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) |
---|
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Re: copyright question. The 50 Greatest Cartoons is a 1994 book about the fifty greatest cartoons of all time. This table list of Wikipedia articles, which lists the cartoons mentioned in that book, has been repeatedly removed as a copyright violation. So, my question — is that table list of Wikipedia articles a copyright violation, just because those particular cartoons are mentioned in that book? Furthermore, at least three of those cartoons listed, Felix in Hollywood, Gertie the Dinosaur and Steamboat Willie are in the public domain, so the authors of that book can't claim any copyright status over those particular cartoons, and I'm failing to see how any of these Wikipedia cartoon articles being listed would be a copyright violation in relation to that book. If this isn't the correct board for this question, please advise where I should ask. Thanks.
And also, how is this different from these films (Wikipedia articles) being listed in The Sight and Sound Greatest Films of All Time 2022 from Sight and Sound magazine, or these films (again, Wikipedia articles) being listed in AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies, or these films (again, Wikipedia articles) being listed in AFI's 100 Years...100 Thrills, both from the American Film Institute. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
WMF legal has ruled on the issue in the past: reproduction of a list that was compiled by any form of creative effort is a copyright violation(from article talk page – Alleged copyvio). I actually own a copy of this book, and for instance, number one on the list in the book is What's Opera, Doc?, which consists of pages 30-36 in the book, with intricate details and commentary about the cartoon, and all we have on the table list is the cartoon, rank and release year. So I don't see how a bare-bones list of this type infringes upon the authors "creative effort", when we are not reproducing any of those intricate details and commentary from the book. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
The ranking is a copyrightable element in its own right due to the creative effort used in compiling the list. In fact, AFI has a whole series of articles. Seems strange to me there is no consistency, 50 cartoons can't be listed, but 100 or 25 films can be listed, when creativity was used in generating the ranking in all of these lists. I guess we have different standards for different articles. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Isaidnoway (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I got pinged, and yes, I had a direct conversation with WP legal over a decade ago, and was told that the complete inclusion of the list was a problem. I'm not particularly in the mood to trawl through all those conversations to find that one. — Kww( talk) 02:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the copyright status of File:Zulfikar Ali Bhutto with Yahya Khan and Ghulam Ishaq Khan.png. It does seem to be PD now per c:COM:Pakistan, but it would've still been eligible for copyright protection in Pakistan on January 1, 1996 (Pakistan's URAA date), right? This seems to indicate per c:COM:HIRTLE that copyright protection in the US lasts for 95 years after creation. Is this a correct understanding of things? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I've uploaded the photo File:Mabel Lucie Attwell.jpg of Mabel Lucie Attwell under a non-free rationale. I'm unsure whether it is in the public domain, though it is entirely possible. It is from the National Portrait Gallery and is labeled "circa 1924", but I can find no evidence of when it was first published. Is this the best place to ask this kind of question or should I take it to c:COM:VPC? gobonobo + c 14:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
File:America-250-logo.jpg is listed, in good faith, as public domain. It does appear on the Library of Congress website, albeit on a blog there. But other U.S. Government websites, such as the VA and IMLS, show a very similar logo with a "TM" at the upper right. The non-government website of the Museum of the American Revolution also shows a TM version with this statement: "The AMERICA 250™ trademark and logo is owned and licensed by the United States Semiquincentennial Commission. Unauthorized use of the AMERICA 250™ trademarks is strictly prohibited." I know a trademark is not a copyright, but is it possible to trademark something in the public domain? If not, can this logo be used at United States Semiquincentennial as fair use? Station1 ( talk) 21:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I uploaded an image of the upcoming new Pennsylvania License Plate File:PA LicensePlate 2025.png and got a warning about the copyright status on my talk page. Would it have the same status as File:Pennsylvania 2017 license plate.jpg since they are both from the same official site? 7s3s ( talk) 17:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
{{db-g7|rationale=}}
to the top of the editing window, click on "Show preview" to check your work and then click on "Publish changesd" if everything looks OK. In the |rationale=
parameter field, you can just add the reason while you're requesting deletion. Before you click, "Publish changes", though, you should also leave an
