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)

Play programme cover

I'm not sure File:The House by the Lake.png needs to be treated as non-free, at least not per c:COM:TOO US. While it's a programme cover for a performance of the play The House by the Lake, it's basically nothing but general information about the play in plain text with some other non-copyrightable elements. It could be protected as such in the UK (which seems to be the country of first publication), but it seems as if it should be OK to relicense as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} for local use on Wikipedia. Any opinions as to whether this needs to remain licensed as non-free? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• I think you're right: keep it local, with {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. Data is not copyrightable, and though the UK with its very low thresholds would probably find copyright in the design elements, in US terms, we have a box and a set of copyright-ineligible data (and a series of dots connecting the actors with roles, which is a standard presentation). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Old Motor Trend magazine scans

On the Mazda Millenia page, there are mentions of several 1992-1993 issues of Motor Trend magazine that would supply more contemporaneous context and greater detail about Mazda's original purpose/intention for this car. I have these magazines in hard copy and have made high-res scans of them, but as interesting as they are in expanding on the "Amati" section's summary, I am not 100% sure if including them on the article would constitute fair use. All the guides I've read here so far talk about magazine covers but not magazine contents for education/research purposes.

~~~~ OnceInAMillenia (talk) 02:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@OnceInAMillenia: Given the publication dates of the magazines, they are almost certainly still protected by copyright and thus trying to upload scans of them to either Wikipedia or Commons is likely going to be considered a copyright violation unless you're able to obtain the WP:CONSENT of the original copyright holder; so, I don't suggest you do that.

If the magazines are considered to be reliable sources (as defined by Wikipedia) and are used in the proper context, you possibly could cite them as sources (even if they're not available online) in support of corresponding article content as explained in H:REFB. As long as the magazines have been published and are reasonably accessible to others, they should be OK to cite. You could even possibly use short quotes from the magazines if necessary, but anything that too closely paraphrases or simply copy-pastes content directly from the magazines into an article (even if you cite the magazine as the source) is likely going to be (1) a copyright violation and (2) not written in a style appropriate for Wikipedia. If you're not sure whether the magazines meet Wikipedia's definition for a reliable source or how to use them if they do, you can always start a discussion about them on the relevant article's talk page, on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject or even at WP:RSN to see what others think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Understood, thanks for clarifying. I'll take the more measured approach you described and see if they're available online. OnceInAMillenia (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Owl WTP.jpg

The image file, File:Owl WTP.jpg, must be uploaded onto either Wikimedia or Wikipedia, preferably Wikimedia, by someone who has an account. Oh, and in case you're wondering, it must be a picture of Owl from the Disney Winnie the Pooh franchise, and it must be this image here. Just click on the link [1]. 2601:401:4300:3720:4EB9:5BA8:5D2C:AEAF (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

There are couple of issues with your request. The first one is that it's not clear why it must be that particular image Wikipedia uses when any image of the character could possibly be used to serve the same encyclopedic purpose. If an image is needed, one from the original book itself or as close as possible to when the book was published would be much more preferable than someone's fan art image since it would be likely a much more accurate representation of how the book's author and its illustrator "saw" the character.

The other problem is that the provenance and copyright status of that fan art image is unclear, which most likely means it would need to be treated as non-free content. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is quite restrictive and non-free images are generally not considered acceptable to use for illustrating individual entries in list articles. This is probably the reason why there are only five images currently being used in that list article, none of which are licensed as non-free content. Since there doesn't seem to be an individual stand-alone article about the character "Owl", the list article is probably the only place to use it on Wikipedia, and given that the book itself seem to now be within the public domain, and images taken from it are also most likely within the public domain; this makes justifying the use of any non-free one in any article is likely going to be quite hard. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

There aren't any images of Owl from the Disney Winnie the Pooh franchise on Wikipedia, nor Wikimedia, for that matter. I need it for my draft article I'm working on Owl from "Winnie-the-Pooh". I need an image of Owl from the Disney Version of Winnie the Pooh. 2601:401:4300:3720:E295:6640:4B95:4922 (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

1. Such a use in an article is going to be a blatant copyright violation, not fair use; and Disney's copyright lawyers are notoriously merciless and well-funded. The same goes (but even more so) for uploading such an image to the Wikimedia Commons.

