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.
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.
If you have a question about a specific image, please be sure to link to it like this: [[:File:Example.jpg]]. (Please note the ":" just before the word File) Thanks!
This page serves as a portal for Yearly archives, inside the archives are in month format, please see the Archives in the sidebox. Thanks.
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Question about LaTeX Licensing Versus CC-BY-SA
Hello!
Some time ago, I uploaded a work I made using LaTeX,
File:DominoLogic-LaTeX.png, to Wikipedia. Not knowing which license to use, I seem to have uploaded it simultaneously under the LaTeX Project Public License and CC-BY-SA 4.0. Is this an issue? If so, how can it be resolved?
No issue. If there are two licences then that just means whoever reuses it gets to pick which terms they prefer. For example, most text on Wikipedia is both CC-BY-SA 4.0 and GFDL, but most people just reuse it under the CC.
Alpha3031 (
t •
c) 07:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
There is a specific issue with anonymously published German works, namely that for non-photographic works such as this one seems to be, the copyright term usually extends to 70 years after the author's death, even if the author is unknown. Since we have no way of knowing when the author of this advertisement died, it would be safer to upload it locally here on the English Wikipedia, where we only care about US copyright law.
Felix QW (
talk) 09:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
That's great, I'll move it to en:wp. Is the copyright notice correct, though? Many thanks,
MinorProphet (
talk) 17:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The way I understand the convoluted old German rules is that for works of fine art, which include works of applied art but not photographic works, the copyright term is always life + 70 years, regardless of anonymity. If this advertisement counts as a "work of fine art" by those standards then, one would have to wait the 120 years old-assumed period.
Felix QW (
talk) 05:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It's not exactly in the same league as a
Dürer or a
Caspar David Friedrich, is it? I would argue it is a workman-like drawing for the purpose of promoting a business, with no pretensions to as to a higher purpose. Maybe it's best on en:wp as you suggested. Cheers,
MinorProphet (
talk) 08:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
doesn't look like fine art or even applied art to me, hence my suggestion that publication +70 is applicable.
Nthep (
talk) 10:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Can this picture be uploaded to wikimedia/wikidata?
Tobost06: Sorry but no, non-free media can only be uploaded to wikis that allow non-free use. Those wikis are very few, such as the enwiki, where it is now.
ww2censor (
talk) 10:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Hey, thanks for answering so fast. Understood :) -
Tobost06 (
talk) 10:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
What is issue about this film poster
[1] not upload to
Srikanth article. Please help.
Sush150 (
talk) 09:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi
Sush150. The problem has to do with the |article= parameter in the non-free use rationale you provided for the file. You added Shrikanth (film) as the article where you want to use the file, but that page
WP:REDIRECTs to the article
Srikanta (film). That's what the bot it seeing when it checks the rationale and that's why the bot moved the file. If you want to use the file in
Srikanth (film), then that's the name of the article you should add to the rationale. It looks like you might've just misspelled the name of the film by mistakenly adding an "h" to "Srikanth". --
Marchjuly (
talk) 09:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The drawing of the Statue of Liberty is at least arguably creative enough to pass TOO; I think it goes beyond "simple geometric shapes". I certainly would not be comfortable marking it PD-logo. I would agree that it fails NFCC; if nothing else it does not have a nonfree rationale for the article it's currently used in, and I don't think a good one could be written.
SeraphimbladeTalk to me 21:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Looking to use a picture for a non-living person, and can't find a commons picture of her. I believe all fair-use requirements to have been met (for any of the ones listed). Is this the right place to ask.
I am looking to add a picture of
Olivia Frank on english Wikipedia. For rather obvious reasons, a new picture cannot be taken, and I can't find any existing pictures that are usable per commons.
Would any/every one of those meet the requirements for fair use? I believe this to be the case, but am rather inexperienced with this sort of media.
@
FortunateSons I see no reason this wouldn't be allowed. Consider the book-cover
[2] an option. Pick the one you think would be the best lead-image, and upload it at
WP:FUW - "Upload a non-free file".
Gråbergs Gråa Sång (
talk) 10:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello everyone! I noticed that this file is copyrighted and I would like to use it for the article "Torture" in the Vietnamese Wikipedia project. Can I upload it to the Vietnamese Wikipedia with full copyright details like the English version? Hope to get some help! Have a nice day!
Phong Dang (
talk) 04:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Gråbergs Gråa Sång Some members knowledgeable in this field on Vietnamese Wikipedia are currently inactive. At the Vietnamese Wikipedia project, when downloading a copyrighted image from the English Wikipedia, I often copy the entire copyright attribution of the English version to the Vietnamese version. I'm wondering if I can make the above file this way?
Phong Dang (
talk) 08:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Depends what the fair use rules on vi-WP are, and I have no idea. My impression is that en-WP is comparatively liberal in this regard.
Gråbergs Gråa Sång (
talk) 09:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
P. ĐĂNG: It depends on Vietnamese Wikipedia's copyright policy. The photo is public domain in the US, but some wikis require that files also be public domain in the country where most of that wiki's editors are located. If Vietnamese Wikipedia has that policy, then we have to look at Vietnamese copyright law, which would protect this photo for
75 years from publication, which is 2044. (Though the photo may also be allowable as non-free content, depending on Vietnamese Wikipedia's version of
WP:NFCC and on how you intend to use it).
