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!
I am editing the page about my father where I found some errors. I wish to add or replace its images. I have scans of these images from his scrap book I would like to add.
1) This is the image that was provided when the musical he starred in was playing at the Belasco Theater in LA. The production was put on completely by active duty soldiers like him circa 1945 during WW2. The show did earn proceeds beyond the war bonds the theatrical run was intended to raise, but these proceeds were not earned by the soldiers but were used to build a
public pool at their army base, Fort MacArthur. I have included this
image from the Playbill complete with the text, but also
an image cropped the way I think it should be included on his page.
2) This
image was a publicity photo published in 1957 by American international Pictures for the release of
Reform School Girl in which he played the antagonist. It includes this copyright notice: "Permission granted for newspaper and magazine reproduction (made in USA)"
3)
This image he used as a headshot for the purpose of casting. It was either: taken circa 1962 by a photographer when my father volunteered to be a model at LA Dept. of Parks and Recreation photography events where they arranged to make various models and sets available for photographers to practice their craft. The models volunteered with the common understanding that would receive copies of the images to promote their careers; or: it may be an image specifically contracted by his agent to use as a headshot.
Hello! Could, please, someone check contribution of
Kirill Shrayber? He have uploaded images, which were made with using OpenStreetMap data, and
adds these images to articles. All images have watermark with
his site, but there is no any notices about OpenStreetMap and ODBL. Doesn't it look like copyright violation and advertisement?
Dinamik (
talk)
14:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
File:Kim Jong-suk politician photo.jpg
I'm confused. I want to understand where I might've went wrong with
this file's copyright. Keep in mind, the subject is North Korean. There's a
template on Commons that could be used to potentially support making the image public domain, though it's unknown when the image was taken and whether or not the subject is deceased.
Hi
OpalYosutebito. The reason the file has been tagged for speedy deletion has to do with
Wikipedia non-free content use criterion #1. As explained in
WP:FREER and item 1 of
WP:NFC#UUI, non-free images of living people are pretty much never allowed because it's considered reasonable that a free equivalent image can either be found or be created to serve essentially the same encyclopedic purpose as any non-free one. If, for some reason, you feel that this isn't the case with respect to this file, you can explain why by following the instructions given in the template that was added to the file's page and using the {{di-replaceable non-free use disputed}}. Just for reference, though, there needs to be a pretty strong reason for allowing a non-free image to be used in a case like this; simply saying something like the "I couldn't find a free image" or "I don't know whether the subject is dead" are generally not considered sufficient. Even saying someone is North Korean also doesn't work because for many years a non-free image of the leader of the country wasn't even allowed because he was still alive. Anyway, if, per your OP, you think this image might be within the public domain, you might want to consider asking about it at
c:COM:VPC to see what others might think. Since Commons doesn't accept fair use content of any type per
c:COM:FAIR, anything uploaded to Commons is, in principle, not subject to the same restrictions as non-free content uploaded to Wikipedia. Uploading something to Commons doesn't mean it won't ever ended up being deleted, however; which is why I suggest asking about it at VPC first. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
21:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Can you provide some more information about the book? It could help assess the copyright status of the image. Is the image attributed to anyone? Sometimes images are invidually attributed on the same page as the image, but sometimes they're attributed all together on the "Bibliography" page or some similar page in the
end matter of books.Anyway, there's a whole category of structural formula found at
c:Category:SVG structural formulas and those files seem to be using the license
c:Template:PD-chem. It could be that a particular structural formula could be can for trademark protection but not copyright protection. You might want to ask about this at
c:COM:VPC or even at
WP:CHEMISTRY because if the image you're referring to isn't eligible for copyright protection, it should be uploaded to Commons. One possibility here is that the written form of a structural formula is similar to the
blazon of a coat-of-arms in that it's not eligible for copyright protection. Visual representations of the formula might, therefore, be similar to the
emblazon of a coat-of-arms, in that they could be eligible for copyright protection. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
01:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It's not attributed at all and the book itself mentions everything is copyrighted to the publisher unless stated otherwise, which is under the image/table itself if it is. But I'll ask at Commons like you said.
Traumnovelle (
talk)
02:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Changing a family photo
I've never contributed or edited Wikipedia before, I would just like to change a picture on an existing article.
I'm a descendant of a diplomat whose current photo is apparently in the public domain, but isn't what our family would like to use to represent him. In our collection of family photos, there are several better (and clearer for the article's educational value) pictures, any one of which we would prefer over the current one.
The photographer of these photos is unknown, and my relative died only 40 years ago, so it's nearly certain that the photographer is also deceased.
How do I change an unflattering public domain picture with a family photo in a professional setting with no clear ownership or person who could grant permission?
Csg99 (
talk)
11:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Would you mind sharing the title of the page you are referring to? If the image used there is indeed in the public domain and the alternatives you have in your possession are not, then there is unfortunately not too much one can do.