edit summary explaining why you're requesting deletion. The file should be deleted shortly thereafter depending on how quickly it's noticed by an administrator. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
01:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)File:Nova Religio low res cover.jpg seems to be a fairly simple combination of colors and text; even the logo-like element is nothing more than the letters "N" and "R" inside a circle which is then inside a square. Is there any reason this can't be relicensed as {{ PD-simple}} and tagged for a move to Commons given that Nova Religio is publsihed in the US? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
File:President Mohamed Amin (cropped).jpg is licensed as {{ PD-Maldives}}, but that license contains a qualifier which states the image might still be protected under US copyright law. The image would probably be OK as non-free in Mohamed Amin Didi, assuming WP:FREER is met and the colorization isn't an issue; it doesn't, however, really need to be converted to non-free if it's PD in the US. In that case, the image could be moved to Commons. Anyone got any opinions on this? Should it be converted to non-free? Is the colorization a problem? What looks to be a black-and-white version of the same image can be seen here, but there are several other official looking images like this which could be used instead if the colorization is a problem. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 19:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
"DigitUniTO. Collezioni e fondi digitali dell'Università di Torino" [DigitUniTO. Collections and Digital Funds of the University of Turin] has published digitized versions of many works by the Italian jurist Santi Romano(1875-1947) here. They claim that his works are in the public domain (see e.g. here, "dominio pubblico"). Should we trust them? Please see this discussion with LegFun. Thanks for your help, Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 20:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I am editing the page about my father where I found some errors. I wish to add or replace its images. I have scans of these images from his scrap book I would like to add.
1) This is the image that was provided when the musical he starred in was playing at the Belasco Theater in LA. The production was put on completely by active duty soldiers like him circa 1945 during WW2. The show did earn proceeds beyond the war bonds the theatrical run was intended to raise, but these proceeds were not earned by the soldiers but were used to build a public pool at their army base, Fort MacArthur. I have included this image from the Playbill complete with the text, but also an image cropped the way I think it should be included on his page.
2) This image was a publicity photo published in 1957 by American international Pictures for the release of Reform School Girl in which he played the antagonist. It includes this copyright notice: "Permission granted for newspaper and magazine reproduction (made in USA)"
3) This image he used as a headshot for the purpose of casting. It was either: taken circa 1962 by a photographer when my father volunteered to be a model at LA Dept. of Parks and Recreation photography events where they arranged to make various models and sets available for photographers to practice their craft. The models volunteered with the common understanding that would receive copies of the images to promote their careers; or: it may be an image specifically contracted by his agent to use as a headshot.
I hope someone can advise how and if I can use the images on his page and what copyright tags I need to include. Nesdon ( talk) 14:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello! Could, please, someone check contribution of Kirill Shrayber? He have uploaded images, which were made with using OpenStreetMap data, and adds these images to articles. All images have watermark with his site, but there is no any notices about OpenStreetMap and ODBL. Doesn't it look like copyright violation and advertisement? Dinamik ( talk) 14:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm confused. I want to understand where I might've went wrong with this file's copyright. Keep in mind, the subject is North Korean. There's a template on Commons that could be used to potentially support making the image public domain, though it's unknown when the image was taken and whether or not the subject is deceased.
But since the image is from the official website of the Ministry of Unification, which is a South Korean website, wouldn't it make more sense to put "{{KOGL|1=Ministry of Korea}}" instead? - OpalYosutebito ( talk) 17:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Would this image: https://0x0.st/Xp_0.png qualify as being original enough for copyright would the fact it's comprised of chemical structures and prevent it from having any copyright? Traumnovelle ( talk) 00:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I've never contributed or edited Wikipedia before, I would just like to change a picture on an existing article.
I'm a descendant of a diplomat whose current photo is apparently in the public domain, but isn't what our family would like to use to represent him. In our collection of family photos, there are several better (and clearer for the article's educational value) pictures, any one of which we would prefer over the current one.
The photographer of these photos is unknown, and my relative died only 40 years ago, so it's nearly certain that the photographer is also deceased.
