Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    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
    1. On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page.
    2. From the page Wikipedia:File copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag:
      • For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators".
      • For a work downloaded from the internet, please understand that the vast majority of images from the internet are not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. Exceptions include images from flickr that have an acceptable license, images that are in the public domain because of their age or because they were created by the United States federal government, or images used under a claim of fair use. If you do not know what you are doing, please post a link to the image here and ask BEFORE uploading it.
      • For an image created by someone else who has licensed their image under an acceptable Creative Commons or other free license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information.
    3. Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{Cc-by-4.0}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page.
    4. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}})
    5. Hit Publish changes.
    6. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below.
    How to ask a question
    1. To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below.
    2. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end.
    3. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page.
    4. Don't include your email address, for your own privacy. We will respond here and cannot respond by email.
    Note for those replying to posted questions

    If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template {{mcq-wrong}} and, if possible, leave a note on the poster's talk page. For copyright issues relevant to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally, questions may be directed to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.

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

    Who owns the copyright of book covers?[edit]

    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)[reply]

    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 01:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Quite! Yes, I was a bit too universalizing there. Thank you for the elaboration. Remsense 15:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So is there any distinction between book covers and (hardback) dust jackets? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I wonder if it varies between different copyright jurisdictions. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @Billsmith60: There's really no need to double post. Please remember that we're all WP:VOLUNTEERs who edit at different times of the day; so, it might take a bit of time until someone responds. The email address you should use is [email protected]. It looks like that's a hyphen to me, but you can ask ask at c:COM:VRTN to make sure. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, sorry about the double post! I wasn't logged in at the time before doing so and wasn't trying to hurry anyone up. There's no way to remove a post, unfortunately, as you might really have guessed: I'm a volunteer myself. Thanks for the quick reply Billsmith60 (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Billsmith60: What you posted above is confusing and doesn't add up because (1) you can remove a talk page post (see WP:SELFREVERT and WP:TPG#dupes) and (2) your was account was used to make both posts (post #1 was made here and post #2 was made (an hour and twenty-seven minutes latter) here). -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Image removed by bot so what can I do?[edit]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Thanks for the link! :) Vajzë Blu (talk) 04:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    It illustrations a section of the article and shows what that section is about. It is by an early Discordian who knew the founders. Vajzë Blu (talk) 04:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    For the interested, I nominated it for deletion: Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2024_April_6#File:Trigods_gypsie_skripto.png. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't use a non-free image for info box of BLP's?[edit]

    Hi, so this is a question specifically about #1 of Wikipedia's non-free content policy:

    "1. No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose."

    and more specifically about the "or could be created" portion. I have uploaded several non-free photos of notable living persons to the info boxes on their BLP's (because NO free alternatives were available). However, I just received a notice that basically it's inappropriate to do this because someone at some time may hypothetically create a free photo that can be accessed and uploaded.

    It seems like a pretty steep hurdle and a detriment to the encyclopedia to remove images of notable individuals because no one has created a free version yet.

    could use some advise here. thx! Slacker13 (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This has been debated several times previously but that's the current policy and it is unlikely to change. Please remember that a photo of a subject is not actually a requirement of an encycloaedic article. In rare cases unless someone is a known recluse or in prison for life, then an image could be created even if it takes some effort that people are not prepared to make. Sorry to not have better news for you. All the recent non-free images you uploaded look like you should be able to obtain freely licenced images of them, perhaps through their agents or even the subject themselves, maybe even a selfie. ww2censor (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you! Slacker13 (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, it's a steep hurdle, but it keeps the rule simple and the lawyers from the door. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    yes, i understand. but still so frustrating. lol. Slacker13 (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slacker13: These file's have already been deleted for the reasons given above. Of course, if you feel that was done in error, you can ask for clarification for the administrator who deleted the files. If you click on the red links for the files' names, you'll see which administrator deleted them and why. You can then post a query on their user talk page if you want. FWIW, it's not so much that allowing this type of use will cause all kinds a legal problems for the WMF; that's a possibility, but it a real small one since this would almost certainly be considered a case of acceptable fair use. However, as pointed about above, the current policy was something established quite a long time ago and discussed many times over the years since then. The consensus has always been for Wikipedia's policy to be intentionally more restrictive than fair use, and one of these restrictions has to do with non-free images of still living persons. You can of course propose a change be made at WT:NFCC since policies can be changed if deemed necessary; however, the argument you've made above seems to have been made a number of times before in some shape or form, and it's never really gained any traction. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Marchjulyfor the guidance. It actually is quite helpful. I'm just frustrated, please understand not at you, but with the restrictions. It just adds such context and content to be able to see the person you're reading about. But I understand that this debate and consensus predates me. I won't make a stink. Warmly, Slacker13 (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, this a specific WMF requirement in their non-free resolution, here. A policy request change can't override that. Masem (t) 21:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Slacker13 (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Can a PD picture be put back into copyright?[edit]

