Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Brgesto (talk | contribs) at 15:27, 14 December 2020 (→DFB badge logo: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Media copyright questions
    Shortcuts

    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.

    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 an acceptable Creative Commons or other free 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.; {{Cc-by-4.0}}), 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 start a new discussion" link below.
    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.

    Click here to start a new discussion

    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

    Hi there. I see User:Ashashyou has placed this image Mahmoud Khalil Al-Housary under public domain by the virtue of Egypt's 1954 law that was applicable on works published prior to 2002.

    So, would the Qur'an (audio) recitations of the famous Egyptian reciters (El Minshawi, Al Hussary, Abdul Basit Abdus Samad, Mustafa Ismail) fall under public domain too, especially since most of them published their works well before 2002 regardless of whether anyone claims legal rights to the recitals (record companies or firms that acquired rights to the recordings post their deaths or secured rights in other countries)?

    Thanks.

    Originally asked here: User_talk:Ashashyou#Egypt_copyright_laws and here Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1068#Egypt_copyright_law_(1954).

    Help desk question

    Hi everyone, @NightBird1029 left a question at the Help desk (here) about photo copyright, but hasn't got a response there, so I'm leaving this message here in the hope that someone can help them. Thanks! Seagull123 Φ 18:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I've responded there. ww2censor (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Team logos for B teams

    Hi, so when I added the team logo for UD Logroñés B, I used the same file that was on the UD Logroñés since they are the same club and use the same logo. However, it was removed because the image was approved for the A team page, not the B team page. How do I make it approved for both pages? Or would I have to upload it again specifically for the second page? Thanks. RedPatchBoy (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    For sports teams in the same "family" where there is a separate article for the main body or team and each other team in that (as your A/B team, but would also include things like college teams, etc.) and which each all share the same logo, we generally do not allow the same non-free logo to be replicated across each team page per WP:NFCC#3 minimal use. We do allow the logo to be used on the main team or "family" page, but on other pages it can be a problem since you are likely linking back to the main team/"family" page where the logo can be found. --Masem (t) 15:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Masem and T: I'm running into this issue with recently removed logos for the women's teams in the W-League (Australia). What do you recommend? Upload a separate file? No logo in the infobox for the women's teams (seems imbalanced)?
    1. File:Perth Glory FC logo.svg deleted 3 December from Perth Glory FC (W-League)
    2. File:Newcastle United Jets Logo.svg deleted 3 December from Newcastle Jets FC (W-League)
    3. File:Melbourne Victory.svg deleted 3 December from Melbourne Victory FC (W-League)
    4. File:Melbourne City FC.svg deleted 3 December from Melbourne City FC (W-League)
    5. File:Logo of Western Sydney Wanderers FC.svg deleted 3 December from Western Sydney Wanderers FC (W-League)
    Hmlarson (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But , for example, in the Perth Glory case, the logo is also not being used on the Youth League team as well, which is equally "fair". Ideally, there should be a parent article on the Perth Glory "family" that discusses all three teams (mens, womens, and youth) which the logo would go to, but I recognize that seems an odd structure because it does appear the womens and youth are adjunct teams, and not "equal" in importance as the mens FC. Hence, not including the logo is still the right answer for the reason I gave above. --Masem (t) 00:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to add to what Masem posted, the reason the above files all seem to have been removed (the files were removed from articles; they weren't deleted from Wikipedia) by JJMC89 bot was because they were lacking a separate, specific non-free use rationale for those particular uses. WP:NFCC#10c (as well as WP:NFCCE and WP:NFC#Implementation) require a non-free use rationale be provided for each use of a non-free file; so, if a file is being used more than once (even in the same article), it needs a non-free use rationale specific to each of those uses. This is a common mistake since many editors seem to think that a file only needs a one rationale and that rationale then is sufficient to cover all uses of the file. A simple fix would be to simply provide the missing rationales; this will stop the bot from removing the file and will satisfy NFCC#10c. However, there are ten non-free content use criteria which need to be satisfied for a rationale to be considered valid; so, only satisfying NFCC#10c doesn't automatically mean the file is now OK to use.
    As Masem pointed out above, there are other criteria (in particular WP:NFCC#3) which need to be met, and failing even one of the ten criteria means that the use is not going to be considered policy compliant. This type of logo use has to do with item #17 of WP:NFC#UUI because it has been interpreted that the use of "parent" team logos for primary identification purposes in articles about "child" entities is not policy compliant and thus shouldn't be allowed; not everyone, however, agrees with this interpretations and there've quite a number of discussions over it in recent years, but nothing has been resolved. In other words, no new consensus or new consensus has been estbalished. Personally, based upon these discussions, I think it's probably OK to treat the main men's and women's team as the parent's of each family tree, which means I could see how using the same logo in each of those articles could be justified as long as it can be clearly shown that both teams use the same branding; however, I don't feel the same way with respect to "B", youth or reserve teams since these teams seem to be "feeder" teams that essentially are grooming players to join the two top-level teams. At the same time, if there are separate logos being used by the main men's and women's teams or logos specific to the other "child" teams, then it should be OK to upload those logos and use them in their respective articles.
    One other thing to consider are the use of stars, etc. in such logos. Some teams seem to add stars to their logo when they win some important competition so in a way that makes the logo specific to a particular team. So, even if teams in the same family are using that logo, it might not be considered appropriate for Wikipedia if the other teams in the family haven't had the same success. That, however, may depend on whether you see the championship as an individual team's success or a "family" success. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ​For reference, I uploaded quite a number of non-free file a few years ago that I thought were specific enough to the various W-League women's teams to justify their use on Wikipedia. Those logos were all being used until quite recently when they were removed with edits like this. I thought about re-adding the files after I received WP:F5 notifications about them on my user talk page, but decided not to since (1) it wasn't clear whether all the teams were still being run by the W-League (like they were when I originally uploaded the logos) and (2) it wasn't clear whether the teams were still using logos like File:Newcastle Jets FC W-League logo.png on their kits anymore. If you want to go back and re-add those logos, and then start a discussion about them somewhere (e.g. article talk pages, WT:FOOTY, WP:FFD) then you can, but you will need to do so before the files are deleted as orphaned free use. There should be no problem temporarily restoring them to the article while this is further discussed since they can always be deleted at a later date if it turns out their use doesn't comply with relevant policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Masem and T: and @Marchjuly: Shouldn't the logos be removed from the A-League articles if they have no fair-use rationale templates? See File:Perth Glory FC logo.svg on Perth Glory FC for example. Hmlarson (talk) 01:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Two things: (1) WP:PING templates don't work if you add them after the fact to an already signed post. So, if you want to try and ping someone like you did above, you need to re-sign your post. I'll pin @Masem: for you so that he sees your last post just in case he misses it on his watchlist. (2) File:Perth Glory FC logo.svg and the other files do have non-free use rationales for the A-League articles; so, that's why the bot didn't remove the files from those articles. They didn't have corresponding rationales for the W-League articles (most likely because whomever added the files to those articles didn't realize a separate rationale was needed); that's why the bot removed the files from those articles. The bot is only looking for non-free use rationales being added to articles without a correpsonding rationale for the use; the bot isn't capable of assessing why the rationale is missing or whether a rationale could be added. That's where editors like you and I come in. Generally, if you're going to add a non-file file to an article, then it's your responsibility to also add a rationale to the file's page for the use. Sometimes when you don't and it seems fairly obvious that use complies with WP:NFCC, another editor may add the missing rationale; you shouldn't count of this though which is why it's good practice to add the required rationale to the file's page before you actually add the file to an article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Can I use this image?

