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)

Who owns the copyright of book covers?

If no cover artist is named, it's generally the publishing company, not the author of the book, right?

And if no author is named, then is it an anonymous work? The Quirky Kitty (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

It is usually the publisher, yes. I don't think it's ever been practice for cover artists to retain the rights to their work—it would be a lot of leverage when your client is copying it over and over and over. Remsense诉 01:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, Rem, artists such as Michael Whelan and Boris Vallejo license their cover art to a publisher for use on a specific book, but retain all other rights, and make a nice sum by then publishing collections of their work. But a publisher using a cover by a Whelan or a Vallejo would give artist credit, usually on the dustjacket [if any] as well as inside the book. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Quite! Yes, I was a bit too universalizing there. Thank you for the elaboration. Remsense诉 15:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

So is there any distinction between book covers and (hardback) dust jackets? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

From a copyright point of view, no. Tangentially: it is my observation that publishers of hardcovers and trade paperbacks are a smidgen more likely to be fully professional about artist credits than those who publish mass market paperbacks, magazines and comics; and that this was especially true before, say, 1970 or so. This has been a bane of collectors and other scholars of publishing, most especially mass market/popular culture publishing. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Is it correct to say that an artwork may be used on, or adapted for, a book cover, but that the copyright for the artwork itself may be retained by the artist? So one might see "painting of such-and-such reproduced with kind permission of so-and-so"? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes. It is not unusual to see famous copyrighted artworks (such as some of the works of M. C. Escher) licensed for use on book covers, for instance. I'm not sure of the wording of the copyright notice in such cases, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if it varies between different copyright jurisdictions. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The nearest 2005 hardcover to my hand says, "Illustrations by X Y" on the copyright page; so presumably the publisher bought all rights, or it's a work-for-hire. Reaching for a 1968 U.S. mass-market paperback, there is nothing whatsoever anywhere in the book to tell you who created the art or holds the copyright, although there's a surname in the usual place on the cover painting. I observe, though, that the copyright notices reserve "the right to reproduce this book or portions thereof" and "the right of reproduction in whole or in part"; which must be presumed to include the cover art. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to these responses, I can conclude that we can't judge a book cover by its cover. Unless someone accesses a copy to see if the author is credited, we can't tell when copyright expired. We can only declare book covers public-domain if {{PD-US-expired}}, {{PD-old-assumed}}, {{PD-text}} or similar applies.

I have an interest in fixing files that are mistakenly licensed as fair use, and there's a bunch of new book covers, which is why I inquired. This is the same standard I used for my previous edits and I'll continue following it. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I have received permission to use three book covers for the GA Ernie O'Malley:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernie_O%27Malley

How do I show an administrator the relevant email from the publisher? I don't want my details to appear publicly, although the admin. will need to be satisfied with the permission and, I trust, be able to point me towards updating the relevant licences so that the images don't fall foul of whatever!

The three book covers in question have not yet been uploaded to Commons.

Thanks, Billsmith60 (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Billsmith60: You said ask the copyright holder to send a WP:CONSENT to Wikimedia VRT for verifiction purposes. Please make sure that both you and the copyright holder take a close look at the example email given on that page because it pretty much covers everything needed by VRT to verify the copyright holders consent. Essentially, the copyright holder needs to agree to release their copyrighted content under a free license that pretty much is going to allow anyone anywhere in the world to download the book covers at anytime and then reuse for any purpose (including commercial and derivative use ones) as long as they comply with the terms of the license chosen by the copyright holder; the copyright holder just giving their consent to you or Wikipedia, or just for educational use (e.g. use on Wikipedia) isn't sufficient. For some examples of the kinds of licenses generally considered free enough take a look at c:COM:CC and c:COM:LJ. FWIW, the copyright holder is not transferring their copyright ownership to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) or anyone else, they're just making a version of their work more easily available for others to use by making it a bit less encumbered by copyright related restrictions. Some other things you might want to ask the copyright holder to look at are c:COM:ENFORCE, c:COM:LRV and c:COM:REUSE because the free licenses Wikipedia accepts are non-revocable and neither the WMF or anyone associated in it steps in to try and resolve disputes over the reuse of the content.

If the copyright holder still wants to give their consent after all of the above, you or they should first upload the book covers directly to Commons as explained in c:COM:UPLOAD. Make sure that if you upload the covers, you don't claim them as your c:COM:Own work, even if you download files of them found online to your computer and then upload those files or otherwise photograph them and then upload your photos. The names of the files uploaded should be included in the email sent to VRT because it makes things easier for VRT. VRT will review the email and if everything checks out, it will add the template {{Permission ticket}} to each file's page. If things don't check out, it will add {{Permission received}} and contact the sender of the email to explain why. VRT volunteers only discuss specifics via email and only with those who send the emails because they're required to sign a confidentiality agreement regarding the emails they have access to and review. There are, however, general noticeboards at WP:VRTN and c:COM:VRTN where general questions can be asked by anyone, but VRT wont's go into specifics. In addition, VRT generally doesn't accept forwarded emails (i.e. something the copyright holder emails you that you then email to VRT); it's better for the copyright holder or their representatives to directly email VRT themselves using their official/business email address. If the whole email thing seems too much of a hassle, the copyright holder can always try some of the things described in c:COM:VRT#When contacting VRT is unnecessary. I posted a lot, so if you've got any question feel free to ask. Someone should be able to answer them for you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi - and thank you very much. Is the email address "permissions-en@..." [i.e. a hyphen] or "permissions–en@..." [i.e. a dash]? As the email addresses are images to stop spamming, I can't tell which to use Billsmith60 (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi - and thank you very much. Is the email address "permissions-en@..." [i.e. a hyphen] or "permissions–en@..." [i.e. a dash]? As the email addresses are images to stop spamming, I can't tell which to use Billsmith60 (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

How much of copyrighted poem ok to copy?

