ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ:Media copyright questions

• About
• Welcome
• Help menu
• Tutorial
• FAQ
• Where to ask questions
• Ref desk
• Help desk
• Wikicode
• Glossary

(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:Image 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.

Missing children poster

I would like to add an image to Casitas del Sur case. I am thinking of contacting the author of this picture on Flickr to ask him to release the picture under a cc-by-sa license. As can be seen, the image is a picture of a missing children poster that has pictures of the children. Assume the author does release the image under an acceptable license, can it be used on Wikipedia? Ajax F¡ore_talk 00:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, I have answered my own question. The picture is a derivative work and therefore not allowed on Wikipedia. Ajax F¡ore_talk 22:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Photo being removed, but not clear why

This is in reference to File:Giant Hula half.jpg.

On the Talk tab of an article that includes this picture (Ashrita Furman) it states "Thank you for uploading Image:Ashrita-hula.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page."

However, the image description page includes the following text:

ಪರವಾನಗಿ:

After reading through the relevant material on Wikipedia Commons, I still cannot understand what is missing.

I'd be grateful if someone could help me figure it out.

Thanks

There is a link at File:Giant_Hula_half.jpg to the discussion page. Go there and explain that you took the photo and release the rights to it. RudolfRed (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Her is discussion: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Giant_Hula_half.jpg --Richard Reinhardt (talk) 05:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Ordnance Survey map extract

The copyright justification for File:Saddleworth Moor-Section of OS map region 8.JPG says "This work is in the public domain because it is an Ordnance Survey map over 50 years old." The map is clearly not over 50 years old. I'm not sure if it's the copyright notice that needs to change, or whether the graphic needs to be removed, but something needs to be done... Dave.Dunford (talk) 08:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't look to be over 50 to me and I suspect it's part of the 2004 series. Either have a word with the uploaded or list it at WP:PUF for review. NtheP (talk) 08:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The map is an extract from the OS Landranger 1:50,000 series. It cannot be any older than 1974. A 50 year old map exactly (ie: 1963) would still use the One Inch Seventh Series, which had black gridlines, not blue. It's a blatant copyright violation of the Ordnance Survey, and I have nominated it for speedy deletion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Sayyid Shamsullah Qadri.jpg

Good Morning ,

I have loaded a family picture which are my personal belonging File:Sayyid Shamsullah Qadri.jpg and many other historical pictures related to famous academics of South India . Now i want to know how i can get copyright of 50-60 years old photographs for the personal family picture . ( (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)), please need help .

The photographer or their heirs would own the copyright. If you are the heir, then you can grant the license. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Rotating_Legionary_2.gif

Hello, please see this question on the Reference Desk about the two images https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rotating_Legionary_2.gif and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rotating_Legionary.gif

The questioner is concerned by a historical error in the depiction (and note on the talk page for the image another user brings up a second factual error), but I am bringing it here because the person who answered the question said The "author" probably didn't get permission to use the model from its creator.

Is this then a copyright issue? 184.147.119.141 (talk) 11:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

If the original model isn't the work of the editor uploading the image, then we have two problems:

• The licensing for the image is wrong. It doesn't credit the model author or the source.
• (possibly) the model's licence must also permit a derivative work like this, for such derivative images to be distributed, and it may also specify what licences such derivatives could use.

It's possible that this image can still be used, if the model has a suitable licence and if we update the image licensing appropriately. It's unlikely that the image can be used as is with the current licence (only if the model had a very free licence indeed not even requiring attribution, which is unlikely).

Obvious next step is to ask the image author and uploader where they got the model and to sort this out.

NB - are we sure where the model came from? Adding an assertion that it's originally someone else's work is easy to do, but such claims aren't always correct. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll copy here the rest of Sleigh's comment on authorship. I should have copied it all, instead of just the sentence that I understood! Hope it makes more sense to you. Model is from an Autodesk 3DS Max file from Rome Total War mod called Roma Surrectum II. The "author" probably didn't get permission to use the model from its creator. 184.147.119.141 (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I've left a message for the image uploader here (sorry I can't figure out how to do it in diff form since it's the only edit to their talk page). Please let me know what to do next. 184.147.119.141 (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

These are both commons images: any outcome will take place there so the discussion should be taking place there too. Neither image has any tag indication any aspect of its copyright status is being questioned. ww2censor (talk) 08:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. I need to leave a message somewhere else? Where? What is a tag indication? Do you mean there is no copyright problem? 184.147.120.88 (talk) 11:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The images are not hosted here on the en wiki, but on Wikimedia Commons. You may want to ask for a licence review at: commons:Commons:License review/requests or the commons: Commons:Village pump/Copyright because while we can give you some advise we can't do anything with the images. I don't know if there is or is not a copyright problem. ww2censor (talk) 13:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I left all the info at your second link. 184.147.120.88 (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Logos of Colleges

Can Logos of Colleges be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons?If no free version exists,can a free version be made?What about examples like File:Calcutta National Medical College LOGO.png, File:Ucms.gif, File:Delhi University's official logo.png. It seems that the uploaders do not know that the logos of colleges are copyrighted.Guru-45 (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The first two appear to be copyvios and I have tagged them for deletion as such. I guess for the third one, we have to accept the facts presented as to its date of first publication and that therefore it is now PD in India.--ukexpat (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:NFTABLE

WP:NFTABLE states that exemptions are "...non-free images arranged in a gallery or tabular format is usually unacceptable, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis." You should start a discussion about content removal, before deletion.

