Open main menu

Wikipedia β

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
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 the GFDL, an acceptable Creative Commons 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.; {{GFDL-self}}), 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 ask your question" link above.
  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.


Image of a historical building in the PhilippinesEdit

A few years back, the user added this template to the file, rationalizing that "There is no Freedom of Panorama for architectural works in the Philippines, so not Commons compatible unless the depicted structure is itself in the public domain". However, the reported architect of the building depicted died in 1964 and based on the reckoning used under Section 214 of the Philippine Intellectual Property Code, it would enter the public domain after 2014. It is okay then to replace the "Do not move to Commons" template with the "Copy to Wikimedia Commons" template on the said file? -Ian Lopez @ 03:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Probably, if it is actually accepted that Aguinaldo was the author of the present architecture the house. Commons even has this category for images of this building, so it seems that this file could go there too. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

how to i can uplod my new wikiipediaEdit

hi sir/medam i can interest uploding process of my information in wikipedia plese give me suggetion — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

You need to create an account to upload images. Once you do, take a look at this page. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 12:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Besides a registered account you also need to be an autoconfirmed user. ww2censor (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Policy regarding use of data setsEdit

Example: [1]

I've always thought figures like these are okay to use. Have I been wrong? Where is the policy? I'm sure I remember reading it years ago. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

No Anna, I think you are correct. For a work to be eligible for copyright protection, it must be uniquely creative. This does not mean you can present the data in an aesthetic manner substantially similar to the source presentation which can entail enough creativity to warrant protection. I hope this is helpful for you. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi John Cline. Nice to hear from you.     I trust you are well. Thank you kindly for the guidance. I'll keep that link. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

From now on, I will paste the following into discussions where the use of figures is disputed on grounds of copyright. Does this sound okay? Copy edit?

As long as data is aesthetically different from the source, it should be in the public domain. This is because "...bare facts are in the public domain. Works must show sufficient human creativity to be eligible for copyright at all...and...The Supreme Court of the United States has explicitly rejected difficulty of labor or expense as a consideration in copyrightability..."

Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

And I might toss in:

In other words, ...Compilations of facts, but not the facts themselves, may be copyrightable if there was creativity or originality, such as deciding which facts to include, and arrangement of the facts. Hard work gathering the facts cannot make them copyrightable...

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Advice soughtEdit

I have a friend who has published an atlas. The maps in it are his own work, and contain a small copyright notice.

He has been approached by a Wikipedia editor, who wants to pay him to make a modified version of one of the maps so that he can upload it to Wikimedia Commons. My friend is willing to agree to this, so long as it can be done without his losing his own right to use the map, and modified versions of it, in other works that he may subsequently publish. He would prefer to use a license which requires acknowledgment of him as original creator of the map, by anyone who uses it or maps derived from it.

The modifications will include translations into other languages.

This friend has asked me for advice on the copyright issues. He is aware that I have uploaded various images to Commons; but I don't know enough to give him reliable advice, so I'm asking here.

Some questions are:

  • Is this plan likely to work, or are there snags that I have not mentioned above?
  • What licence should be used for the upload to commons?
  • Should the small copyright notice within the map be removed, retained, or does it not matter?
  • The editor wants to make various arbitrary changes to the map (as well as some necessary ones including translation), because he thinks it will help with copyright issues. My friend is reluctant to undertake this extra work. My view is that such arbitrary changes would be pointless: the result would still be a "derived work", and my friend would anyway control the copyright and be able to release it.

I would appreciate your advice on all the these issues. Maproom (talk) 11:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