2. Fair-use images can't be used in drafts anyway. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't Gopher (Winnie the Pooh), with its fair use image, contradict this? Commander Keane (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Gopher (Winnie the Pooh) isn't a draft so Orangemike's point 2 above (i.e. WP:NFCC#9 and WP:Drafts#Creating and editing drafts) doesn't apply. As for point 1, the Gopher character seems to have been introduced by Disney in 1966 (i.e. it's not a character from the original book); so, it's use for primary identification purposes in a stand-alone article about the character is probably OK per relevant policy. It's use in other articles or in other ways, on the other hand, probably wouldn't be considered to be policy compliant; for example, trying to use in List of Winnie-the-Pooh characters is likely not going to be allowed per WP:NFLISTS and item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI. It's probably not a copyright violation per se (fair use could be argued perhaps) to try to use the file in such a way, but Wikipedia policy is much more restrictive than fair use. What could possibly be a copyright violation per WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion and WP:COPYLINK, though, is uploading an image posted on an online forum or fandom site, unless it's clear the site is either under the control of Disney or the image was uploaded by Disney. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking for Second Opinion on Video Game Feelies

Hi. I just finished writing an article on feelies, and was reviewing examples online. I was wondering if I could get a second opinion on some potential illustrations (for reference, these are all from Infocom, a US-based corporation, and 2D-works meaning scans generate no new copyright):

• Decoder wheel, from A Mind Forever Voyaging (1985) - Potentially PD-Simple?
• "Microscopic Space Fleet", from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - Potentially PD-Simple?
• Infocard Decoder, from Seastalker - Potentially PD-Simple?

Thanks in advance.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I am not sure about the first example, but the 2nd and 3rd ones are too simple to get a copyright IMO. Yann (talk) 08:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks. I've uploaded the latter two.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Can an image on Commons be deemed ineligible for Wikipedia?

I've been looking into closing Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain. One argument there is that a deletion discussion on Commons was incorrectly closed and that the image (option A in the RfC) violates WP:C if used on Wikipedia. Is there any part of the WP:PAGs that indicates that an image uploaded to Commons can be unsuitable for WP? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Commons only hosts free media, so in principle there's no way for media on Commons to be ineligible for use on Wikipedia on copyright grounds. It seems there was confusion about the copyright status of the particular image in question that was later rectified. Remsense ‥ 论 22:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, as it has now been closed, the mentioned image has been ruled ineligible on copyright grounds despite being hosted on Commons and surviving what were effectively two Commons deletion discussions now. I really don't know what to think of this; on the one hand, Commons "is an independent project", as we always say when people ask here about Commons images, and therefore it is strange that English Wikipedia would be bound by their decisions on copyright grounds. On the other hand, we usually refer people to Commons for questions about uploading a PD image and generally treat Commons as the correct place to host and evaluate images believed to be in the public domain. The current situation, that an image is treated on English Wikipedia as a copyright violation, but Commons deems it fine to host as PD, indicates to me that there is a fundamental issue with this system. Felix QW (talk) 07:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this doesn't make sense. This is in the public domain in USA, as per PD-US-alien property, after a looong discussion. Also I don't see that the RFC concluded in a clear cut decision. Not that I care much about which image is used here for the article. Yann (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually, there is a question of the copyright of the coloring, but it is original: File:Portrait de Philippe Pétain, btv1b10336769n 24.jpg. Yann (talk) 10:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I too am less bothered about the Philippe Petain article and more worried about the precedent. For what it's worth, the main argument remaining from that RfC discussion (apart from the aside about colouring, which clearly is original) is that there is no proof that it is a government work. However, that situation seems the same for the image they did settle on in the end, so I don't know how much sense all that made. Felix QW (talk) 08:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The