Bes2224 (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

To whom is this specifically addressed; which situation? This is a board for asking questions. Chris857 (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

game was downloaded but then lost when trying to save

we went through everything to put the game on computer . we downloaded it from iPhone everything went well download commenced, ran for 1 hour or so. while waiting for download to finish, i had to then ring my son, so he could tell me what to do next , which was 2hrs after download started. my son told to save. but when i went to do that it had disappeared. ≤ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.149.185.239 (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, specifically a page for discussing copyright concerns for images and videos, and as such, we have no role in any iPhone games. Chris857 (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

File:SasanianinvasionofYemen.jpg

I'm confused about the copyright status. It's a 1915 litho and I'm assuming that the copyright notice is standard and doesn't apply to this specific image. It's from [೧]. Dougweller (talk) 13:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

"Hutchinson's History of the Nations" appears to be a UK (London) magazine or book. So UK and US copyright would need to be both checked per Commons guidelines. But it's probably better to ask that question on Commons directly (it's a Commons image). GermanJoe (talk) 13:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion at Commons on the basis that it's not PD in the UK. If deleted there it could be uploaded locally as {{PD-USonly}}. January (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

NFC question

I'd like to use this image from this web page in Charlene Richard as a NFC image and as the only image in the article. There's no indication at that web page that they had permission from the publisher of the prayer card, the Friends of Charlene to use the image, but that page is itself a reproduction of a journal article and the permissions might have not been carried over. More likely, in my opinion, since those prayer cards were published with a view to free mass distribution to promote the sainthood of Richard, no one bothered to ask. Prayer cards about Richard are referenced in the article, though this particular one was published later than (but probably as a reproduction — and possible copyright violation — of) the early ones described in the article. So, the original source of this particular card is clear: the Friends of Charlene, but the ultimate probable origin is unknown and the current use of the card may be a copyright violation. There's all the warts. Does it qualify under NFC? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Album cover which possibly does not exceed the threshold of originality

I think this album cover does not exceed the threshold of originality since it only consists of text in a simple typeface so its license could be changed to PD or its reproduction made by me uploaded to commons, am I right? --ɴõɴəχүsƚ 19:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, textbook case for being ineligible for copyright. --MASEM (t) 19:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Proof of ownership?

On the Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files page, I saw several disputed files where the uploader says they took the photo and "proof" is requested. Exactly what kind of proof can be provided here? I understand that Wikipedia can falsify the claim by doing a Google image search to see if the photo is posted online anywhere else. But assuming that those searches lead nowhere, how does anyone prove they took the photo themselves? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Some ideas would be uploading a full resolution version, where previously only a lo-res was available, taking a photo with the same camera and thus show that exif or hot pixels match, or sending an email to OTRS that can show that the claimed person is the same as the uploader. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The proper type of evidence in each case would be whatever addresses the nature of the doubt and plausibly clarifies it. If User:AnonymousX0 uploads as his own work a photo attributed to professional photographer John Doe, then the proof can be a mail to OTRS from the professional mail account verifiably associated to that photographer, thus providing the evidence needed in that case: a credible identity link between photographer and uploader. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Rarely will definite proof be possible. I have seen it argued that someone else might have taken the photo using the the uploader's camera, or that an exif might be fraudulent. Hopefully, a PUF nomination will give a reason for doubt but, unfortunately, nominations lacking a substantive reason are not closed for lack of rationale. Worse, if no one challenges the nomination, the file will likely be deleted after seven days. Looking at the current rash of "no proof" nominations in WP:PUF it looks to me that quite often there is a legitimate doubt but the nominator has provided no hint as to what the doubt might be. In one case I see someone asking what the doubt is.[೨] In another case it looks to me rather likely that the uploader did indeed take the photo.[೩] I'll look back in a few days to see what has happened to these files. Thincat (talk) 09:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

No derivatives

It's been awhile, so I might be remembering incorrectly, but isn't it the case that images that are under a license that doesn't allow derivatives aren't considered free (eg. this one)? If that is the case, why is that? Ryan Vesey 04:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

that is correct, no derivative images are not counted as free here. The reason is that "wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" also applies to the pictures, so we allow people to change the pictures as well as the text. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Altamont Corridor Express logo.jpg

IMHO this file has a rather low threshold of originality. Should it be {{PD-textlogo}} or {{PD-ineligible}} (but with {{Trademark}}, of course)? Useddenim (talk) 11:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes this is too simple for copyright so PD-textlogo should be OK. or PD-simple. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Abbotsford Bridge over Murray River - Nov 1984.jpg

Would just like some opinions on whether I have appropriate tagged this image? If not I will nom for deletion . Most specifically whether "Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted." if it isnt explicitly stated or ruled out beyond "Use of this work allowed provided the creator and SLV acknowledged" -- Nbound (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

My pics have been copied from my facebook fanpage

I have a fan page on facebook where i post different pics made by me.I never claim any copyrights and i dont mind anyone sharing or copying them. However, now i am trying to upload the pics on wikipedia and i am getting a deletion notice stating my pics are copied from other sites, but actually those sites have copied those pics from my fanpage. I can even prove this by letting wikipedia compare the dates of my posts on facebook and those sites which have posts after the dates when i posted my pics. Please let me know how can i fix this issue Islamicdua (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

File:WiX logo.gif

I meant to upload the image to Wikipedia Commons but it was upload Wikipedia by accident. The Template:CPL and Template:Common Public License is missing from Wikipedia but not from Wikipedia Commons. Now I have a problem with the image I uploaded. But I cannot get this image moved to Commons without the proper license. What should I do? — DarkFrog (talk) — 07:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not see any evidence that the image is freely licenced on either the source page or the rest of that website, so the licence will be questioned and may need an OTRS confirmation. You can actually move or even reupload the image directly to the commons but the verification of the licence will still be necessary. Get the copyright holder to verify their permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. If you do upload to the commons, please add the template {{Now commons}} to the image here. ww2censor (talk) 08:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)