  • When an author offers a work under a free license on Commons, he never loses his own right to use his work and to still do whatever he wants with it. However, by offering a free license, he allows any other person to also use that freely-licensed work. He will not control who will use it or how they will use it, as long as they conform to the terms of the free license he offers.
  • He can require ackowledgement by choosing a free license that requires acknowledgement. Many free licenses exist. Choosing one is a matter of personal preference. For example, I publish my own photographs under the license CC BY-SA 3.0, so that is the license I would naturally suggest, but other users might suggest other licenses that would be just as good. Just make sure the chosen license has at least the equivalent of the "BY" (attribution) requirement. From what you wrote, it seems your friend may find useful to choose a license that has also the "SA" (share-alike) requirement, requiring that other people who make creative works derived from his map must offer their modified works under the same license, which, among other effects, will assure your friend that he, in turn, will have the same right to reuse the creatively modified works that other people create from his freely-licensed map.
  • That is all good in theory, but in the real world, you must also be aware and be prepared to live with the reality that a large proportion of reusers outside the Wikimedia websites do not automatically conform to the terms of the license. From my experience with the reuse of my CC-licensed photographs by the media or other reusers, I observe that about a third or less of the reusers actually include the required acknowledgement.
  • To your four specific questions:
    • 1 Yes, good plan, as long as your friend is aware of, and is comfortable with what it means, including the aspects mentioned above.
    • 2 Cf. above.
    • 3 If you mean the notice in the modified version to be uploaded to Commons, it's probably better to remove it. It does not matter much, though, because the map being under a free licence, anyone can remove the notice from the image anyway, as long as they preserve the required acknowledgement somewhere, for example in the accompanying description or legend. Still, it can be useful to reusers if your friend suggests a wording for the acknowledgement. If you mean the notice in the unmodified original image published in his atlas, that would require a longer comment. I would rather not start writing it if that's not what you're asking.
    • 4 It "will help with copyright issues"? I'm not sure I understand the question. It may have to do with the comment I was trying to skip in point 3 above.
-- Asclepias (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks, Asclepias, for your advice. (As for item 4 – I suspect that the editor in question has little understanding of copyright, and his suggestions are misguided.) Maproom (talk) 07:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

copyrighting photosEdit

The photo I have comes with permission from the subject, who has no problem with it going to wiki commons with attribution. How do I code that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewblood37 (talkcontribs) 06:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

What you need is not permission from the subject of the photograph, but permission from the photographer. Maproom (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Croatia national football team#Non-free use of File:Croatia national football team crest.svgEdit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Croatia national football team#Non-free use of File:Croatia national football team crest.svg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Adding an image to Soccer on Fox SportsEdit

Hello, I was curious if another editor who was more experienced in dealing with WP:NFCC rules and guidelines could please explain to me what I would have to do in order to place File:FOX Soccer Logo new.png into the infobox of the main Soccer on Fox Sports article? Please message me and let me know if there is anything I must do or what guidelines I must follow in order to add that particular file to the infobox of that particular article. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm still on the Bow Wow Wow thing...Edit

I posted a question about Bow Wow Wow, and the possible use of their version of Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe & the cover of I Want Candy in their article, and a couple of other questions about copyrighted images. I didn't get a ton of feedback on these questions, but I got the impression that most of the Wikipedia editors who commented on my question were in disagreement with me on their use. I strongly believe that both images should be used in Bow Wow Wow's & Annabella Lwin's article, and I honestly think that anyone who researched the band as much as I recently did would agree with me.

While I have always been a fan of their music, I never really got into the history of the band. When you read about what a simply, innocent young girl Annabella was, and how she was portrayed as just the opposite by Malcolm McLaren, and how she was completely exploited by him and her bandmates, these images really take on a whole new meaning. They are instrumental in the telling of their story, and both articles are lacking as a result of them not being used.

I've looked at articles for other bands on Wikipedia, and I've seen less justifiable use of different covers & copyrighted images elsewhere. Whereas I don't wanna argue against their use, a side by side comparison of Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe's & I Want Candys use in Bow Wow Wow's article vs. Sgt. Pepper's & the cover of the White Album in The Beatles' article, one is unquestionably more important & justifiable in telling the band's story. One tells the story of an exploited teen. The other is "The biggest band in the world made a really cool cover, then had a plain one with numbers on it."

I'd also like to change the image used for the band's article to the cover of When the Going Gets Tough, the Tough Get Going. The image currently in the infobox is a cropped version of a copyrighted image (and a terrible one at that). What difference would one copyrighted image make over another? Dave Barbarossa & Matthew Ashman also do not have images in their infoboxes. Would it be all that terrible to use When the Going Gets Tough, the Tough Get Going with a caption something like, "Dave Barbarossa with Bow Wow Wow, first on the left"? Johnny Spasm (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)