On Talk:Descartes' theorem/GA1, the Good Article reviewer (Kusma, please correct if I am misrepresenting your position) is pushing to include more lines from a still-copyrighted poem (published in UK 1936, author died 1956, so still in copyright for a few more years) and its slightly later and also-still-copyrighted extension by another author. The poem consists of three ten-line stanzas, with one more stanza in the extension (it can be found in full in its original publication at https://www.nature.com/articles/1371021a0 and elsewhere). Currently we quote two lines, properly formatted and cited as a block quote per WP:NFCCP, an amount I'm comfortable with being within the bounds of fair use (for a poem that made the topic famous and itself is discussed in more detail in the article). The quoted lines appear in the lead, with the double intent of serving as a summary of part of the article discussing the poem and as an accessible summary of the theorem itself. However the reviewer feels that material in the lead should be expanded later and that the later discussion of the poem doesn't count as an expansion: to quote the poem in the lead we need to quote more of the poem later. I guess the MOS:LEAD question is off-topic for this board, but a better question for this board would be: is there a valid fair-use case for quoting the poem at any greater length, for instance for the purpose of expanding the lead? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@David Eppstein Interesting, I've not seen a poem used as a summary before. Per NFCC#8 it's down to contextual significance and is the poem itself the subject of sourced commentary. The other test would be, does including any more of the poem increase the reader's comprehension of the article? On a brief reading of the poem in full and the article, my personal opinion is no (but then Wikipedia articles on maths make my eyes glaze over after a short whole, so perhaps I'm not the best judge), the couplet is succinct and gets its point across. Nthep (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

(If the question above is there a valid fair-use case for quoting the poem at any greater length, for instance for the purpose of expanding the lead is actually about WP policy regarding fair use then my comment here isn't very helpful)

Generally, copyright law allows the reuse of small amounts of material so long as they don't interfere with the rights of the original. So the first test is: would the amount quoted deter someone from purchasing the book, because they had already read most of the poem? The second test is, whether the snippets taken serve the stated purpose of criticism and review of the poem. If the snippets are needed to explain the points being made, then that is fair use. If on the other hand, they repeat points already made, then you'd need to explain that the repetition is the point your are explaining; if the sense added is just giving the reader greater enjoyment or aesthetic appreciation, then fair use proabably doesn't apply.

To be on the safe side, I would say that whatever explanation of the poem should appear with its use.

If you want to be cautious, repeating the same quote might be unwise (it could be seen as "unecessary")

I don't think that internal questions about the use of the material have any relevance to copyright law. The whole point is whether the use interferes with the rights of the author, and whether the use itself is for a reasonable purpose (that couldn't be completed without the use of the material).

Where I think you may have a problem is that the poem doesn't seem to be central to the question. It's being used for explanation, rather than "criticism and review". That might interfere with the rights of the author, and it isn't clear that the poem is in any way necessary to explain the theorem, it's just nice to have.

Thus, quoting it to say "this is really [simple / neat / complicated], so much so that someone wrote a famous poem, the essence of which can be seen in this quote" might be OK, but using it as a tool to take the reader through the issue, feels like you would need to argue "educational purposes" but again that feels hard to claim since the poem isn't the topic of the article. US folks may have a wider view on educational purposes though. It might work better if the article was an explanation of how to explain concepts with poetry, as a worked example, or if thr article was an explanation of how the poet / poem explained the theorem. --Jim Killock (talk) 08:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I do think the fair use case is good enough to quote an entire stanza of the poem, which is usually quoted at length when the theorem appears in the recreational mathematics literature. Some of the poem is in my view necessary to include simply because it introduced and popularised the terminology "bends" and "kissing". That said, I do not think I am "pushing", I am merely suggesting, and I know that my own view on lead sections (I believe they should be a summary of the body that makes sense on its own, and also that the body should make sense independent of the lead, so they are like putting the Micropædia and Macropædia together) is not fully aligned with everyone else's, so following my GA review suggestions is certainly not mandatory. —Kusma (talk) 09:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Quoting the original source of certain terms might well be reasonable "fair use", so long as it was only enough to understand the sourcing. If a stanza is commonly quoted, I would think that's OK to use because of the context - you are explaining / educating people regarding what is often quoted and why. If the poem had an educational purpose, ie was intended to be used to teach or explain this way, include information on that, if you can. Context is everything :) There aren't any hard and fast rules, even more so in the USA. In the main, fair use implies you don't over do it, have a clear ideally unavoidable reason for it, and ensure full attribution (for WP, this might mean to attribute each time, record your reasoning in a reference or efn perhaps, as per WP images etc? Odd to note that WP has massive governance over fair use in images but little regarding text). Jim Killock (talk) 12:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

