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.
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. |
|
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) |
---|
|
||
Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
File:Logo of the Peoples' Democratic Party (Turkey).svg
I am trying to use this logo for the party again, in the alliance they belong to (Labour and Freedom Alliance). It represent the party? I cannot see how it can be a copyright violation, as it it is same for the wikipedia page as well. ~~~~ Tailorhaydon (talk) 08:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Tailorhaydon. Each time non-free content like File:Logo of the Peoples' Democratic Party (Turkey).svg is used on Wikipedia, the way the content is being used needs to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy; more specifically, this means that each use of non-free content on Wikipedia needs to satisfy all ten of the non-free content use criteria listed here. The reason that JJMC89's bot keeps removing the file from Labour and Freedom Alliance#Composition is because no separate and specific non-free use rationale has been added to the file's page for that particular use; so, that particular use of the file is not satisfying non-free content use criterion #10c. That's what the bot is looking for, that's why it's removing the file, and that's why it's leaving an edit summary that links to WP:NFC#Implementation.Sometimes in cases like this, simply adding the missing rationale to the file's page resolves the problem; in this case, though, there are other reasons why the file shouldn't be used in that article per WP:JUSTONE. The bot is only checking whether the file's use satisfies criterion #10c, but there are other issues (WP:NFTABLES, MOS:LOGO, WP:FREER and WP:NFC#CS) related to some of the other nine criteria that the bot is not capable of assessing. Non-free logos like this file can be used when they're used for primary identification purposes at the tops of or in the main infoboxes of stand-alone articles about the organizations they represent, but their non-free use is much harder to justify when they're used in other ways or other articles. That's why the file's non-free use in Peoples' Democratic Party (Turkey) is OK, but the file's use in Labour and Freedom Alliance isn't. There's pretty much no way to justify the non-free use of a logo file that type of table because WP:DECORATIVE types of non-free aren't allowed. There's no information in that table or even in that article per se for which significantly improves the reader's understanding to such a degree that omitting the logo would be detrimental to that understanding. For sure, it "looks" odd that the logo of only one party isn't being used, but there's no real loss of information. There's a link to each party's Wikipedia articles where their respective logos can be seen; so, not really seeing any of them doesn't lead to any loss of information. Trying imagining that table without any logos at all and assessing whether not seeing them somehow makes the rest of the table impossible or at least pretty hard to understand. In almost all cases, logos used in this way look nice, but the encyclopedic value they add is very little. That's pretty much why non-free logos are never allowed to be used in such a way. Since the other files aren't licensed as non-free content, the bot is not looking at them.Finally, you shouldn't really be uploading content to Commons as your "own work" unless you are the copyright holder. You probably should take a look at c:COM:Own work for reference. The copyright on most logos is going to be owned by the organization they represent. Even if said organization post the logo on their "public" website or their social media accounts, the logo is still under copyright protection as explained here unless it clearly states otherwise. You probably should take a look at your Commons user talk page because it kind of indicates you might not be understanding some important things about Commons. It's OK to make a mistake once and maybe twice; if, however, you keep uploading files to Commons with questionable licensing and questionable claims of "own work", a Commons administrator may decide to block your account. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
TV show theme song snippets?
For example Good Times article would include a snippet of the song here (0:12) as Fair Use. Maybe in the infobox or a media template. -- GreenC 00:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
File:No Bears Offical Poster.jpg
Hello there. I don't understand why this movie poster had to be removed by JJMC89 bot. This is basically a movie poster, like any other movie poster on Wikipedia, and it complies with WP:NFCCP. Am I missing something here? The Ocean (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- @The Ocean, the non-free use template at the image must list the article in which the file is used. That is how the bot knows if the use is valid. The field Article in the image says Infobox. It needs to say No Bears. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- @StarryGrandma, Oh I see, my bad! Thank you very much, I really appreciate your help and fast response :) The Ocean (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Chief of Army Staff Article, Tikka Khan Portrait Removed
I added a portrait in this article and it was removed, explanation linked me to this page, Why? PreserveOurHistory (talk) 09:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- @PreserveOurHistory: The file you added is licensed as non-free content and this means that each use of it on Wikipedia needs to satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. There are ten non-free content use criteria that each use needs to satsify in order for it to be considered acceptable, and JJMC89's bot removed the file from that article because the use didn't satisfy criterion #10c: this is why the bot added a link to WP:NFC#Implementation to the edit summary it left when removing the file. Resolve the #10c issue and the bot will stop removing the file. There are, however, other non-free content use issues that the bot is unable to assess and which are much harder to resolve. Non-free content such as this are generally OK when used for primary identification purposes at the tops of or in the main infoboxes of stand-alone articles written about the person shown in the image; this is why the non-free use in Tikka Khan seems fine. Trying to use the same non-free image in other articles or in other ways is much harder to justify, and non-free content of this type is pretty much never allowed to be used in tables like the one in Chief of Army Staff (Pakistan)#List of Chiefs of Army Staffs per WP:NFTABLES, WP:NFLISTS, WP:FREER and WP:NFC#CS. The long-standing consensus has been that "illustrating" table entries like this just to show what someone looks like is not a sufficient justification for non-free use and considered to be WP:DECORATIVE; in such cases, a link to the individuals stand-alone article where the same image can be seen is considered to be a sufficient alternative to non-free use. As for the other photos used in that table, they were all uploaded under a free or PD license; so, their use isn't subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
File:Network Effect.png
Why was this removed? Ebbedlila (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- It was an automated removal because the fair use rationale is for The Murderbot Diaries but it was being used in an article for a different novel. CIreland (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
File:Manipulator_reconstruction_2022.png
This is image I uploaded from this paper.[1] The figure originally consisted of this illustration and two photographs. Original description is this, "Figure 13. (A) Ethological reconstruction of Manipulator modificaputis, drawn by Mr Jie Sun. (B,C) Zaprochilus australis, shared by Reiner Richter © CC BY-NC-SA 3.0" This just means that two photos are CC-BY-NC-SA, however it's safe to upload other illustration, right? Paper itself is CC-BY-4.0, of course. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Ta-tea-two-te-to. Since you uploaded the file to Commons, you're probably better off asking about this at c:COM:VPC. It would seem to depend on whether the "A" image you uploaded is an original creation of one of the authors of the paper or whether they got it from another person. Since the image is attributed to someone other than the authors, the latter seems to be the case and I'm not sure it's OK to simply assume that the CC-BY-4.0 license for the paper automatically applies to it. Have you tried searching for the original image or for Jie Sun? It's possible that the image was released under a CC license that only requires attribution be given, but you're probably going to need to establish that per c:COM:EVID and c:COM:PCP if someone at Commons were to challenge the license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, I will move the discussion to VPC. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Screenshot from Youtube video
Can screenshots of individuals taken from Youtube videos be used in Wikipedia articles? This particular one, for example.