    Forgive me if i'm in the wrong place; i know/understand next to nothing about copyrights, especially with regard to anything other than words. There is an image in Mohammed Shitta Bey the caption of which is a copyright notice. I asked on the talk page of the user who uploaded the image, and got a reply i don't fully understand. Two questions arise for me:

    1. Is an old (PD) picture made copyright again because it has been scanned and trimmed?
    2. Is it necessary (if the answer to the above is Yes) to label it as copyright in the caption on our article?

    Any answers gratefully received. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 09:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Their argument is that the editing, retouching and cropping create a new copyright in this specific version of a public domain image. That can be argued. (Mere scanning however does not, as it is intended as a "faithful copy".)
    However the user concerned uploaded the image as their own work and agreed that the image was made available by that user as cc-by-sa. While the edited image may be their copyright - as are any text contributions you or they make - this does not need to be stated, as the copyright and CC-BY-SA licence information can be found on the image page. The caption is also misleading as it implies the image cannot be reused by others; and in any case in copyright images, used as fair use etc, state the conditions on the image's own page, not in captions.
    I think the user may have misunderstood how WP contributions work, and what they are agreeing to. If they feel strongly about that then they might want to have the image removed from Wikimedia Commons. I'm not sure what the policy is, although WM Commons would not be under any obligation to agree, as the licence assignation is very clear. Jim Killock (talk) 09:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I updated the information on the Commons page accordingly. Felix QW (talk) 09:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While the copyright notice on the Wikipedia page is perhaps misleading and definitely superfluous, it is not incongruent with a CC-BY-SA license. After all, that does require attribution and relicensing under the same license and so is very different from a public domain image. Felix QW (talk) 10:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right, the caption isn't "wrong" from a copyright perspective (it perhaps ought to include cc-by-sa), but presumably there is a WP policy not to add credit, copyright or licence information in captions, as it's never seen (excepting items like artworks where the name of original artist may be needed for context reasons etc). Jim Killock (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I remember reading years ago that we almost never show the copyright info, which was part of what triggered my questions here. I've changed it, anyway, as the image at Commons shows the attributions and status. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 11:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:CREDITS. DMacks (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Without speaking to the legal or policy aspects, I find the idea of presenting a cropped public domain scan as one's own copyrighted work to be absurd. Licensing such an image without doing research on how licensing works and then still claiming all rights reserved is doubly absurd. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you all. I shall point the user here for the useful information, and take care of the caption on the article page. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 10:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Wikimedia Commons Community,
    I’m facing an urgent issue where my copyright, covering both an image and its caption under © 2024 SHITTA & DAVIES, was compromised through unauthorized edits shortly after upload. This alteration contradicts the explicit terms provided and constitutes a clear act of vandalism. In response, I removed the ripped image from Wikipedia, but it persists unlawfully on Wikimedia Commons - unfortunately, this as an act of piracy.
    This not only undermines the copyright integrity but also my trust in the platform’s respect for creator rights. HkB99 (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We are not the Wikimedia Commons community. En.Wikipedia and Commons are separate projects despite their interlinking nature. If you have a problem on commons, you can get sympathy here, but not action. You will need to make your request on commons instead. It would probably help to be more specific. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can try and be a bit more specific, David Eppstein. In trying to make better use of the picture HkB99 uploaded a couple of days ago i moved it [1] and changed the caption; i thought that was acceptable, though i may have misread the advice i was given above. HkB99 has now removed the image from the article and wants it gone; i'm afraid it was i who suggested he come here (showing mine ignorance of images and files) rather than Commons, mostly because i don't know my way around Commons. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 15:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @HkB99 Wikimedia Commons does have a policy of allowing courtesy deletions of recently uploaded images at the behest of the uploader. If you wish for me to request its speedy deletion at Commons on your behalf with reference to this discussion, I would be happy to do that for you. Felix QW (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really a policy:[2]. Also, in this particular case, such a discussion could go either way, there are reasons to oppose, basically that it seems a good picture of a historical person with articles on 3 WP:s. