since several figures photographed in this publication are still without a picture, I uploaded the 1985 South Dakota Blue Book to Commons here: Commons:File:Legislative Manual, South Dakota 1985.pdf.
    Images can then also be extracted using the CropTool, and any image taken from the manual can then be connected to it as an extracted image.
    See this example: Commons:File:Leonard E Andera.jpeg. Felix QW (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Feastogether brand logos and threshold of originality

    [edit]

    I cross-posted this to commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.

    Feastogether is a Taiwanese company, meaning the applicable copyright rule for threshold of originality is commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Taiwan#Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Taiwan. The page says, "Note that any work originating in Taiwan must be in the public domain, or available under a free license, in both Taiwan and the United States before it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons."

    1. I plan to upload Feastogether brand logos that are in the public domain in both Taiwan and the United States to Wikimedia Commons.
    2. I plan to upload Feastogether brand logos that are in the public domain in the United States but not in Taiwan to the English Wikipedia.

    Which of the Feastogether brand logos in https://www.ieatogether.com.tw/admin/upload/website/kv/20240430114655_PC-KV.jpgInternet Archive (linked from hereInternet Archive and also available at https://eatogo.com.tw/zh-TWInternet Archive) meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan? Which meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan but not the United States?

    Here is my assessment:

    1. A Joy (Chinese: 饗A Joy): The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan or the United States because it contains only Chinese and English characters.
      • Can upload to Wikimedia Commons.
    2. Inparadise (Chinese: 饗饗): The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan or the United States because it contains only Chinese and English characters.
      • Can upload to Wikimedia Commons.
    3. Sunrise (Chinese: 旭集和食集錦): The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan or the United States because it contains only Chinese and English characters.
      • Can upload to Wikimedia Commons.
    4. Eat Together (Chinese: 饗食天堂): The logo does meet the threshold of originality in both Taiwan and the United States because of the blue-green drawing at the top.
      • Cannot upload to Wikimedia Commons or the English Wikipedia.
    5. Fruitful Food (Chinese: 果然匯): The logo does meet the threshold of originality in both Taiwan and the United States because of the plant drawing at the top.
      • Cannot upload to Wikimedia Commons or the English Wikipedia.
    6. Little Fuli Spicy Hot Pot (Chinese: 小福利麻辣鍋): The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan or the United States because it contains only shapes and Chinese and English characters.
      • Can upload to Wikimedia Commons.
    7. Kaifun Together (Chinese: 開飯川食堂): The logo does meet the threshold of originality in both Taiwan and the United States because of the pepper drawings at the top.
      • Cannot upload to Wikimedia Commons or the English Wikipedia.
    8. Siam More (Chinese: 饗泰多): The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan or the United States because it contains only Chinese and English characters. However, I am uncertain because the "Siam More" part of the logo uses script that appears like an elephant. Is this enough to make it meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan?
      • Can upload to English Wikipedia. But can I upload it to Wikimedia Commons?
    9. Zhiyun (Chinese: 旨醞): The logo does meet the threshold of originality in both Taiwan and the United States because of the pink and green drawings at the top.
      • Cannot upload to Wikimedia Commons or the English Wikipedia.
    10. Doricious (Chinese: 朵頤餐廳): The logo does meet the threshold of originality because of the illustration at the top.
      • Cannot upload to Wikimedia Commons or the English Wikipedia.
    11. Feastogether Corporation (Chinese: 饗賓餐旅事業): The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan or the United States because it contains only shapes and Chinese and English characters.
      • Can upload to Wikimedia Commons.

    Here is another brand logo from https://eatathome.hoyastore.com/uploads/images/202303/4f941f99ca0585f0d058e3cc2c340002.pngInternet Archive (linked from hereInternet Archive).

    1. Eat@home (Chinese: 饗在家): The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan or the United States because it contains only shapes and Chinese and English characters.
      • Can upload to Wikimedia Commons.

