Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Click here to ask your question

(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 Save page.
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.

Questions about suitability for Wikipedia on 2 image files

Hello,

Please tell me if I may use either of the following images in an article draft I intend to submit. If not, please tell me how I could cure defects.

1. File:Keltner's_Celebration_of_Life_program_photo.tif

2. File:John_W._Keltner.jpg

Many thanks.

Luckybrian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckybrian (talk • contribs) 22:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

They would have to be licensed under one of the licenses we accept by the copyright holder (i.e., in most cases, the person who took the photo). --Orange Mike | Talk 03:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Luckybrian: Files such as File:John W. Keltner.jpg licensed as non-free content cannot be used in drafts per WP:NFCC#9, so (as explained in WP:DRAFTS#Preparing drafts) you should add such files after the draft has been moved to the article namespace. However, each use non-free content is required to satisfy all 10 non-free content criteria listed in WP:NFCCP and using it in an article at least one article is only one of those criteria; so, you will have to make sure all 10 criterion are met before adding the content to an article. FWIW, I think you should be able to use this photo as the primary means of identification of Keltner per item 10 of WP:NFCC as long as the information about its source is accurate and there are no other problems with the photo such as explained in WP:FREER.

Content which is in the public domain or which has been released under a free license by its copyright holder is not subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and thus can be used in drafts. All such content, however, needs a copyright license or it will be speedily deleted per WP:F4. Even if there is a copyright tag added to the file, there should also be proper information about the origin/authorship of the image so that its licensing can be verified. In other words, you cannot take an image you find online, etc. and just claim it's a free or PD image; you need to have a strong justification/proof which shows that it can be licensed in such a way. File:Keltner's Celebration of Life program photo.tif is missing a copyright license, so there's no way to verify its copyright status. The file will eventually be deleted unless this problem is addressed. How you address this problem depends upon who the copyright holder of the image is and whether the copyright holder wants to release the file under a free license.

If you are the person who took the photo, then you can license it as your "own work" since the copyright holder of a photo is generally considered to be the photographer absent any official transfering of the copyright to another party. However, if you are not the person who took the photo, then you cannot claim it as your own work. In such cases, the explicit consent of the copryight holder is needed for it to be uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons under a free license. A "free license" cannot restrict use in any way (including commerical restrictions) and cannot be taken back after it has been granted. This is why is some cases Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons require that this consent be submitted in written form to ensure the copyright holder fully understands and agrees to the terms of the licensing they are choosing so that there are no misunderstandings or to ensure as best as possible that nobody is inappropriately uploading and licensing someone else's work. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

is ".jpg" file acceptable to upload on wikipedia?

hi, is ".jpg" file acceptable to upload on wikipedia?

Thanks, SR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidneirohr (talk • contribs) 18:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. You may find it useful to read Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload. ww2censor (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Mass announcement card

A notice of the first mass of my great uncle, Father Vito Di Maio O.F.M. was deleted from my article, and I do not understand why. More importantly, how do I get it reinstalled as it is important to the article. The facts are: It is just a mass announcement card. It was made more then 100 years ago, 1907. My uncle Vito died in 1943. His personal papers were handed down to me which included the original of the mass announcement card. I am it's sole owner, so why can't I have it in my article?Floraalbert (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC) File:Fr.VitoDiMaioFirstMass.jpeg Record of Father Vito Di Maio O.F.M. first mass on Mount Calvary, Jerusalem

Let's see if we can help you but please don't post the same message 4 times; once is enough. So the image in question was deleted here on the enwiki, because it is an exact copy, though a slightly different title which is why it disappeared from the page. The same image is already on the commons that you uploaded back in November 2015. We don't keep both except in certain special circumstances. I've substituted the commons image in your sanbox as well as doing some cleanup per the manual of style. A point about your older images is that you claim to the author of the images but actually you just made a slavish copy; you probably do not know who made the original, so you should state that. I don't know the Italian law on creative originality but the mass card image is likely too simple to copyright so it should be fine on the commons. If you are concerned about the copyright the commons has a licence template c:Template:PD-heirs that you should probably use for it. ww2censor (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Uploaded image file template info

Hello,

I have updated the copyright tag info on this image but Wikipedia would not allow me to save the changes.