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring more to speedy deletion criterion G7, which does seem to be based in policy. Of course, given it was recently in use, that may not be considered appropriate. Felix QW (talk) 12:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While the historical significance and educational value of the image cannot be understated, the heart of the matter remains the unauthorized use of copyrighted material on Wikimedia Commons. The infringement on © 2024 SHITTA & DAVIES rights needs addressing not just through content management policies but in a manner that respects the copyright holder's entitlement to compensation. Therefore, the proposal is straightforward: Wikimedia Commons should compensate © 2024 SHITTA & DAVIES at the standard stock price for the unauthorized use of the image. Upon payment, © 2024 SHITTA & DAVIES are prepared to grant a license that would legalize the use of the image on the platform. HkB99 (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @HkB99 The issue is, that you personally authorised this usage under a CC-by-SA licence when you uploaded the work. You were asked to explain what the copyright status was, and you personally asserted that "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license."
    Thus you can ask at Commons for your scan to be removed, on the basis that you didn't read or didn't understand the instructions you were given and accepted, or now want to change your mind. However, as the image is a public domain scan, etcetera, there may be some debate about whether to remove the image. However it would be helpful if acknowledged that this is your error, as you uploaded the image and accepted the copyright licence agreement, however this error may have occurred. There's not much point arguing otherwise as it is clear from the publicly visible image page creation and edit logs. Jim Killock (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @HkB99: Any attempt to try and receive compensation for your image by posting here is going to go nowhere. None of us posting here (i.e. the Wikipedia Community) represent the Wikimedia Foundation in any official capacity and have no authority when it comes to such a request. The same applies to those (i.e. the Wikimedia Commons Community) posting on Commons. If compensation is what you're really after, I suggest you try contacting the Wikimedia Foundation directly by email and state your case to them. I also suggest you take a close look at Wikipedia:No legal threats and be very careful about posting anything that might be construed as such. In other words, anything related to legal matters that you would like to discuss should be done directly by email with the Wikimedia Foundation itself. Finally, regarding the copyright status of digitalized images, you might want to take a look at Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. and National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute for general reference. Your specific situation may not exactly the same as those two disputes, but those two cases seem to be primarily related to how Wikimedia Foundation's views the copyright status of digitalized public domain images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Felix QW Yes please, I would like to escalate deleting the pirated image. And for further avoidable of doubt to other commentators, please understand that the image is my copyright - only I have the original, which is now in PD. HkB99 (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I tagged it now as at its file page, but I would fully expect this to be converted into a regular deletion discussion at Commons rather than being unilaterally deleted by an administrator. Felix QW (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You (HkB99) uploaded it with the statement "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license." How is it then pirated? It is regrettable if you didn't bother to check what that meant (wouldn't be the first time someone did that), and MOS:CREDITS perhaps surprised you, but you decided to "give it to the world."
    Felix QW, a Commons admin reverted your tag. HkB99, as I understand it, your next step is to go to File:Mohamedu Shitta Mosque.jpg, find the "Nominate for deletion" link on the left side (assuming you're on a laptop), use that and make your case. Afaik, your best shot is to ask for a Courtesy deletion, which you may or may not get. Good luck. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry, I didn't realise it had been restored to the Wikipedia article. That obviously makes it ineligible for speedy deletion, so Gråbergs Gråa Sång's advice is spot on. Felix QW (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    For the interested, thread on Commons: Can a PD picture be put back into copyright? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @HkB99: Am I understanding correctly that you want "© 2024 SHITTA & DAVIES" to be part of the attribution? I can definitely fix it so that is noted on the license on the file (which is irrevocable). Abzeronow (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding is that HkB99 wants/demands it to be part of the picture-caption in the en-WP article like here [3], but perhaps I'm wrong. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @Abzeronow,I hope this message finds you well. I want to clarify that my primary goal in this situation is to ensure proper attribution and respect for copyright.
    It's important to understand that the image in question is not in the public domain; it is under copyright for the year 2024. There exists a larger, physical version of this image that PD, but the copyrighted version has been specifically retouched and focused on the subject alone.