    Here is another brand logo from https://web.archive.org/web/20160322003020im_/http://dacoz.com.tw/images/logo.png (linked from here):

    1. Dacoz (Chinese: 大口吃): The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan or the United States because it contains only shapes and Chinese and English characters.
      • Can upload to Wikimedia Commons.

    Here is another brand logo from https://play-lh.googleusercontent.com/bRVFib-dahozjAjk5gcQgh1zsZ09AlAtI-h3b4vIWY0FBVR-vc0FVasZ3kXhJ2ML5z4=w480-h960-rwInternet Archive (linked from hereInternet Archive).

    1. iEat (Chinese: iEAT饗愛吃): The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan or the United States because it contains only shapes and English characters.
      • Can upload to Wikimedia Commons.

    Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Positron and other CartoDB themes

    [edit]

    This case seems straightforward to me, but I haven't seen anyone use these maps on Wikipedia/Commons, which makes me wonder.

    I would like to use CartoDB's themes for maps, especially the neutral theme called Positron. It looks like all maps are under CC-BY 3.0,[1] while Positron has a separate repo under CC-BY 4.0.[2]

    Does anyone know if creating a map with Positron in the background will never include graphical elements that aren't part of Positron? Are there examples on Commons that use this CartoDB/OSM theme?

    Thanks, Ynhockey (Talk) 19:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Galleries galore!

    [edit]

    Nick in the Afternoon needs a lot of gallery as a sample of galleries in pages that can't be empty every time and it's nothing to violate. 2601:447:C600:4840:14C4:AE32:4462:2D8E (talk) 23:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It only needs a gallery if the images are relevant AND meet the non-free content criteria. You've been adding images which don't meet the criteria - which is why they've been removed. Nthep (talk) 06:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The gallery has to be helped instead of removed. 2601:447:C600:4840:20A6:1555:99E2:3A9D (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Non-free content, in principle, isn't allowed to be used in galleries per WP:NFG; so, there's really no way to "help" a gallery that doesn't comply with relevnt policy to begin with. Moreover, former non-free images need to meet WP:NFC#cite_note-4 for their use to be policy compliant; so, simply moving the former logos from a gallery to in-body doesn't necessarily make their use policy compliant. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    United airlines globe logo 2010-present day

    [edit]

    I want to ask a question if it is alright with you. So how do I get a photo to be implemented into a non-free content rationale and copyright free? I read the article on how to do it in the templates but it is still very confusing. So under the brand history I want to use the current log and say 2010-present next to the old one to compare and contrast the past to now in the branding history section of the History of United Airlines article. Thanks Gymrat16 (talk) 12:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You can't make something "copyrght free", unless you happen to be its copyright holder and want to give up your rights to it. With logos, its best to assume that they're protected by copyright unless it can clearly be shown otherwise. For example, a logo may be too simple to be eligible for copyright protection as explained in threshold of originality, but this "threshold" isn't the same for all countries. This can sometimes be a tricky thing to assess, and it's probably better to ask about a specific logo here at WP:MCQ or perhaps at c:COM:VPC when you're not sure.
    FWIW, there are four logo files used in the History of United Airlines#Brand history article that are all Wikimedia Commons files (which I strongly suspect are incorrectly licensed and may even need to be deleted); so, they can technically be used in United Airlines#Brand image, but there's really no encyclopedic need to do so (regardless of how the logos are licensed) in my opinion because there's a WP:HATNOTE linking to the "History" article where they can be seen. My guess is that's where a WP:CONSENSUS has established they should be. You could try starting a discussion about this on Talk:United Airlines to see what others think, but it seems to best place to make such a visual comparison would be (again in my opinion) in the "History" article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    alright man thanks ill take time to fully process it cause ill admit it is difficult to when you only read words it is so much easier when people are in person but ofc we come from all over the world so the odds of in person meetings just aren't likely lol Gymrat16 (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions&oldid=1245542983"