source says that these are official portraits. That clearly means to me that they were commissioned by the government, either to a government employee or to a private photographer. And since the photographer is not mentioned, the result is that the copyright was owned by the Vichy State. That's pure common sense, not rocket science. Yann (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I got the sense that no one really knew the answer, but enough strong opposition was raised on the copyright question that it was closed that way out of abundance of caution than on solid policy grounds. Nemov (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The innumerable complexities of copyright law (spanning decades, nations, and regimes) are more akin to rocket science than common sense, alas. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the specifics of the image at issue here, but in principle: per WP:CONEXCEPT, sister projects are "independent, co-equal communities operate however they deem necessary or appropriate, such as ... accepting or rejecting some contributions". In other words, Commons can come to a consensus that's different from the consensus that we come to here; we're not bound by their outcome any more than they are by ours. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The closer also pointed out on his talk that WP:IUPC requires proof of public domain status, which indeed seems a lot stricter than the (current interpretation of) the precautionary principle on Commons. Felix QW (talk) 09:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Reposting with fair use rationale

I posted an image that required a fair use rationale without posting a rationale. The image was removed by JJMC89 bot. I've now posted a rationale on the image's media page. A license is present there as it is already used in at least one other article. Have I satisfied all the requirements to repost the image? Thanks! Tsavage (talk) 23:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tsavage: Adding a rationale for the use of File:Warhol-Campbell_Soup-1-screenprint-1968.jpg in Postmodernism#In various arts will stop the bot from removing the file again, but it doesn't mean the use of the file is justified per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. Given that Warhol is mentioned by name twice in the article and there's no sourced critical commentary at all about his Campbell's Soup Cans painting, I do not see how adding the image to that particular article is going to satisfy non-free content use criterion #8 (WP:NFC#CS) and non-free content use criterion #1 (WP:FREER and item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI).

FWIW, you seem to have modeled the rationale you created after the once provided for the file's use in 20th-century Western painting and that's totally understandable; however, I'm not sure the use of the file in the 20th century painting article can even be justified per relevant Wikipedia policy. Lots of people simply think adding a non-free use rationale makes a file OK to use, but this actually isn't the case most of the time and often a more thorough assessment is needed. Given that there are way more people adding non-free files to articles than are familiar with relevant policy, such files can often fly under the radar for years without being properly assessed. So, once again, the rationale you added will stop the bot, but you're going to have a hard time (in my opinion) justifying that particular non-free use if someone disagrees with your assessment and brings the file up for discussion at WP:FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Marchjuly Thanks for your thoughtful reply! Having only now become aware of the fair use procedure and reading the criteria, I figured there would be some difference between how it's often used and proper use. I'd appreciate a bit more of your analysis!

In the rationale I posted, I reused a couple of what seemed like generally applicable lines, but the main argument for using the image in postmodernism was in points 2 and 3, particularly the latter. I followed the brief point form of the other rationales, but a fuller explanation would be something like, "Andy Warhol's iconic Campbell Soup series became synonymous with Warhol, pop art, and the emergence of postmodern art in mainstream society. The high recognition factor of the image makes it unusually effective in informing the general reader by placing a familiar example in the less familiar context of postmodernism."

That info could appear in a caption, but probably doesn't belong in the body of article, the image's value is as a highly recognizable/iconic image. Tsavage (talk) 03:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Since a single use of a non-free image is rather an exception to WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files that already requires a strong justification (stronger than WP:ITSFAIRUSE) per relevant policy, additional uses (either in the same article or in other articles), therefore, tend to be even more exceptional and require even stronger justifications.