    Hi I have an image I want to upload but I am not sure whether I can use it due to copyright.

    Would someone kindly help me so I can use this image?

    Many thanks. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kambow120 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Kambow120: which image? Nthep (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    An image of The Range’s new logo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kambow120 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Photo of copyrighted material with small depth of field

    File:Sznikiel.jpg
    Example image with small depth of field

    Is image like this ok for Wikimedia Commons or is it fair use and only allowed in Wikipedia? I was told that the images like that (with small depth of field) are ok. I also wondering if image of a pile of books in library, where cover of the book on top is visible is also fair use. So it's not the right place for commons? Or is person that hold a book (e.g. the author) also fair use and you can't upload it to Commons. jcubic (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Jcubic. Commons doesn't accept any type of fair use content per c:COM:FAIR. A photograph of a 2D-copyrighted work isn't usually going to be accepted by Commons per c:COM:2D copying unless you have the WP:CONSENT of person who owns the copyright of the work being photographed; so, you typically can't upload a photo of cartoon to Commons without the consent of the cartoonist who created it, unless the cartoon is no longer or never has been protected by copyright for some reason such as WP:PD or c:COM:DM. Wikipedia does accept fair use content as non-free content, but Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is quite restrictive and their are ten criteria that need to be satisfied each time you use a non-free file.
    Anyway, the photo you've uploaded to Commons has been nominated for speedy deletion; so, if you want to challenge this, you should explain why at c:File talk:Sznikiel.jpg -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Letter published in Falkland Times May 1978.jpg

    I uploaded this a couple of weeks back along with evidence of permission from the copyright holder. I later had an email that that said that what I supplied was insufficient, this requested that the copyright holder fill out an online form. This he tried to do but we found that the form didn't work as the file isn't uploaded to commons. So the copyright holder has emailed permission-en@wikimedia.org. And since then silence and there is no record of permission being received.

    Any idea of who to check with before it's deleted. WCMemail 11:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Wee Curry Monster: the OTRS ticket is 2020110710006459. Issues like this are best raised at WP:OTRS/N but I'm happy to answer here. I'm not the OTRS volunteer dealing with the ticket but the issue looks to me like permission isn't from the copyright holder of the letter. Nthep (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for sorting this. WCMemail 17:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ideal resolution for a movie/show promotional poster/ Non-free content criteria/

    Hi, I'm trying to upload some TV shows promotional posters. I tried once and got flagged because of its high resolution, then reuploaded it in a low resolution but got deleted anyway. What is the ideal resolution for an image to comply with Wikipedia's NFC criteria? That information is not mentioned anywhere.Wikiabitbetter (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    We want to keep non-free media under a total resolution of 100,000 pixels. See WP:IMAGERES. You need to scale it down before uploading to make sure the size falls under that. --Masem (t) 15:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikiabitbetter: However, you can also tag the file with the {{non-free reduce}} template and a bot will normally do the job for you. ww2censor (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I'm not sure about the legacy of the DFB-logo to be uploaded. Here you can find it.

    As per the Commons Template, refering to German Public Corporations, it should be legible. Thus I'm not sure about the Threshold of originality which may be also legible as an unsufficient amount of original and creative authorship?? (Other valid examples here).

    Thanks in advance. --Brgesto (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions&oldid=994195944"