My impression is that sources that quote entire stanzas (1/3 of the poem!) tend to do so with permission rather than through fair use. At least, that is, sources in reputable publications that pay attention to copyright issues. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Are songs viewed in the same way as poems in this regard? The limit for audio samples of songs is 30 seconds or 10%, whichever is the smaller. Does a figure of 10% (wherever this has come from) also apply to parts of a written poem / song? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

There is, contrary to popular myth, no "magic number" for fair use. Sometimes even use of a tiny portion of a work would fail the fair use test, and sometimes use of the whole thing would pass it. 10% is a decent rule of thumb, but that doesn't mean it's always okay, and generally speaking the less used the better. Aside from fair use, this is also a free content project, so in general we also should keep our use of nonfree material to an absolute minimum and only when there is truly no alternative. That normally pops up in relation to images, but it is equally true of nonfree text. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Rightful owners need copyright license. Evidence can be provided.

File:Ginger Jar filled with Chrysanthemums By Van Gogh.jpg The current owners never sold it to the creative commons license holder. We have proof of ownership. This should be cross checked and decided fairly. Myfirsts (talk) 05:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Myfirsts, that file is on Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. We do not have any control over Commons, so if you think there's a problem with an image there, you would have to resolve it there. That said, as van Gogh died in 1890, his work would, at least so far as I know, all be in the public domain at this point. But if you have a specific question about its copyright status, you could raise that at their discussion area for copyright-related issues. I would suggest being more specific than you are above; it is not very clear what you're trying to say. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Seraphimblade for your response. Have mentioned the issue at the discussion page as well. The issue is not the copyright of the picture but as this file link has been used to showcase the current possession of the painting under the CC licensee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_by_Vincent_van_Gogh it clearly disputes the fair use. The rightful owners have the possession of the painting and would like to claim the CC license and current location as well.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ginger_Jar_filled_with_Chrysanthemums_By_Van_Gogh.jpg#%7B%7Bint%3Alicense-header%7D%7D Myfirsts (talk) 06:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't change that it is, due to age, in the public domain. So, to be frank, what they want does not particularly matter. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

If the point is that the Creative Commons license and Own Work claim made at the file page are incorrect, I fully agree. Someone should correct that page, put van Gogh as the author and add the proper public domain license. Felix QW (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Felix QW That would lead to fair use. Van Gogh as the author and public domain license instead of individual copyright. Myfirsts (talk) 05:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

This version of Ginger Jar Filled With Chrysanthemums isn't in use in List of works by Vincent van Gogh, this version - commons:File:Van Gogh - Ingwertopf mit Chrysantemen.jpeg is, where it is noted as being in the possession of Titan Investments. If that statement is incorrect and the list article needs updating, that can be addressed. Nthep (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Nthep This work is listed as No: F 198 JH 1125 Year 1885 in the List of works by Vincent van Gogh, and commons:File:Van Gogh - Ingwertopf mit Chrysantemen.jpeg and also at No F 198 (serial no 274) at el wikipedia [[1]] and all listings have it as collection of Titan Investments. This statement is factually incorrect and a source of right information can be invoked to rectify the listing in the above mentioned page. Myfirsts (talk) 06:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Myfirsts So, what is the right information and the source for that. All it needed at the start was an edit to say - this isn't owned by Titan Investments, it's now owned by XYZ and here's the source(s) that verifies that. Nthep (talk) 07:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Nthep Right information is in form of Insurance provided to the owners for the painting and can be shared as a pdf. The apprehension is to not reveal the name of the owners but to keep it as private collection. Please suggest how and where to share it.

Myfirsts (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

This is clearly not the right forum for this discussion, but on the other hand, spreading it may not be a good idea. The only still-active source for it that we cite in the list article, the Van Gogh Gallery, lists it simply as "private collection". On the other hand, a 2021 article by TechBullion explicitly names it as an asset of Titan Investments. Felix QW (talk) 10:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

There's a couple of other tech/crypto sites mention Titan Investments in 2021 so I'm inclined to believe these are articles based off a press release. If we think the Van Gogh Gallery is a more reliable source then let's just change the list article and file descriptions to say it's in a private collection.

(Correct, this wasn't really the place to go beyond the copyright issue, but no harm done in keeping it in one place and finalising it). Nthep (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nthep I'd be happy with that, in particular because "private collection" is in fact more general and does not make any decision on this putative ownership dispute. Felix QW (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Going by how the WMF has handled the dispute from the National Portrait Gallery, we consider mechanical reproduction of 2d works that are in the public domain (that is, a simple photographic image of the art) as uncopyrightable and thus would be in the public domain. This is consistent with the US Copyright Office stance. So while they may believe they claim ownership, we are just going to ignore that, with the backing of the WMF. Masem (t) 16:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Masem The issue is to put this image as public domain license as you rightly pointed out and to stop misuse of CC licensee by Titan Investments to claim possession of painting.

Myfirsts (talk) 06:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Myfirsts, I have changed the licensing information. Reply here if there are any more issues. ⟲ Three Sixty! ^Talk? _Work. 11:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Three Sixty! This is fair and correct. Please see below the other issue.

