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) |
---|
Archives | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Contents
- 1 Copyright status of a 1976 photograph
- 2 File:Star Trek Voyager Logo.svg
- 3 boxcar2d
- 4 Re: Christopher Nasiłowski
- 5 File:Hydeparkpromo.jpg
- 6 Copyright issues for DPP flag in opinon poll list?
- 7 WALI/WRHA (AM) - notice
- 8 Picture taken in 1920 (expired copyright) but found published in 1926. Fair use?
Copyright status of a 1976 photograph
Page 17 (19 of the pdf) of the April 1976 issue of Cornell alumni news includes a photograph of Robert Kaske, taken by George Simian. Is this photograph under copyright? In particular, I'm wondering if copyright was properly established, and, if not, whether that would place the photograph in the public domain. Page 4 (6 of the pdf) contains a succinct "All rights reserved" notice; the all rights reserved article suggests that this might have some legal currency, but the copyright notice article suggests the opposite. Any help clarifying this, and establishing the copyright status of the photograph, would be much appreciated. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Usernameunique: In the US pre-1978 there was a requirememnt for a copyright notice otherwise the item would be in the public domain for non-compliance with the formalities. This publication has that notice, so the copyright will extend for 95 years after publication per c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United_States though if the copyright was registered and not renewed, it would be in the public domain, I could not find anything in that regard, maybe someone else can. We have no details of the photographers, so I suppose we must rely on the publication's copyright notice, unless you can unearth those details. However, because Robert Kaske is dead since 1989 and no freely licensed image seems to exist, you will be able to use the image, as a non-free exception, in the infobox of his article, so long as you comply with all 10 non-free policy guidelines. ww2censor (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ww2censor. What would be the situation if copyright was never registered (and thus never renewed)? The photographer is then-student George Simian, now a professional photographer. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- Usernameunique: in that case, if you really can identify the photographer, their work is copyright for 70 years after their death unless they are prepared to release the images under a free license. ww2censor (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ww2censor. Why would the copyright in this case depend on the identifiability of the photographer, rather than on whether (and what) copyright formalities were followed? And why would the term be life +70 years, rather than date of copyright + n years? --Usernameunique (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- Usernameunique: unless there was a contract between the photographer and the magazine, in the normal course of events, the photographer is the copyright holder of the photographs, and if you are sure of his identity, then the image is still in copyright. You could always make contact with him per the email on his website to verify the image's copyright status. He may confirm who holds the copyright and, if he does, he may release the image under a free license but would need to do so through the OTRS team. ww2censor (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
File:Star Trek Voyager Logo.svg
Does this really need to be {{Non-free logo}}? A bit of a fancy font perhaps, but otherwise it seems to be just {{PD-logo}}, particularly since the country of origin is given as the US. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- That looks to be a clear case of {{PD-textlogo}}. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
boxcar2d
Is the Boxcar2d program copyrighted? I would like to upload a screenshot for an example on the article "Box2d engine", it does not state what copyright it is but the engine is open source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amdcrash (talk • contribs) 10:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Re: Christopher Nasiłowski
Is this photograph of a portrait from a gravesite copyrighted? Rovingrobert (talk) 07:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- That photo is not from a gravesite, it is posted on findagrave.com. There is no evidence that the person who posted it has waived copyright or licensed the photo in any way. --Orange Mike | Talk 08:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Orangemike: Can I contact the photographer for clarification? Rovingrobert (talk) 11:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- Sure; on findagrave their username is aussie. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- Rovingrobert: However, be very careful because while the image was uploaded by aussi they may not be the photographer or even the copyright holder. We require permission from the copyright holder. ww2censor (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- I wouldn't use an image from that source. Too many unknowns. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- @BeenAroundAWhile: Which websites are the most hassle-free in these cases? Rovingrobert (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- I wouldn't use an image from that source. Too many unknowns. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- Rovingrobert: However, be very careful because while the image was uploaded by aussi they may not be the photographer or even the copyright holder. We require permission from the copyright holder. ww2censor (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- Sure; on findagrave their username is aussie. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Orangemike: Can I contact the photographer for clarification? Rovingrobert (talk) 11:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
File:Hydeparkpromo.jpg
There doesn't seem to be anything copyrightable about this image other than perhaps the photo itself. The "label" is basically simple text on a white background while the CD shape as well as the shape of the case are things generally considered utilitarian and not eligible for copyright. So, I guess it depends on the copyright status of the photo itself, which in this case would seem to fail WP:FREER. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Copyright issues for DPP flag in opinon poll list?
The DPP flag keeps getting removed from this page: Opinion_polling_for_the_2020_Taiwan_general_election#Party_vote. My question is: is it actually a copyright violation? And if so, are all or some of the other flags in violation, which should be removed? DrIdiot (talk) 05:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- The file is getting removed by a bot not so much because using it is a copyright violation per se, but rather because the file's use in that particular article doesn't comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. If you look at the edit summaries that the bot is leaving, you'll find a link to WP:NFC#Implementation which explains why the file is being removed. Specifically, the file doesn't have the separate, specific non-free use rationale that's required for it to be used in the article; so, the bot is removing it per WP:NFCCE. It might seem then that the thing to do then would to be simply provide the missing non-free use rationale for the file's use in that article, but things aren't that simple as explained in WP:JUSTONE. There are ten non-free content use criteria which need to be satisfied each time a non-free file is used in any article, and I don't think there's any way to write a valid non-free use rationale for this particular type of non-free use per WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFTABLES and MOS:LOGO (regarding the use of non-free images). You could try writing such a rationale, but I'm fairly certain that such use would be challenged and a consensus to allow it would be very unlikely to be established at WP:FFD.As for the other files being used in that table, they are all files uploaded to Commons under a different type of copyright license than the non-free one; so, their respective uses are not subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. Whether those other files are licensed correctly is a separate question, but that's why the bot is not removing them. So, from strictly a copyright license standpoint, they can be used in the article if that's the consensus established on the article's talk page. From an purely encyclopedic standpoint, however, I personally think all of the files should be removed for the reasons given in MOS:LOGO regarding the use of free images and WP:IUP#Adding images to articles; they're so small that they provide pretty much zero encyclopedic value to the reader and the same image can be seen more clearly in the stand-alone articles about each party. Moreover, the abbreviated party names seem more than sufficient to provide the same information (they do after all Wikilink to the respective Wikipedia articles about each party) by the reader. The logos in that table really only seem to have decorative value and there's pretty much no context being provided by them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
WALI/WRHA (AM) - notice
Wanted to note that I've rolled back the removal of a logo without FUR on the article currently at WRHA (AM) as the article will move to the correct title (WALI, for which the FUR is) with a page move currently at WP:RM. This should be reflected in a few days. It is worth noting the RM in nearly 5 days of being open has only one comment, from the person who made the article occupying the space, and it is in support of the proposed article relocation. Raymie (t • c) 02:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- You can roll back the bot all you want, but it will keep removing the file again as long as you don't provide a separate, specific rationale for this other usage because that's what the bot is set up to do and because WP:NFCC#10c is still not being met. You might want to discuss this with the bot's operator JJMC89 to see if he can do something that causes the bot to skip over the file, or you could simply add the missing non-free use rationale explaining how the non-free use of the file in the other article meets relevant policy and then remove or clean up two rationales on the file's page as needed once the page move has gone through. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Picture taken in 1920 (expired copyright) but found published in 1926. Fair use?
File:Louis_Upton_infront_of_his_retrofitted_REO_Speedwagon.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricAhlqvistScott (talk • contribs) 22:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)