How do I change an unflattering public domain picture with a family photo in a professional setting with no clear ownership or person who could grant permission? Csg99 ( talk) 11:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
File:Head Over Heels GoGos.jpg and File:TurnToYouGoGos.jpg are very colorful, but they also seem to be nothing more than the name of the band and the name of the song in a fairly simple font combined with various colors. It seems like they should be {{ PD-logo}} per c:COM:TOO United States, but just want to see what others think. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
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) |
---|
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Re: copyright question. The 50 Greatest Cartoons is a 1994 book about the fifty greatest cartoons of all time. This table list of Wikipedia articles, which lists the cartoons mentioned in that book, has been repeatedly removed as a copyright violation. So, my question — is that table list of Wikipedia articles a copyright violation, just because those particular cartoons are mentioned in that book? Furthermore, at least three of those cartoons listed, Felix in Hollywood, Gertie the Dinosaur and Steamboat Willie are in the public domain, so the authors of that book can't claim any copyright status over those particular cartoons, and I'm failing to see how any of these Wikipedia cartoon articles being listed would be a copyright violation in relation to that book. If this isn't the correct board for this question, please advise where I should ask. Thanks.
And also, how is this different from these films (Wikipedia articles) being listed in The Sight and Sound Greatest Films of All Time 2022 from Sight and Sound magazine, or these films (again, Wikipedia articles) being listed in AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies, or these films (again, Wikipedia articles) being listed in AFI's 100 Years...100 Thrills, both from the American Film Institute. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
WMF legal has ruled on the issue in the past: reproduction of a list that was compiled by any form of creative effort is a copyright violation(from article talk page – Alleged copyvio). I actually own a copy of this book, and for instance, number one on the list in the book is What's Opera, Doc?, which consists of pages 30-36 in the book, with intricate details and commentary about the cartoon, and all we have on the table list is the cartoon, rank and release year. So I don't see how a bare-bones list of this type infringes upon the authors "creative effort", when we are not reproducing any of those intricate details and commentary from the book. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
The ranking is a copyrightable element in its own right due to the creative effort used in compiling the list. In fact, AFI has a whole series of articles. Seems strange to me there is no consistency, 50 cartoons can't be listed, but 100 or 25 films can be listed, when creativity was used in generating the ranking in all of these lists. I guess we have different standards for different articles. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Isaidnoway (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I got pinged, and yes, I had a direct conversation with WP legal over a decade ago, and was told that the complete inclusion of the list was a problem. I'm not particularly in the mood to trawl through all those conversations to find that one. — Kww( talk) 02:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the copyright status of File:Zulfikar Ali Bhutto with Yahya Khan and Ghulam Ishaq Khan.png. It does seem to be PD now per c:COM:Pakistan, but it would've still been eligible for copyright protection in Pakistan on January 1, 1996 (Pakistan's URAA date), right? This seems to indicate per c:COM:HIRTLE that copyright protection in the US lasts for 95 years after creation. Is this a correct understanding of things? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I've uploaded the photo File:Mabel Lucie Attwell.jpg of Mabel Lucie Attwell under a non-free rationale. I'm unsure whether it is in the public domain, though it is entirely possible. It is from the National Portrait Gallery and is labeled "circa 1924", but I can find no evidence of when it was first published. Is this the best place to ask this kind of question or should I take it to c:COM:VPC? gobonobo + c 14:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
File:America-250-logo.jpg is listed, in good faith, as public domain. It does appear on the Library of Congress website, albeit on a blog there. But other U.S. Government websites, such as the VA and IMLS, show a very similar logo with a "TM" at the upper right. The non-government website of the Museum of the American Revolution also shows a TM version with this statement: "The AMERICA 250™ trademark and logo is owned and licensed by the United States Semiquincentennial Commission. Unauthorized use of the AMERICA 250™ trademarks is strictly prohibited." I know a trademark is not a copyright, but is it possible to trademark something in the public domain? If not, can this logo be used at United States Semiquincentennial as fair use? Station1 ( talk) 21:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I uploaded an image of the upcoming new Pennsylvania License Plate File:PA LicensePlate 2025.png and got a warning about the copyright status on my talk page. Would it have the same status as File:Pennsylvania 2017 license plate.jpg since they are both from the same official site? 7s3s ( talk) 17:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
{{db-g7|rationale=}}
to the top of the editing window, click on "Show preview" to check your work and then click on "Publish changesd" if everything looks OK. In the |rationale=
parameter field, you can just add the reason while you're requesting deletion. Before you click, "Publish changes", though, you should also leave an