Felix QW has provided information that Van Gogh Gallerylists it simply as "private collection". Another article article by TechBullion mentions it as an asset of Titan Investments. But this an fabricated information based on a withdrawn sale agreement and Titan Investment's trick of CC licensing of an Photographic image of Art. Titan Investment also managed (based on CC license) to mention that they are in possession of the painting and to get listed as possession holders as No: F 198 JH 1125 Year 1885 in the List of works by Vincent van Gogh, and commons:File:Van Gogh - Ingwertopf mit Chrysantemen.jpeg and also at No F 198 (serial no 274) at el wikipedia [[2]]. This is factually incorrect. Latest Storage slip of the painting at the Art Storage facility at Berlin and Insurance copy provides the names of current owners. This information can be shared through PDF (please suggest where) but then be listed as Private Collection as art is normally listed as an option, in the above mentioned pages and file.

Myfirsts (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Three Sixty! Thanks for responding earlier. Please suggest the way ahead.

Myfirsts (talk) 05:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Myfirsts, I haven't been following the discussion, so I'm not sure I can help much. Do you have an issue with the collection field saying "Private Collection"? ⟲ Three Sixty! ^Talk? _Work. 12:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Three Sixty! This collection is "Private". It was claimed otherwise

based on CC license. Myfirsts (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

So there is no more problem, right? ⟲ Three Sixty! ^Talk? _Work. 20:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Three Sixty! For now, yes.

Myfirsts (talk) 08:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Use of non-free images on rock climbs

I have done/tidied up articles on Wikipedia on famous rock climbs. It is very hard to get license-free images of the routes themselves that can be uploaded to WikiCommons. Am I allowed to upload 'non-license free' examples to en-WP under a non-free use rationale? For example, the famous route Indian Face has great non-free images showing how terrifying it is in this article. Am I allowed to upload one of these images (they are not large or high-res) under non-free use to en-WP for use in the article? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Aszx5000, in my opinion, this would unfortunately not be allowed. Even if no equivalent free images currently exist, the non-free image would likely be considered replaceable with a free image because it would be theoretically possible for someone to make the climb and take a picture themselves. ⟲ Three Sixty! ^Talk? _Work. 21:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Aszx5000 (talk) 14:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Template:Internet Archive game

Seeking an opinion from the copyright experts on {{Internet Archive game}}. Until last night when I edited the documentation, which you can see in the history, this guideline suggested that as long as the game was listed in a curated collection by one of archive.org archivist, it was fine to link. Internet Archive has a DMCA exemption to host copyrighted software, at least, according to our article on the site. However, that is simply an exemption from the DMCA. It is still hosting copyrighted material without permission. The exemption protects Archive.org, not Wikipedia. As such, I believe the use of this template would fail WP:COPYLINK in almost all cases for video games, as nearly all would fall under copyright. Of course, in cases where a game is freely licensed and such, its fine. But the curated collections previously linked included full games from Sega, Capcom, Bandai and others, who very much definitely have not given copyright permission for Sonic the Hedgehog, Street Fighter or Pac-Man, etc.... -- ferret (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Some video games are not in copyright, for example, Spacewar! and The Oregon Trail are released into public domain, it can be linked. 103.154.139.130 (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Which I already called out above. The question isn't about public domain content, clearly. -- ferret (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Other Internet Archive-related external link templates related to media, such as {{Internet Archive film}}, {{Internet Archive music}} does not have a linking guidance as well? 103.154.139.130 (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I can't tell if there's more of an issue with all these Internet Archive templates than just the games template. GamerPro64 05:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah not really trying to tackle issues other media spaces have. Just hoping for more views on the WP:COPYLINK and "archive.org is hosting complete copies of copyrighted video games". It seems like an absolute no to me, but I had hoped some copyright experts might weigh in. -- ferret (talk) 13:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The issue with linking to illegally hosted material is that one is, in essence, participating in the illegal activity. So it would certainly be a problem if we were, for example, linking to stuff on a pirate site. But since IA is legally hosting the material, there is no illegal activity to be a participant in, and therefore I cannot imagine how linking to it is a problem. We are just telling the reader where to find an entirely legal resource. It would be no different than telling someone which public libraries had copies of a given book. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade So archive.org's exemption from the DMCA is seen as an exemption from all copyright law? Therefore they can host any software they want without permission from copyright holders, and we are allowed to link to it? I find this... dubious. -- ferret (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Are you asserting that they're not acting legally? If so, on what basis? I can't imagine that the publishers of those games are unaware of their practice, and yet they've taken no action. If you've got good cause to think what they're doing is illegal, that's a different story, but there are various exceptions within copyright law, and if no one has yet gone after them for this, I cannot imagine that its legality is in serious question. It looks like they requested, and received, approval from the Library of Congress for doing that, so this isn't some fly-by-night pirate operation. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Evidence that an image is accepted as Public domain