Here is the image: File:Keltner's_Celebration_of_Life_program_photo.tif

Please help. Thank you.

Luckybrian (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC) Luckybrian 10 July 2017, 1642 UTC

So @Luckybrian: what you posted does not actually show us what you did but only shows us what is on the image page now. This link shows the history and exactly what text you altered/added. The problem is that you have not added an actual free copyright tag per the type of permission given by the copyright holder, Maria Keltner. Also adding the template {{OTRS expected}} is no good because we don't have any such template, which is what it is redlink. I assume what you are trying to do is confirm that an email verification is/will be sent to the OTRS team, in which case you can add {{OTRS pending}} separately to the file with the curly brackets. Have the copyright holder follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT but please tell them to be patient as there is more than a month backlog. BTW there is no need to post the same question here twice. ww2censor (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi again Luckybrian. First a general comment about noticeboard use and then a specific comment about this particular file. When you post a question like you did above in WP:MCQ#Questions about suitability for Wikipedia on 2 image files, anything further related to the same discussion should be added there; you don't really need to start a new thread for each new post you make. Keeping all of the related posts togehter will make it easier for others to follow the discussion from start to finish and avoid any unnecessary repeating of information. A new thread is really only needed when you are asking something completely unrelated to your previous questions.

Now for this particular file, it seems you wrote "Copyright holder is Maria Keltner, John Keltner's widow. I have asked her for permission to use the image under a free license". There are two things you and Ms. Keltner need to be sure of in this case:

1. You need to be sure that Ms. Keltner is the really copyright holder and not just the owner of the photo. Many people assume that physically owning a photo automatically means that they also own the copyright of the photo, but this is not always the case. For example, a photographer may agree to take your picture and then subsequently give you the photo to have as a keepsake, but they may still retain their ownership over the photo's copyright depending upon the specifics of your agreement with them. So, if Ms. Keltner is not the person who took the photo, she may be asked to clarify her claim of copyright ownership or show there has been some kind of copyright transfer agreement between her and the photographer, especially if it turns out that the was previously used in some publication or online, etc.
2. Assuming that #1 is not an issue, Ms. Keltner cannot only give "you" permission to use the photo; she needs to understand that she is giving everyone anywhere in the world permission to use the photo. She also cannot limit this permission to only the draft article about her husband you're currently working on; she is giving permission for the photo to be used in pretty much any manner,including ways that she or other members of her family may not personally approve of or agree with. Once she release the photo under a free image, there's really no way to cancel the license. The photo can be deleted from Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, but the license will live on and people who have downloaded the photo under the free license will continue to be able to use it as such.

You and Ms. Keltner need to be fairly sure of the above because if you have any doubts, you should probably not upload the file under a free license. A non-free image may be a better choice sinc it can be uploaded locally to Wikipedia for use as the primary means of identification in an article written about her husband; it just cannot be added to the draft your working on per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. For what its worth, whether the draft you're writing is eventually approved and upgraded to article status is not going to depend upon whether there are any photos in it; it's going to be assessed to see whether the subject meets WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. In other words, it's going to be the subject's Wikipedia notability (or lack thereof) which determines the fate of the draft. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello again,

Re: :File:Keltner's_Celebration_of_Life_program_photo.tif and my draft: John W. Keltner

On July 12, 2017, the copyright holder, Maria Keltner, used the Interactive Release Generator to give permission to use the image under a free license. Is there anything further she or I need to do at this point? And do you have all the info you need except her permission?

Thank you for your time and patience.