When it comes to non-free images of works of art, generally the easiest place to justify non-free use would be in a stand-alone article about the work itself (if one exists) since the entire article is about the work and that's where you're likely to find reliably sourced critical commentary of the work. Next, the non-free use in a stand-alone article about the artist themselves can sometimes be justified if the reliable sources state the work is most representative of the artist's particular style or technique and is often the first work people reference when discussing the artist. However, it tends to be really hard to justify non-free use in articles about particular genres, styles, schools or periods because such articles are more general and cover a wide selection of different artists and different works per WP:SS, and very rarely go into the kind of sourced critical commentary needed to meet WP:NFCC#8. Such images tend to be more illustrative than contextual and used as general examples; as such, they can often be replaced by a free equivalent image (even a totally different image) that's encyclopedically capable of serving the same encyclopedic purpose as any non-free one. Simply mentioning the work or its artist by name is not really sufficient, while copying-and-pasting more specific content about the work from its stand-alone article into the more general article just seems unnecessary redundant when the same information can essentially be provided by WP:WIKILINKing the two articles together per WP:FREER. If the reader is able to reasonably understand the content of the article without seeing the image in question, then it's non-free use probably is going to be really hard to justify.

FWIW, the non-free rationale for an image should reflect how it the image is actually being used because it's said use, not what's written in the rationale per se, that's going to be assessed. Some people think writing an extremely detailed rationale based on how they want to use the image is all that's needed, but I think that's sort of like putting the cart before the horse. Whatever you write in the rationale is essentially nothing but WP:OR if doesn't reflect article content supported by citations to reliable sources saying essentially the same thing. Others, of course, might feel differently, but that's my take on this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Marchjuly Thanks! I think I have a pretty good practical understanding now. Cheers. Tsavage (talk) 04:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Logo of the Mișcarea Politică Unirea.png

Does File:Logo of the Mișcarea Politică Unirea.png need to be treated as non-free? It doesn't seem to be anything more than a 3D representation of Greater Romania (see File:Flag map of Greater Romania.svg), and I'm not sure that 3D effect is enough in this case to make it eligible for copyright protection in the US. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there does not seem to be any clear case law about the threshold of originality in Romania, so it' hard to guess where they would draw the line. In practice, Romanians violate copyright a lot, and no one seems much to enforce it. WMF operates under the principle of trying to follow the law even if it isn't enforced, but it gets very difficult on matters where statute is unclear and few if any cases have been brought. - Jmabel | Talk 02:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

For us at the English Wikipedia, it would be sufficient to assess it against the US threshold of originality. Unfortunately, threshold-of-originality decisions are not my strongest suit, so I am not sure. I would assume that if the 3D effect were achieved mechanically (which it how it looks to me) rather than through creative shading decisions, it would not meet the threshold, but maybe others have a clearer idea. Felix QW (talk) 10:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

File:One of Them Days.jpeg

How come the poster got removed from the article? It's an official poster and I put it on there since no one did until I did. This is the poster I'm talking about: it.https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GarCVSgWIAAlUYT?format=jpg&name=medium ColeFrye (talk) 01:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@ColeFrye, as explained in the bot's edit summary (see the diff) the file didn't have a valid fair use rationale on the file description page. In this case you need to provide a detailed fair use rationale. You can fix this on File:One of Them Days.jpeg, there are instructions to the uploader there, and try inserting again. I haven't investigated the provenance of the image or its use. Commander Keane (talk) 03:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Could you try giving me a step-by-step as to how to do this right when you have a chance? I'm kinda stuck in a loop. I'm new to this, okay? ColeFrye (talk) 03:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@ColeFrye, yeah Wikipedia is daunting and unforgiving these days for sure. The steps are on File:One of Them Days.jpeg but I can copy them below:

To the uploader:

1. Please add a detailed non-free use rationale for each article the image is used in, which must also declare compliance with the other parts of the non-free content criteria, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.
2. For example non-free use rationales, see Wikipedia:Use rationale examples.
3. This tag should only be used for posters.
4. Try using Template:Non-free use rationale poster to state the rationale.

To patrollers and administrators: If this image has an appropriate rationale please append |image has rationale=yes as a parameter to the license template.

Feel free to ask more questions here if you get stuck. Commander Keane (talk) 04:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I was able to get the poster on but in another way, so if it's gone again, I'll use it. Bear with me, I'm learning and new to this, and it's kinda tough on me. ColeFrye (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@ColeFrye: it will get removed again unless the file page gets a proper rationale, I did mention unforgiving!