Felix QW (
talk)
12:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
File:Shokz Logo.svg without a license and it being used in
Draft:Shokz. Although the uploader has declared they're being paid by Shokz to create the draft, they've given seeklogo.com as the source for the logo instead of the
company's official website for some reason. The logo appears to be the one actually being used and seems OK as {{PD-logo}}, but I just want to make sure. If it needs to be non-free, it can't be used in the draft per
WP:NFCC#9. Are there any reasons why this needs to be non-free? --
Marchjuly (
talk)
04:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Historic and current images
I want to include "now vs. then" images of a building over time. I have reviewed some of the policies but am wondering how they apply to this scenario - a building in the United States, built before 1990, but has been externally renovated or altered in the 2000's. Does using such images require permission?
Zenith4151 (
talk)
23:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi
Zenith4151. US copyright law, in principle, allows
freedom of panorama for habitable structures like buildings, houses, etc. per
c:COM:FOP United States; this means such structures can be photographed without worrying about infringing upon the copyright of buildings designer. However, this just applies to the structure itself, but not ncessarily to any decorative elements subsequently added to or integrally part of the structure. For example, you could freely photograph the side of the a building without worrying about infringing upon the copyright of the building's designer; however, if someone paints a mural on that side of the building, then said mural could be eligible its own copyright separate from the building that you would need to consider when taking and re-using the photo. In addition, freedom of panorama allows you take your own photos of buildings, but it doesn't mean you can freely use photos of buildings taken by others. Genrally, the copyright of the photo resides with the person who takes it, not the subject of the photo. Photo of 3D objects are considered eligible for copyright protection because there are a significant number of creative decisions involved in taking such a photo. So, if you stand in front of your house and taken a photo of it, you're the copyright holder of the photo and can pretty much do with it as you please; however, if your neighbor does the same, they are the copyright holder of their photo (even though it's of your house) and you can really reuse it without their consent. By "reuse" in this context, I mean upload the photo to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons as your "own work" under a "free license". --
Marchjuly (
talk)
01:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you
Jo-Jo Eumerus and
Ww2censor for taking a look at this. @Ww2censor: Maybe you could explain what you did to the local file's uploader so that they don't try and reuse the file after the "orphaned non-free use" notification shows up on their user talk page. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
22:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
Working on
a draft for a former
National Institutes of Health (NIH) virologist and I ran across
this photo posted by the official social media account for the NIH History Office. Is there any way to figure out if this counts as an "official publication of a US government employee during the course of their work", which would make it public domain?
SilverserenC01:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)reply
Old WoRMS logo – two versions of the same version of the logo, one on Commons, the other here
@
Alfa-ketosav: The local non-free file was uploaded more than a year before the Commons file was uploaded; moreover, even though the source url is the same, the uploaders of the two files are different. I can't see anything on the latest version (at least at first glance) of the source website that indicates the content contained on that page has been released under a CC-by-SA license; however, such information could be on a different inner page or I could just be missing it. The wesbite's
Terms of Use page states that text is released under a CC-by-SA license but images are released under a CC-by-NC-SA license. Whether that was the case at the time the files were uploaded, I can't say; a NC license, however, isn't free enough for Commons. My guess here, per
WP:AGF, is that the user who uploaded it to Commons just made a mistake and for some reason just thought it would be OK to do so. FWIW, that's user's Commons user talk page is filled with lots of file licensing related notifications; some of the files have ended up deleted but others have been kept. The user hasn't edited Commons or any other WMF projects
since 2018; so, they might've moved on and won't respond to a direct enquiry. The non-free seems fine at the moment; so, it's the Commons file that needs to be sorted out, and that needs to be done on Commons. Maybe try asking about it at
c:COM:VPC? If the Commons file ends up deleted, then the non-free should most likely stay non-free. On the other hand, if the Commons file is kept, then the non-free is no longer need and can be deleted. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
20:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)reply
On the page
Stochastic Terrorism, I would like to use the non-free cartoon published by UK artist Dave Brown in The Independent on 2 August 2024 -
Image from
this page depicting UK politician Nigel Farage throwing petrol bombs into a riot whilst saying "Me? I'm just tossing a few questions out there!". It would be included in the
Incidents section, with the section on the 2024 UK riots.
I think - but am not entirely sure - that this can meet Fair Use, but have little experience with non-free media outside organisation logos. Aside from being an excellent piece of commentary and illustration of Stochastic Terrorism, the work represents a very rare (and thus significant) example of directly linking Farage's speech to violent disorder. UK mainstream media have been very reticent to publicly call out right-wing extremists (especially elected MPs!) for encouraging violence - carefully couching their criticism behind free speech concepts. It is therefore of encyclopaedic value in illustrating both the concept of stochastic terrorism, and commenting on the UK media's increasingly critical position on such speech. In terms of fair use policy:
No Free equivalent - It is not realistic to find a free image that represents "commentary by mainstream media", as the latter is always copyright!
Respect for commercial opportunities. - As a daily cartoon, the work is intended to be disposable - little secondary value is envisaged. A low-resolution version would not inhibit the limited market for prints or signed copies
Minimal usage - Min legible resolution
Previous publication - published by the Independent
Content & media policy - I believe it meets these.
Contextual Significance - Stochastic terrorism is a concept that is being increasingly discussed in public discourse and this art is an early and significant piece of commentary that succinctly describes it and would increase readers' understanding.