edit summary explaining why you're requesting deletion. The file should be deleted shortly thereafter depending on how quickly it's noticed by an administrator. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
01:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)File:Nova Religio low res cover.jpg seems to be a fairly simple combination of colors and text; even the logo-like element is nothing more than the letters "N" and "R" inside a circle which is then inside a square. Is there any reason this can't be relicensed as {{ PD-simple}} and tagged for a move to Commons given that Nova Religio is publsihed in the US? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
File:President Mohamed Amin (cropped).jpg is licensed as {{ PD-Maldives}}, but that license contains a qualifier which states the image might still be protected under US copyright law. The image would probably be OK as non-free in Mohamed Amin Didi, assuming WP:FREER is met and the colorization isn't an issue; it doesn't, however, really need to be converted to non-free if it's PD in the US. In that case, the image could be moved to Commons. Anyone got any opinions on this? Should it be converted to non-free? Is the colorization a problem? What looks to be a black-and-white version of the same image can be seen here, but there are several other official looking images like this which could be used instead if the colorization is a problem. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 19:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
"DigitUniTO. Collezioni e fondi digitali dell'Università di Torino" [DigitUniTO. Collections and Digital Funds of the University of Turin] has published digitized versions of many works by the Italian jurist Santi Romano(1875-1947) here. They claim that his works are in the public domain (see e.g. here, "dominio pubblico"). Should we trust them? Please see this discussion with LegFun. Thanks for your help, Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 20:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I am editing the page about my father where I found some errors. I wish to add or replace its images. I have scans of these images from his scrap book I would like to add.
1) This is the image that was provided when the musical he starred in was playing at the Belasco Theater in LA. The production was put on completely by active duty soldiers like him circa 1945 during WW2. The show did earn proceeds beyond the war bonds the theatrical run was intended to raise, but these proceeds were not earned by the soldiers but were used to build a public pool at their army base, Fort MacArthur. I have included this image from the Playbill complete with the text, but also an image cropped the way I think it should be included on his page.
2) This image was a publicity photo published in 1957 by American international Pictures for the release of Reform School Girl in which he played the antagonist. It includes this copyright notice: "Permission granted for newspaper and magazine reproduction (made in USA)"
3) This image he used as a headshot for the purpose of casting. It was either: taken circa 1962 by a photographer when my father volunteered to be a model at LA Dept. of Parks and Recreation photography events where they arranged to make various models and sets available for photographers to practice their craft. The models volunteered with the common understanding that would receive copies of the images to promote their careers; or: it may be an image specifically contracted by his agent to use as a headshot.
I hope someone can advise how and if I can use the images on his page and what copyright tags I need to include. Nesdon ( talk) 14:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello! Could, please, someone check contribution of Kirill Shrayber? He have uploaded images, which were made with using OpenStreetMap data, and adds these images to articles. All images have watermark with his site, but there is no any notices about OpenStreetMap and ODBL. Doesn't it look like copyright violation and advertisement? Dinamik ( talk) 14:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm confused. I want to understand where I might've went wrong with this file's copyright. Keep in mind, the subject is North Korean. There's a template on Commons that could be used to potentially support making the image public domain, though it's unknown when the image was taken and whether or not the subject is deceased.
But since the image is from the official website of the Ministry of Unification, which is a South Korean website, wouldn't it make more sense to put "{{KOGL|1=Ministry of Korea}}" instead? - OpalYosutebito ( talk) 17:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Would this image: https://0x0.st/Xp_0.png qualify as being original enough for copyright would the fact it's comprised of chemical structures and prevent it from having any copyright? Traumnovelle ( talk) 00:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I've never contributed or edited Wikipedia before, I would just like to change a picture on an existing article.
I'm a descendant of a diplomat whose current photo is apparently in the public domain, but isn't what our family would like to use to represent him. In our collection of family photos, there are several better (and clearer for the article's educational value) pictures, any one of which we would prefer over the current one.
The photographer of these photos is unknown, and my relative died only 40 years ago, so it's nearly certain that the photographer is also deceased.
How do I change an unflattering public domain picture with a family photo in a professional setting with no clear ownership or person who could grant permission? Csg99 ( talk) 11:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
File:Head Over Heels GoGos.jpg and File:TurnToYouGoGos.jpg are very colorful, but they also seem to be nothing more than the name of the band and the name of the song in a fairly simple font combined with various colors. It seems like they should be {{ PD-logo}} per c:COM:TOO United States, but just want to see what others think. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)