Maybe look at an example poster, click edit and see what they have done in their case. Eg look at GoldenEye's edit page. Then edit the full page at your file (link) and copy stuff across and modify where appropriate. Basic editing varies depending on if you use the visual editor, source editor, mobile or desktop so it is hard to give step by step instructions.

I am note sure Goldeneye is the best example, maybe pick a different one. Commander Keane (talk) 04:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@ColeFrye looks OK now. The image needs to be smaller and I've tagged it for that. You don't need to do anything, a bot will handle it. Nthep (talk) 06:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to that idea, I was actually able to figure it out and I got it right, as in it didn't get removed! Thanks for helping. Like I said, it's kinda hard to put pictures on and make sure you need to put so much detail for copyright, and it was kinda hard on me. ColeFrye (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Kemal and Magdalena Hemady.webp

I doubt that the file is subject to the NFCC as the file was first published and presumably registered in 1931 per its description and was in the public domain (at least in the Philippines) as early as 1962 per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#For works created before 1998. -Ian Lopez @ 08:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Upload a file

I was wondering if I could add upload image taken from book. "With a photograph, copyright subsists until 50 years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the photograph is first published." As per rules written in

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Pakistan

any picture from books can be uploaded? Example from this book which was published in 1970 and exceeds 50 years

https://books.google.com.pk/books/about/Raiders_in_Kashmir.html?id=Ab8tWjdbWf4C&redir_esc=y

(Photo of a commander who led the troops in this battle Battle of Pandu) Rahim231 (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Rahim231 you're right about the copyright status in Pakistan, but the US copyright status needs to be determined as Wikipedia is hosted in the US. Was the book ever published in the US? If so, when? And was copyright claimed at the time. All this has a bearing on how any images in the book can be used here. Even if it turns out, the book is still under copyright in the US (which I suspect will be the case), the image you're asking about may still be usable under the non free content policy. Nthep (talk) 08:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The book was originally published in university of Michigan in 1970 however im not sure when was the copy right claimed. I' not aware how can i use it under non free content policy. So should i just upload it normally like any photo is uploaded ? Rahim231 (talk) 11:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Rahim231 please see the thread above #File:One of Them Days.jpeg with links on uploading non-free files. Nthep (talk) 08:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Which copyright option to choose (during upload) when edited public domain image?

I edited image from USGS, that is Public Domain and wonder which copyright option to choose during upload. Osetnik (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Osetnik. Your question is a little unclear (at least to me), but I think its a good idea to either the same or at the very least a less restrictive license when modifying a file uploaded to Commons. Since there's really nothing less restrictive than public domain per se, you probably will be fine using the same license as the original file. You should also upload the file to Commons Iif you haven't already done so) since it will be easier for others to use if uploaded there than if upload locally to Wikipedia. Uploading to Commons also makes it easier to connect the files using templates like c:Template:Extracted image, c:Template:Derived from, etc. Finally, if you've added information to the image and are doing something more than a minor correction (e.g. straightening, spelling correction), it's probably better to upload your version as a separate file because instead of c:COM:OVERWRITE because it still gives others the opportunity to use the original file if they want. Overwriting the file means that it will automatically be replacing the original wherever it was being used, and in some cases this might not be desirable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Internet Archive outage notice: non-free or PD-text?

File:Internet archive website, during DOS attack, 13th October 2024.png was uploaded as a non-free image; however, I don't see it as meeting the threshold of originality, especially the original October 13th upload which consisted of only three sentences of text. Unless anyone here thinks this should remain a non-free image, I intend to propose undeletion of the high-resolution versions and moving to Commons as facts, data, and unoriginal information which is common property without sufficiently creative authorship in a general typeface (from PD-text). Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 06:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

non-free logo rational

where would i put the rationale in the article and can you tell me where? Paytonisboss (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Assuming we are talking about the same thing, the rationale goes on the file page File:PGCPSlogo.png, arrived at by clicking the image in the article it is used in and then "Details".

For more instructions on adding a rationale you may like to read the thread above where the user had a similar problem. Also the resolution of the image is very high. Commander Keane (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)