Mooonswimmer 21:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Mooonswimmer. They can be uploaded if their licenses are acceptable per WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files and c:COM:L, but whether they should be used may depend upon the nature of the image (e.g. context, quality, WP:BLPIMAGE). The copyright status of an image largely determines whether it can be uploaded and perhaps how it may be used (e.g. non-free content). Being acceptably licensed, however, doesn't mean a file's use in an article is automatically guaranteed; sometimes, like in the case to text content, that needs to sorted out on the relevant article's talk page. Images are also content and content disputes about them need to be sorted out on article talk pages per WP:DR. Anyway, in this case, the screenshot File:Armani_White_in_2022.png was uploaded to Commons and it does appear to acceptably licensed per its source. YouTube screenshots taken from YouTube channels controlled by the copyright holder's of the content are generally considered OK since it's the copyright holder releasing the content under an acceptable license. Problems start happening when people other than the original copyright holder start uploading copyright content they don't own to their YouTube channels and then release the under an acceptable license. That's called license laundering (even if done unintentionally) and it's that type of content which isn't OK for neither Wikipedia nor Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Non-free image at commons warning
Is there a templated user talk page warning/notice that non-free images must be uploaded locally instead of to Commons, and include fair-use justification? A note is on their commons talk page, but I have a feeling that the editor does not frequent Commons enough to see it. -2pou (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- Hi 2pou. There is a general user warning for non-free content use ({{uw-nonfree}}), but I'm not sure it applies in this case. You could try posting a note on the user's Wikipedia user talk page that explains the problem and asks them to take a look at their Commons' user talk page. If the image is currently being used in a Wikipedia article or on some other type of Wikipedia page, a bot might add a notification about the image to that page's corresponding talk page. I don't think there's a bot that adds notification to a Commons file uploader's Wikipedia user talk page (except perhaps when the image is being used on the uploader's Wikipedia user page). Users can receive cross-wiki notifications if they haven't set their preferences not to do so, but these can be easy to miss if you're new and not familiar with them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
File:Apple Desktop Bus (icon).svg
I propose to move this file to Wikimedia Commons. It is quite simple so it can be there Артём 13327 (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Image of Prince George
I would like to upload the image in this BBC article to include on Prince George of Wales' Wikipedia page. However, I am not sure what the licensing for this photo should be. It was originally released by his parents on Instagram and, ostensibly, media organizations were given permission to use it widely. Would appreciate some help with this! BiscuitsToTheRescue 22:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- Hi BiscuitsToTheRescue. It almost certainly wouldn't be allowed to be uploaded and used as non-free content per WP:FREER. Moreover, the fact that it was released by his parents on Instagram, even for publicity purposes, doesn't mean it's not protected by copyright. Generally, the copyright on a photo like this is owned by the photographer and not the subject of the photo or the subject's representatives. It's possible that the photo was taken by either one of his parents or an "official" photographer working for his parents, but that would still not automatically mean its free from copyright protection. In the United States, photographs taken by US federal government employees as part of their official duties are considered to be within the public domain under US copyright law, which is why you find many photographs taken of US Presidents and their families uploaded to Commons under a public domain license. UK copyright laws aren't the same and it's not clear whether this photo would be automatically public domain, even if taken by one of the boy's parents, per c:COM:United Kingdom. You might want to ask about this c:COM:VPC, but the only way this photo could be uploaded and used would be either to clearly show it's be released under a free license that is accepted by Commons or that it falls within the public domain for some reason. In the first case, the photo is still considered protected by copyright, but a version of it is being made available with very few restrictions to make it easier for others to use. In the second case, the photo was never really eligible for copyright protection from the start and thus it is not subject to any copyright related restrictions. There might still be other restrictions is place per British law, but they're not related to copyright. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm also concerned about WP:Crown copyright; unless maybe you can get an email directly from the British Government authorizing such use, I'd hold off on uploading it. InvadingInvader (talk) 02:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- I appreciate the extensive reply, Marchjuly! I'll look into this a bit closer as well. Still familiarizing myself with Wikipedia's standards on fair use of images and the like. Thanks again. Thanks also to @InvadingInvader for the heads up. BiscuitsToTheRescue 03:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Of course :) InvadingInvader (talk) 03:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)