Hi there, I recently uploaded c:File:Drawing of the Shrine of Little St Hugh, Lincoln Cathedral, William Dugdale, 1641.png. The image is discussed at this FAC Image Review, where I was asked when it was first published: the answer being 1986. This means it may be in copyright as a relatively newly published work. Information is unclear. However, I contacted the British Library as the repository and owner of the original domcument and they have confirmed by email that they regard the original as public domain, thus scans or photographs would count as copyright free; they have no objection to the image being published here. I understand that WP may have a process to record this, such as keeping email records etc - can someone point me to what I should do to ensure WMF has a copy of this confirmation? Jim Killock (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I've reposted this to Commons Village pump as they might be better placed to answer this. Jim Killock (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Pinxton Castle Lidar.png source says "Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0"

Is that enough?[3] It isn't one of the choices I get when I upload. Doug Weller talk 16:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller Looks like you need {{OGL-3.0}}. If there's any attribution required, you can add it in the template. Nthep (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. But how do I add that? It should be listed in the dropdown box. Doug Weller talk 17:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

which upload method did you use? Nthep (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, there is a higher resolution (1m lidar) version available here (and is there a specific reason why it isn't on Commons?) – Isochrone (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

That looks better. Are you saying it has a compatible licence? I used special upload.[[[Special:Upload]]] . If you mean my file, I didn’t want to upload to Commons without a licence. Doug Weller talk 19:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller All Environment Agency LiDAR data is released under the OGLv3. I am happy to move the file to Commons with the correct licence if you wish. – Isochrone (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

That would be great, thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done, see c:File:Pinxton Castle Lidar.png – Isochrone (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I definitely have to write the article instead of putting it off! Doug Weller talk 19:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Link to IA copy of The Eternal Jew (film)

WP:COPYLINK states that if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of copyright, do not link to that copy of the work without the permission of the copyright holder. Since copyright protection in Germany technically lasts until 70 years after the author's death, would The Eternal Jew (film) be considered to be under copyright protection? And if so, should a link to the Internet Archive page hosting a copy of the film be included in the article under WP:COPYLINK? Liu1126 (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Essentially the same question I've poised above at #Template:Internet Archive game so following. -- ferret (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The first question would be who actually owns the rights to the film. Is it a person, company, or defunct government? -- GreenC 15:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Hard to say. My understanding of UrhG is that the director, screenwriter, and maybe even the editors, narrators, and cinematographers would hold joint authorship of the film (it seems that only individuals can hold copyright in Germany; companies and other organisations cannot). On the other hand, UrhG was first enacted in 1965, long after the film's publication in 1940; I'm not sure if it applies retroactively. Furthermore, given the film's sensitive nature in relation to antisemitism, some of the authors, especially the director, have regretted or denied their involvement in the film, which further complicates the issue of authorship. Liu1126 (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah, according to this paper in the Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities, Nazi propaganda and documentation materials generally remain under copyright, since many of their creators survived the War. I guess this answers the first question of copyright, so the situation is pretty much the same as ferret's question above (though I suspect the authors of these propaganda works may be less inclined to sue for copyright violations). Liu1126 (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

There's an awful lot of copyrighted works uploaded to Internet Archive, often by people who don't appear to have rights to do so - we should not be linking to books and films on the Internet Archive unless we either convince ourselves that they are PD or that they have been uploaded by someone with the rights to do so. If in doubt, don't link.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Good point, I've removed the link. Liu1126 (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The copyright on Mein Kampf was tightly held by the Government of Bavaria, which tried to tightly control who and how it was reproduced.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

As per Copyright law of the European Union "For films and other audiovisual works, the 70-year period applies from the last death among the following people, whether or not they are considered to be authors of the work by the national law of the Member State: the principal director (who is always considered to be an author of the audiovisual work), the author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogue and the composer of music specifically created for use in the cinematographic or audiovisual work." So, in case of the Eternal Jew, the director died in 2002, so it will be copyrighted in Germany until 2073 (or longer, if I've missed someone.)

In the US, which is more relevant, I think it's probably in the public domain, since it probably wasn't renewed, and then the URAA wouldn't have restored copyright to a German governmental work. That's a gut feeling, because I don't have more time right now.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The Yale Paper linked by Liu1126 is fascinating generally. There is a section starting on page 154 called "Anonymous Masses" that is purpose-written for sites like archive.org and Wikipedia, dealing with mass digitization, orphan works, libraries and copyright. Page 156 says the law allows libraries to archive these films, but they can only be viewed within the premise of the library. Internet Archive is a registered public library, but also entirely online, there is no physical library in the tradition sense, only racks of hard drives. The law has not accounted for this yet but the paper (2018) says there are efforts to do so. -- GreenC 15:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Is there an exception from the rule of the shorter term for US works under UK copyright law?

During my research for my post in the WMF blog for this year's Public Domain Day, I came across the odd fact that because of an 1892 agreement between Germany and the United States (de:), German copyright law disregards the rule of the shorter term for (some) US works.

This yields to the odd result that the 1928 Disney classic Steamboat Willie, while not being protected anymore in the United States, remains protected under German copyright law.