    After noticing the unauthorized alteration and re-addition of the image to Wikipedia, my concerns about copyright protection and attribution have only deepened.
    Initially, my intention was to share the image for educational purposes, believing in the platform's capacity to respect and protect the rights of copyright holders. However, the handling of this matter has raised significant concerns about the general understanding and enforcement of copyright principles within the community.
    There are two ways I would not mind proceeding:
    1. WK Commons purchasing the image at its standard stock price to redeem the infirigmemt, to which I have been advised by @Marchjuly and am open to more advice and help/labour.
    2. As you have stated, correct attribution fixes this. The image is NOT in the public domain - Wikipedia currently tells a misleading and inevitably a story of future infringement. Irrevocably fixing the copyright © 2024 SHITTA & DAVIES to the license is a correct step forward. HkB99 (talk) 04:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to have misunderstood what I posted above. I did post If compensation is what you're really after, I suggest you try contacting the Wikimedia Foundation directly by email and state your case to them., but I didn't post the "WK Commons will purchase your image". So, if that's what you want, email the WMF and ask. I'm pretty sure everyone who's posted here knows what the WMF's answer will be, but you can find out yourself if you want. Before you go off emailing the WMF, though, you might want to contact an attorney specializing in image copyright law first to make sure you have a case. An attorney should be able to more clearly lay out what you're options are (e.g. wmf:Legal:Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedowns) than anyone here at MCQ can do. As for your point #2, as explained by others above, that's not going to happen because that's not how images are attirbuted on Wikipedia as explained in MOS:CREDITS; so, it's probably time to drop that stick and move on. Finally, you uploaded the image to Commons, and Commons is where you're going to have to resolve any issues with the images licensing. A discussion about the image is taking place at c:COM:HD#Can a PD picture be put back into copyright? and you're free to participate in that discussion if you want. You can also start a new discussion at c:COM:VPC if you want (but it's probably best to stick to one discussion at Commons at a time). There's really nothing more anybody here at MCQ can do for you other than to keep repeating what's already been posted above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. No doubt, I understood the first time around. Best HkB99 (talk) 06:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The image is now incorrectly marked as being in the public domain - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mohamedu_Shitta_Mosque.jpg
    I am seeking simple, direct, resolution to the aforementioned statement:
    "The image is now incorrectly marked as being in the public domain - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mohamedu_Shitta_Mosque.jpg" HkB99 (talk) 06:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you all for your contributions. Seeing as there is no respect for copyright © 2024 SHITTA & DAVIES on this platform.
    We shall now enforce copyright law against accused parties.
    Please be reminded, I uploaded the image for the education and knowledge of this community. Being a beneficiary of the subjects estate, I did not have to redistribute any portion of the original copy now in PD.
    I did this for history. I did it for education. I only asked that the copyright (the image and caption) not be vandalised or the image be ripped from its copyright.
    Unfortunately, this platform does not do enough to educate and enforce copyright law.
    The current PD designation of my own image, to which you can see an iPhone screenshot bar at the bottom attesting to the fact the copyright is not from 1894, is incorrect and a clear breach of copyright law.
    The standard stock price of this image was rather high, and now the value is 0. Thank you all. HkB99 (talk) 08:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the now-unambiguous legal threat here, building on several other comments that at best started to approach that bright line and warning for such, I have indef'ed HkB99. DMacks (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I was afraid of that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The original position on the image page, whereby the image was stated as your creation and copyright, licenced by you as cc-by-sa, would cover this, without any need to state that the image is copyright anywhere else, such as specific Wikipedia pages.
    Whether the image is PD or not is a matter of debate, and something that Commons would need to determine. This discussion should move there. Jim Killock (talk) 08:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    For info, I uploaded a file with the uncropped version of the photograph, but it's unfortunately a very small file from a postcard seller and copied via facebook. There might be a much larger copy published in this journal article, if someone can have access to it through an institutional subscription or something. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The version in that article is slighty better, yes. I've added it here File:Prince Oyekan - Oba of Lagos and others, photo by Neils Walwin Holm, 1894-2.jpg The face would need a bit of retouching work to roughly match the current version, as the postcard seems to have been slightly damaged. I think all three are scans from the postcard however. Jim Killock (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Process of fixing a license and moving to Commons?[edit]