Luckybrian (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Luckybrian

Resolved

Processed and updated - OTRS ticket # 2017071310002045 Nthep (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Image license question

Something very strange just happened, a photo that I cropped was tagged as having no license by the license reviewer Fæ but if I am looking at everything correctly the license is 1)correct and 2)was uploaded by Fæ. No explanation was given, and I've found people on Commons to be not very responsive, would someone please look this over and let me know if I did something wrong? [1]

I removed the no license template, because I wasn't sure what else to do. Did I remove it wrongly? If the template is removed will the file still be deleted?

Thank you, Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: Indeed that's quite strange. Normally when using CropTool it transfers all the appropriate information into the new file including the proper license. I think Fæ just made an odd mistake and btw, you did not link to the file so they may not respond as they don't know what specific file you are talking about, and they do lots of image uploads and other media related work. I've checked the image source and it's license looks fine so I've added a good license review to the cropped image. Actually you could have just substituted the "no licence" template for a LicenseReview template and then a reviewer would have checked it, but no harm done so thanks for asking. ww2censor (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok thank you, I will remeember that for the future. Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Enakshi Rama Rau as Empress Mumtaz Mahal and Himansu Rai as Shiraz in Shiraz 1928.jpg

This image was sourced from the collections of the BFI National Archive (I'm a curator in the Archive). We're happy to allow the image to be used, but feel there should be a credit to the effect of 'image courtesy of BFI National Archive' - to affirm copyright status as well as identify the source. However, can't tell how to do this or if it's even permitted; nor can I figure out what copyright status to assign. Any help much appreciated. Apologies if I'm overlooking or misunderstanding some existing guidance on this. Thanks, Cheesemite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheesemite (talk • contribs) 13:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cheesemite: Thanks but you have not given anything other than the very basic details with the image. I have added a basically blank "information" template that needs filling in and that's where you can add a BFI tag line but, you have to indicate a source, author and most especially a licence. Maybe it was a movie still, many of which don't have any copyright. Is in the public domain; the year 1928 is given but what country was it issued in and who held/holds the copyright? If it was a UK production then it depends when the image was published and when the author died which is usually 70 years pma, but in India it's 60 years after publication but British Instructional Films ceased operations in 1932. Some of our more knowledgeable cinematic editors will hopefully contribute. There are several unanswered questions and I did not glean any more useful details from this BFI webpage. Fill in what you can and post more details here when get any. ww2censor (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Any template to avoid good-faith removal of apparent copyright violations, when the other source copied from Wikipedia?

I'm pretty sure I've seen this template somewhere, but can't find it.

Continuity of Government: How the U.S. Government Functions After All Hell Breaks Loose is a book published by the vanity press Lulu Press; it was first-published December 27, 2016.

The text on page 119 is near-identical to text in Presidential Succession Act; you can see that it was in the Wikipedia article (even closer to identically) at least one year prior to the book's publication (revision as of October 29, 2015).

Is there a template that can be placed to keep well-meaning editors from erroneously removing this text from the article as an apparent copyright violation, when in fact the misappropriation is the other way around? TJRC (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you are looking for Template:Backwardscopy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes! That's the one. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Annals of Al-Tabari

I found this picture from the Annals of Al-Tabari on printerest, stated to be taken from the Topkapı Saray Museum in Istanbul. Is it public domain, cause of it's age or not? I do not understand how to present the specific image, told in the previous page, without uploading it first, so I hope it's fine to give a link here: https://www.pinterest.de/pin/486177722259265868/ Thank you for helping. --VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Are these copyvios?

Yesterday I found an editor adding links to articles that went to a site that allowed people to view pirated copies of films that are currently in theaters. They person was blocked based on my post here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Spamming. I still have a question as to whether the edits should be rev/del'd. I would think that there existence in the edit history would be a copyvio. If I am mistaken that would be good to know as well. Any information that anyone can provide would be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 23:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I would agree that links to a site that only exists to serve copyright violations added to any page of WP should be revdel'd, just because the legalities of deep linking are not yet 100% clear. Links to copyvio videos on other sites that otherwise are generally legit (eg YouTube) are less problematic; the link should obviously still be removed, but revdel is not as serious a problem here. --MASEM (t) 01:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)