Could it be that the same applies to UK copyright law because of a similar agreement? Gnom (talk) 09:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not impossible, but the German rule appeared in a specific court case involving a specific bilateral treaty. Did the UK treaty say the same thing? (I'm a bit stunned that the Germans signed a treaty that was so lax and not explicit about US responsibilities; the US could remove all rights from all foreign works and still be in technical compliance with that treaty, and at the time it ensured that if a German publisher published simultaneously in the US, they could get US copyright.) Would a UK court rule that this treaty was still in effect; perhaps the mutual adherence of the UK and US to the UCC and later Berne superseded the previous treaty. I really don't know and don't see any advantage to second-guessing other sources unless the British government puts a stand on the matter.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/copyright-notice-duration-of-copyright-term/copyright-notice-duration-of-copyright-term#foreign-works is the official UK statement on the matter. Robert Brauneis, a scholar in residence at the US Copyright Office, wrote https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2014/01/27/do-most-us-authors-still-only-enjoy-a-copyright-term-of-life-plus-50-in-the-eu/ saying "Some of them seem to provide for national treatment without any exception for term. In 2003, the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main held that a US work was still under copyright in Germany even though its copyright in the US had lapsed, because of a national treatment obligation Germany had undertaken in an 1892 treaty between the US and the German Empire. But there is still a great deal of uncertainty in this area: How should those treaties be interpreted? Is there legislation implementing them? And will courts be willing to apply the treaties in the absence of implementing legislation?"

Another gov.uk site points to https://www.ipo.gov.uk/c-notice-submit.htm and says "If you’d like more guidance about an area of copyright law[, y]ou can also ask IPO to publish guidance about an area of copyright law. They might publish a public ‘copyright notice’ if your question highlights a gap in the general copyright guidance." I'm happy to let it rest, but if you want the UK government opinion, they might give you one.

(Slightly off-topic, I find the rule of the shorter term to be a bad idea. For one, it means that a e.g. Thai judge has to interpret hairy points about where France's "died for France" extensions are still in effect, who could file a US copyright renewal and when, and how Russia's rehabilitation extensions work, even if they have little English, less French, and no Russian. For another, it's driven copyright extensions; increasing a copyright duration locally is going to be a economic loss or draw, with local publishers and artists arguing for and against it, but increasing local works' copyright duration in foreign nations is an economic win, so copyright holders argue for extensions based on the rule of the shorter term giving longer terms in foreign nations.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for these thoughts, @Prosfilaes. Let me quickly respond to a couple of points you raised: (1) Yes, the German treaty is very real and does have the effect of granting Steamboat Willie continued protection. The Brauneis article is outdated because the German Federal Court of Justice has since decided on the issue. (2) What I am interested in is actually the UK lex scripta on this issue.

Therefore, as a starting point, can you help me check whether there is a similar agreement for the UK, whether it is still in force, and if it contains an exception from the rule of the shorter term? Gnom (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Having looked through UK treaties, I see no treaty on the subject. Looking through US historical records, it seems the UK permitted US citizens to register copyrights in the British Empire without need for a treaty, and correspondingly the US extended the same privileges to British citizens (by presidential proclamation) without further formalities. That's as far as I'm interested in going, as I find the whole thing a little quixotic.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Team-zeropercent-logo.png

This logo is the P Switch sprite from Super Mario Bros. 3 but the letter P is replaced with "0%". Isn't there a copyright issue with this? 2001:8003:1D5E:9F00:154A:8992:E279:CD5F (talk) 07:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Team-zeropercent-logo.png looks like a copyvio from [4], deleted accordingly. Nthep (talk) 11:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Uploading a non-commercial non-derivative CC license image

I found an image I'd like to use in an article that is licensed under the 'Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.', I can't upload it to Commons as that requires the image to allow commercial and derivative use and the only other option is to submit to Wikipedia as a non-free image. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Traumnovelle. I might be missing something but you seem to be answering your own "question" in a way. You're correct that non-commerical and non-derivative Creative Commons licenses are not acceptable for Commons or Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia (unlike Commons) does allow certain types of copyrighted media content to be uploaded and used as non-free content as long as the content and its usage complies with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. Wikipedia's policy is mainly based on the concept of fair use/fair dealing, but it's much more restrictive by design and it can be hard to say whether something is OK without more specific details. So, if you can post where you're going to get the image from, which article you want to add it to, and how want to use it in said article, then perhaps someone can give you a more detailed reply. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The article is currently a draft so I cannot upload it like that.

The image is contained in this open access article: https://sciendo.com/article/10.1515/acve-2015-0001 I originally saw it republished in a non-open access journal and looked to see if it was freely available to use. I wish to add it to a draft article that I do plan on turning into a main space article once it's ready. The image in question is the figure of the dachshund with hypercortilocism showing a before and after image of treatment with trilostane. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. There are a number of images being used in the paper you linked to above and I'm not sure which one you'd like to use, but there are already a number of freely licensed images of different varieties being used in Draft:Cushing's syndrome (veterinary) (assuming that is the draft you're referring to) which means trying to justify the addition of even a single non-free one is going to be hard (at least in my opinion).

For example, there are couple of images of dauchsands being used in the draft which probably precudes the use of any non-free one of a dauchsand per WP:FREER. moreover, given that there is also a free image of a horse being used in the draft, it would seem to be reasonable to expect that free images of other animals with Cushing's Syndrome could also be obtained, thus precluding the use of any non-free images of other animals. Similarly, the are free images of sonographs and x-rays also being used in the draft which probably precludes the use of any images similar to those. There are ten non-free content use criteria that each use of a non-free image is required to satisfy and failing even WP:JUSTONE means the use is considered invalid.

The two criteria that seem (at least to me) to be the hardest to meet in this case are likely going to be WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#CS). You still will need to make sure the other eight are met, but #1 and #8 are probably going to be the big hurdles you'll need to clear. Now, this is only my opinion based upon what you've posted above and what I've seem in the draft, and others might feel differently. You're correct about non-free content being only OK to use in the article namespace per WP:NFCC#9; so, if you do decide to upload anything non-free, please follow the guidance in WP:DRAFTS#Preparing drafts and wait until the draft has been upgraded to an article.

Lastly, non-free content use can sometimes be tricky to assess beforehand (i.e. prior to the content actually be added to an article) and often times non-free content use ends up being discussed after-the-fact at WP:FFD when there are disagreements over it. This sometimes frustrates uploaders who feel their time is just being wasted, but it's sort of the nature of the beast and can't be avoided. So, if you do upload something, keep in mind that it could end up being challenged by another user either by being tagged for speedy deletion or by being discussed at FFD since there's no formal vetting or pre-approval process when it comes to such content. Moreover, try to remember that free equivalents (including text) capable of essentially serving the same encyclopedic purpose as non-free content are pretty much always preferable (even when the free equivalent might not be as "good") absent some exceptional need since the single use of non-free content is in and of itself is considered to be more of an exception than the rule with respect to WP:COPY. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

None of those show a before and after following treatment which I feel is a very useful image for a reader. I feel that combined with the license allowing non-commercial and non-derivative work to justify it's inclusion. Still if you think it's unlikely to be accepted I'll save my time with it, thanks. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

No single user has the final say when it comes to non-free content; so, my opinion matters not if you're able to establish a consensus to use the image. My assessment is only a rough one at best and others may feel differently. If you strongly feel that you can justify the image's use and establish that it meets all ten non-free content use criteria, then upload the file once you're ready to use it and see what happens. My only advice if you do that is to try and tie the image into corresponding textual content as much as possible (i.e. supported by reliable sources) so that seeing the image significantly improves the reader's understanding of that content text to such a significant degree that not seeing the image would be very detrimental to that understanding. Being licensed as NC/ND only means the image needs to be licensed as non-free; it is not in and of itself a justification for non-free use. So, if you just add the image (even with a caption) to the article and expect the reader to automatically understand how important it is in the same way that you do, then the image is probably going to not survive a deletion challenge. You need to somehow weave the image into the text of the article so that having one but not having the other creates a really noticable difference in the encyclopedic understanding of the subject matter. Create space for the image while working on your draft and then slide it in once the draft becomes an article. It's really only then that others will be able to assess what you've done and give their take on whether it meets policy. If it does, great; if it doesn't, you can try again or do something else instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Given that I only planned on adding the image due to discovery of it's existence and the license that I thought would qualify for Wikipedia use I'll refrain from bothering with adding it. I already have images showing a sick dog and most people are capable of looking up a 'healthy' dachshund. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Just a note that despite the text at the bottom left mentioning that This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License the banner above the title on the landing page shows a CC-BY logo, which is indeed linked to the CC-BY 4.0 license. In fact, I wouldn't even have noticed the reference to the more restrictive license had I not been looking for it after OP's original post. Felix QW (talk) 09:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Non-free Philippines government

Template:Non-free Philippines government has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. This relisted discussion about a non-free file tag needs more input from experts in copyright law. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Galiti photos

Do File:Romanian signallers at a wireless signals post in Tecuci, 1917.jpg, File:Sentries on the Siret Front. Cosmesti, 1916.jpg, File:House hit by a shell in Galati, 1916.jpg, File:Fortifications of Focsani-Namoloasa-Galati after destruction, 1916..jpg being used in Battle of Galați#Photo gallery really need to be licensed as non-free content? If they do, then their use in the photo gallery fails WP:NFG. The battle took place in 1917 and even though they are all sourced to collection of photos held by the Imperial War Museum and the IWM might be trying to claim copyright authorship over them, the description for each image on the IWM's website attributes the photos to an "Romanian official photographer". Given that Romania copyright seems to state that all photos taken prior to 1991 are within the public domain, these would seem to be no longer eligible for copyright protection in Romania and most like not eligible for copyright protection in the US per c:COM:HIRTLE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• Short comment: They would probably be considered fine on Commons.
• Long comment: The Imperial War Museum in the UK and the Ministry of Culture in France both have a collection of such Romanian photographs. I don't know if the two collections are copies of all the same photos, but at least some copies are of the same photos. Commons already has more than 1000 files of those photos. Most are sourced from the France collection and a few are sourced from the UK collection. You can find the Commons files sourced from the France collection with a search "Service photographique de l'armée roumaine" and the files fron the UK collection with a search "Romanian official photographer".
  The photos in the France collection seem a bit better documented than the photos in the UK collection. They are identified as originating from the Serviciul fotografi al armatei, the photographic service of the Army of Romania. The Army photographer of each photo is specifically identified by a code letter, for example Operator A, Operator C, etc. There seems to be about 12 photographers. The code letter of the photographer who took the photo is written on the negative. For example, this is a list of the photos taken by Operator A: [5]. That code letters system is similar to the system that was in use by the photographic service of the French Army. There is a website that lists the real names of the photographers with their code letters for the French Army. Maybe a similar list exists for the real names of the photographers for the Romanian Army. For comparison, here is an example of the same photo of which Commons has two files, this one from the UK collection and this one from the France collection.
  For the copyright status on Commons, the uncertainty might be the absence of documentation about the first publication. Some users may require evidence of the year and place of publication. But considering that more than a thousand of those photos are present on Commons and do not seem disputed, a few more should not make much difference. The information on Commons is not entirely clear if simple (non artistic) photos from Romania are under PD-Romania or under PD-RO-photo, but even under PD-Romania and PD-US-expired the photos may be fine if it is assumed that they were published early enough.

-- Asclepias (talk) 06:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

PD or not PD—that is the question

There seems to be a good chance of all or at least most of the following being within the public domain and, thus, not needing to be treated as non-free. All of the photos are US newspapers or other print publications. File names are generic and have been with {{Rename media}} per WP:FNC#2. Files are listed in the order of their respective publication dates with #1 being the oldest.

1. File:Luisa Espinel.png: published November 1928 so it probably just entered into the public domain per {{PD-US}} last year.
2. File:Xenia Zarina.png: published March 1930 so there's a good chance this is either {{PD-US-not renewed}} or {{PD-US-no notice}}.
3. File:Enya Gonzalez.png: published October 1940 so it similar to 2 above.
4. File:Osma Gallinger Tod.png: published April 1949 so again similar to 2 above.
5. File:Caroly Wilcox.png: published 1952 so yet again similar to 2 above.
6. File:Gundega Cenne.png: published 1966 so it's PD-US-no notice or needs to remain non-free.
7. File:Bernice Silver.png: published in 1978 so it could be {{PD-US-1989}} but otherwise needs to remain non-free if not.
8. File:Margaret Nosek.png: published in 1984 so similar to 7 above.

All of the above seem OK as currently licensed, but it's probably best to update/correct their licensing wherever possible and move them to Commons. Moreover, those that do end up being PD can probably even be re-uploaded in a higher quality (if possoble) and jpg format (if possible) since there sources all still seem accessible. Anyway, any opinions on these would be appreciated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC); [Note #1: Updated by Marchjuly and The Herald since the files being discussed have been renamed. -- 08:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)]; [Note #2: Updated again by Marchjuly to clarify Nos. 7 and 8 per below -- 05:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)]

Is there some sort of bot around that looks for at least the simple cases, like 1? If not, should one be made? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

These all look like photos I uploaded; glad to hear that at least some of them might be moving into Commons. I don't have other feedback on the subject, but thanks for working on them.-- Penny Richards (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: for 7 and 8, what makes you think the Daily News or Austin American-Statesman were published without a copyright notice or that the copyright was not registered? RudolfRed (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to imply that 7 and 8 were posted without a notice or registered. The only possible PD license that could be applied to those two images would be {{PD-US-1989}}, if applicable. If not, then they'd need to remain PD. I've clarifed my OP a bit so hopefully that clears things up. Sorry for the confusion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Question on image

Heard that File:BSB team in civilian form.jpg was taken out due to a lack of free use rationale. I'm sure that I covered it. Like to ask if someone can check and see if I did it (or not). Ominae (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Ominae: It looks like the whole characters section, including the image was moved and is now here List of Bakuage Sentai Boonboomger characters but the image was removed because it does not have a rational for the new page title. You will need to update the rationale if you want to use it there. As a group image, it will probably not be restricted by the WP:NFLISTS rules. ww2censor (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha. Ominae (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Image removed by bot so what can I do?

A bot removed an image from an article. I believe I can explain why it was there.

The article is Eris (mythology)

It has this in the section on Discordianism:

"The story of Eris being snubbed and indirectly starting the Trojan War is recorded in the Principia, and is referred to as the Original Snub. The Principia Discordia states that her parents may be as described in Greek legend, or that she may be the daughter of Void. She is the Goddess of Disorder and Being, whereas her sister Aneris (called the equivalent of Harmonia by the Mythics of Harmonia) is the goddess of Order and Non-Being. Their brother is Spirituality."

The image posted of Eris, Aneris, and Spirituality was made by an early Discordian who gave permission for its use. It appears in censored form on Wikia/Fandom at https://discordia.fandom.com/wiki/File:Trigodsbw_censored.jpg It's been used there with permission since 2016, and is used in an article about the image's creator.

I don't know of a public domain image that would show Eris, Aneris, and Spirituality, the deities who represent the three aspects of reality as show by Discordianism.

Here is where the image was removed by a bot https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eris_(mythology)&oldid=1216994643

What can I do so that it can be restored to Eris (mythology)? Thanks for any suggestions someone can give me! Vajzë Blu (talk) 02:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The bot's edit summary says there were no valid non-free use rationale for the page in question. I can see that at File:Trigods gypsie skripto.png there are some NFU rationale, but they are for the Discordianism article. You need to add rationale for the Eris (mythology) article separately. WP:NFUR explains how to do that. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 07:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Vajzë Blu However, there is no WP-good reason to add the artistic vision of a modern netizen to a WP-article. It has no encyclopedic value. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)