    File:Harvey_Birdman,_Attorney_at_Law.png was uploaded with a copyrighted tag, but the logo is simple enough to fall under a public domain tag. I have already added the correct license (and trademark tag), but even with that and the non-free use template fixed, I would still be unable to use the FileExporter tool, as a revision is hidden.

    What is the standard process for moving once copyright tagged files to Commons? Do I request for the revision to be unhidden, manually upload to Commons and tag the WP file for SD, or something else? Apologies if this is answered somewhere that I did not notice. detriaskies 17:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi DetriaSkies. I think there are two options for you here: (1) request the older revisions of the file be restored via WP:REFUND (an administrator needs restore the older version) and then transfer the file to Commons; or (2) upload a new higher quality version of the logo to Commons yourself and then tag the local file for speedy deletion per WP:F8. With respect to (2), if use the same file name and file format as the local file, the software will automatically replace the old file with the new one after the former has been deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I saved y'all a trip to REFUND:) DMacks (talk) 22:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you both! detriaskies 22:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Question about LaTeX Licensing Versus CC-BY-SA[edit]

    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?

    Thanks, DeemDeem52 (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    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 (tc) 07:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Iona Presentation College Crest[edit]

    We host two versions of this crest, one under fair use at File:Iona Presentation College new color logo.jpg and one at File:Ionapresentation.jpg with the claim that it was first used in 1907 and is therefore in the public domain. If that is true, the colour variation of the former may have insufficient originality to attract new copyright, at least under US law. If we find the 1907 claim unconvincing, File:Ionapresentation.jpg would probably have to be removed from the list that it is currently in use on. Felix QW (talk) 08:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Unconvincing indeed. It is obviously a more recent rendering, not a scan of a rendering made in 1907 found on a document. The source doesn't even say that the concept of the design is from 1907. -- Asclepias (talk) 11:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Which tags, please?[edit]

    Hi, I uploaded File:Greenbaum-Film Weissensee advertisement, April 1918.jpg, but am unsure which copyright tags to use. The image is from a German trade publication, Lichtbild-Bühne, Vol 11, No. 14, 6 April 1918 [pdf 77] (in German), online at https://archive.org/details/lichtbildbuhne-1918-04/page/n76/mode/1up?view=theater . The author appears to be unknown. I added a basic PD license. Could you also confirm that another image of a film studio on [pdf 98], https://archive.org/details/lichtbildbuhne-1918-04/page/n97/mode/1up?view=theater (not uploaded yet) would need the same copyright licenses? Cheers, MinorProphet (talk) 09:16, 11 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]
    @Felix QW This looks like {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} would apply on Commons. Under either the old or new methods (see c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany#Anonymous and pseudonymous works) publication +70 years would be the duration of the copyright. Nthep (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} and left it on Commons for the moment. Thanks both for your helpful comments. MinorProphet (talk) 22:28, 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?[edit]

    Hello!

    Can this coverart be uploaded to wikimedia so that it can be used in the template on wikidata?

    Thanks :) - Tobost06 (talk) 10:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    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]

    Can this picture be uploaded to Srikanth[edit]

    What is issue about this film poster [4] 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]

    File:Lincoln Chafee 2020 presidential campaign logo.webp[edit]

    Does File:Lincoln Chafee 2020 presidential campaign logo.webp really need to be treated as non-free simply due to the Statue of Liberty imagery used as the "i" in "Lincoln"? If it does, then it probably fails WP:NFCCP based on it's current use. For reference, I asked the same at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2023/August#Statue of Liberty imagery and just want to double check. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:03, 16 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.[edit]

    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.

    1. https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/trans-mossad-spy-who-helped-track-down-the-munich-terrorists-is-laid-to-rest-brocccl6
    2. https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/mossad-spy-identifies-neo-nazi-konrad
    3. https://confidentials.com/manchester/the-olivia-frank-story-manchesters-transgender-spy

    Thank you :) FortunateSons (talk) 09:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @FortunateSons I see no reason this wouldn't be allowed. Consider the book-cover [5] 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]
    Thank you very much :) FortunateSons (talk) 10:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]