Toohool (
talk) 15:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Chiyo Nakamura image
Greetings. I found an image I'd like to upload. It's a crop/screen shot of an image of a dancing shaman woman from the disappearing Nivkh culture. The dancer is
Chiyo Nakamura. The image appears numbered 019 on PDF page 69 (publication page number 64)(bottom right). I'm hopeful the image I found qualifies under some licensure (non-copyrighted, free use?)
Here's the image provenance: the actual author (photographer) is unknown. The publisher of
the document that contains this image is the Osaka National Museum of Ethnology. The author of the publication containing the image,
Chuner Taksami, obtained the image from the "personal collection" of a former (different, defunct) museum director (Yonemura Tetsuhide), a private individual who is/was the apparent owner. Whose property is it when I crop a page from the government publication (with this provenance)? How does no-copyright or fair use smell to you? FWIW it appears everyone involved except the Osaka museum is now dead. Thanks for your input!
JFHJr (
㊟) 21:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
PS. The photographer snapped the photo "in the 1950s" per Chuner (I find him reliable). His government-published work is from 2004. Cheers.
JFHJr (
㊟) 22:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Is Nakamura still living? The article states he was born in 1906 and refers to him using the past tense, but it doesn't provide any reliably sourced verifiable information about his death. Before trying to add an image of him to the article, it might be better to first find a reliable source regarding his death.
Wikipedia's non-free content use policy doesn't, in principle, allow
non-free images of still living persons to be used, absent some prettylimited circumstances; so, if it can be verified that Nakamura has died, then a photo still under copyright protection could be used as long as its use satisfies all
ten non-free content use criteria. If, however, Nakamura is still alive, then a non-free photo becomes much harder to justify and it would be better to try a find a freely licensed or public domain photo of him to use instead.Different governments have different copyright laws and not everything you find in a government publication is free from copyright restrictions just because it's in a government publication. Moreover, the fact that "everyone involved in now dead" doesn't automatically mean the photo is no longer under copyright protection because intellectual property rights, like most other assests, can be transferred to others either through a formal transfer agreement or as part of an inheritence. The photographer who took the photo is going to be considered the copyright holder. If the photographer is dead, then it's possible their heirs or maybe even the museun now own the rights to the photo. The
first publication of the photo also matters when assessing copyright status; so, if the photo was first published in 2004 (even though the author may have died many years before), that could be when the copyright countdown clock starts so to speak. For example,
under US copyright law, works orginating in the US which have an unknown author and which are first published in 2003 or later are eligible for copyright protect for 120 years the after the date of creation or 95 years after the date of publication, whichever comes first. In this case, though, the subject of the photo is Japanese so
c:COM:JAPAN might be relevant as well if the photographer is/was Japanese, the document you linked to above seems to be in Russian, which also means
c:COM:RUSSIA might also be relevant if that was the first time the photo was published.Unless the photo clearly originated with the publisher of the document, it's best to sssume it came form somewhere else which means the copyright laws of mutliple coutnies might need to be considered. The author/publisher of the document might have received permission to use the photo, but it can't be assumed that permission extends to any other third-party like Wikipedia unless it explicity states so. For this reason, it might be a good idea to ask about this at
c:COM:VPC because Commons is a global (i.e. multi-lingual) project and there might someone who understands Russian there who can help sort things out. English Wikipedia is mainly only concerned with US copyright law with respect to content it hosts, and the photos in that document don't seem to be eligible for hosting on English Wikipedia in any way other than non-free use. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 02:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
According to ja-WP, Nakamura died in 1969. If there's a decent source for that, uploading locally at en-WP at
WP:FUW as non-free shouldn't be a problem.
Gråbergs Gråa Sång (
talk) 08:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I saw that and removed it after I couldn't find it in a reliable source. I reached out for a date or year of death on ja-wiki.
JFHJr (
㊟) 22:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Actually, I found a good source for the 1969 DOD. I'll work on the upload later this week or this weekend as time permits. Thanks,
Gråbergs Gråa Sång!
JFHJr (
㊟) 04:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
JFHJr: You're not required to do so, but I suggest using the
copyright license {{
Non-free biog pic}} and the
non-free use rationale {{
Non-free use rationale biog}} for the file if you're going to upload it as non-free. You might not be allowed to do so at first if you use the upload wizard, but you can modify the license and the rationale after the file has been uploaded. Try to fill in the parameters of the non-free use rationale template as much as possible and as accurately as possible. It would also be helpful if you could provide a link to the publication's general copyright page as the "general source" and a link to the specific page the photo can be found on as the "direct source" to make it easier for others to find both the photo and its licensing. If you Google how to link to a specific pdf page, you should be able to figure it out. When I click on the link, it downloads the pdf to my computer. This could just be my setting or it could be something at the source. Whatever the reason is, it's not really desirable and it's better for the source to open up when clicked. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 05:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
And done, I think. Thanks!
JFHJr (
㊟) 20:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Is it acceptable – in the context of
WP:Non-free content – to have two album covers in an article of a song, like the article
Selos (Shaira song)? One album (at the infobox) is of 2024 while the other is the first album (when the song was first released in 2023). JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.) 01:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi, This is a great image, but I have some doubt about the copyright claim. If it was renewed, should it be by Margaret Bourke-White or by Life? Thanks,
Yann (
talk) 18:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply