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. |
Sports club logo
Hi, re File:BC Žalgiris logo.svg removed from FK Kauno Žalgiris (futsal) - what should be correct license for club logo? Wolfmartyn (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Wolfmartyn. The file wasn't removed by the bot from that article for not having a proper copyright license; it was removed because there wasn't a separate, specific non-free use rationale for that particular use on the file's page. Each non-free file is bascially required to have two things: a non-free copyright license and a non-free use rationale. In many cases, this means one of each; however, in cases where a non-free file is being used in multiple ways (e.g. used in different articles, used in different ways in the same article), then it needs to have a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use in order to comply with non-free content use criterion #10c. The same copyright license typically is OK for all uses of a non-free file, but the same non-free use rationale is almost always not. So, if you feel the non-free use of the file in the article about the futsal team satisfies all ten non-free content use criteria, then you're going to need to add a non-free use rationale to the file's page explaining way. Adding the missing rationale should stop the bot from removing the file, but providing a rationale is only WP:JUSTONE or the ten criteria and someone may still challenge the file's non-free use if they feel it fails one of the other remaining criteria. For reference, when it comes to sports team logos, the non-free use of the main team logo tends to be limited to the "parent" teams and not allowed for "child" teams per item 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. I'm not sure how that applies to futsal teams and how they relate to other teams run by the same organization, but it's something you're going to need to consider if you decide to try and add a non-free use rationale to the file's page for that particular use. A logo specific to the futsal team (if one exists) would be much better and much easier to justify per relevant Wikipedia policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Question about book cover
I create book articles quite often on Wikipedia. I'm considering uploading a book cover for His Name Is George Floyd, a bio of George Floyd. Looking at the cover, do you believe I could export this to the Commons based on how simple the design is? ie is it eligible for copyright or is it too simple? Thank you. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Therapyisgood. The cover art is quite simple enough and I think it probably would be OK to upload to Commons since it does (in my opinion) fall below the c:COM:TOO United States under US copyright law. You might, however, want to ask at c:COM:VPC to see what some others might think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Franck Report
My plan is to transcript it for wikisource. It was mostly published May 1945. Does it fall under c:Template:PD-USGov? Habitator terrae (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Habitator terrae. You might want to ask about this at Wikisource:Copyright discussions or maybe possibly even at c:COM:VPC (if you think a scan of the entire document itself can be uploaded to Commons). One thing that might possibly an issue is that the Franck Report appears to be a document sent to the Secretary of War and it's not clear (at least to me) whether those who created and signed it were employees of the US government at the time. {{PD-USGov}} requires that works be created by employees of the US government as part of their official duties for such works to be PD. Works created by private citizens or even government employees privately in their free time don't seem to be covered by such a license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Non-free album cover license tagging
Hi, I uploaded a non-free album cover (File:Luude & Mattafix - Big City Life.png) and got a message about not having a copyright tag, but I'm a bit confused because I've uploaded numerous other album covers the same way (through the Wikipedia:Upload/Non-free album cover form) without problems. For example, I uploaded File:Bailey Zimmerman - Rock and a Hard Place.png a few weeks ago and its file page looks the same, so I don't see why one tripped the bot but the other didn't. Has something changed? Exallonyx (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Exallonyx. Non-free files require two things per WP:NFC#Implementation: (1) a file copyright license (or tag) and (2) a non-free use rationale (separate and specific to each use of the file). Failing to provide one or the other typically leads to the file being tagged for speedy deletion per either WP:F4 or WP:f6. In case of these files, it looks like you provided (2) for each file, but failed to provide (1). For album covers, the license {{Non-free album cover}} is generally used; so, I've gone ahead an added such a license to each of these files. I'm not sure why one file got flagged by a bot and the other didn't. If you really want to know, perhaps the thing to do would be to ask the user who runs the bot. I'm also not sure why the copyright license wasn't added if you used the Upload Wizard; I'd imagine one should've been added if you followed all of the steps, but you might want to ask about that at Wikipedia talk:Upload. The only thing I can suggest is that you check your non-free uploads after the fact to make sure they have both (1) and (2). In almost all cases, you only need one copyright license for a non-free file, but you will need a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each individual use of the file. If either (1) or (2) are missing, you will need to manually add it to the file's page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation! I had thought the rationale template covered both bases, since I hadn't had any problems with it until now. Looking over the form, I think I just hadn't noticed the licensing dropdown, somehow. I'll make sure to use it in the future and I'll go back and add the license to my previous uploads. Exallonyx (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Fair use on new pages
I would like to use Megumu Sagisawa.jpeg and Yūsaku Matsuda (1949–1989).png for the Koreans in Japan page. It has already been determined that the two photos can be used for fair use on wiki, as seen in the Megumu Sagisawa and Yūsaku Matsuda pages. Can somebody please tell me how I can use the same picture for the Koreans in Japan page? Thanks. ParallaxVision222 (talk) 04:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi ParallaxVision222. While non-free photos of deceased persons are often allowed for primary identification purposes in the main infoboxes or at the tops of stand-alone Wikipedia articles about such people, the use of the same photo in other ways or in other articles is much harder to justify. The use of such photo in broader much general articles only indirectly related to the subject of the photo is pretty much never allowed since such non-free use almost always tend to be more WP:DECORATIVE than not and in almost all cases simply linking back the the stand-alone article about the person in question is considered a sufficient alternative to an additional non-free use per WP:FREER. The article Koreans in Japan already contains a number of freely licensed images in Koreans in Japan#Notable people and I don't see how you'd be able to justify adding two non-free ones to that particular gallery per WP:NFG. Of course, if you disagree with my assessment, then you're free to start a discussion at WP:FFD or ask about it a WT:NFCC to see if you can establish a WP:CONSENSUS in favor of doing so, but (once again) I don't think you're going to have much luck in doing so. The way you're trying to use those two photos in that article is something that has pretty much never been considered policy compliant and I don't think the situation has recently changed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks your reply. I agree that it is mostly decorative and doesn't meet the requirements. ParallaxVision222 (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Image om PaJaMa
Why may this image be used in this article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_French - but not in the article PaJaMa - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PaJaMa - Jonnmann (talk) 09:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Jonnmann. The answer I gave above in #Fair use on new pages sort of applies here as well. Bascially, non-free images of deceased individuals tend to only be allowed when the image is used for primary identification purposes at the tops of or in the main infoboxes of stand-alone articles about such people as long as there are no other issues with the image's non-free use. Trying to use the same image in other articles or other ways tends to be much harder to justify and often is not considered appropriate per WP:FREER and WP:NFC#CS. PaJaMa seems to be more about a "collective" of individuals than any one individual per se; so, it would seem hard to justify the non-free use of individual in that article simply to show what they looked like. If there's an image of all the members of PaJaMa together taken during the period the collective was active, then that might be easier to try and justify, but even then FREER and NFC#CS might be still hard to meet. If you can find any freely-licensed or public domain images of the members of PaJaMa somewhere (perhaps check Wikimedia Commons), then those could be added to the article since their use is not subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Historical images passed off as "own work"
The image recently put in the infobox of Mikhail Tal is File:Misha._jpg.jpg. This was uploaded to wikimedia as "own work", but is from 1959.
Likewise for the image recently put in the infobox of Garry Kasparov. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)