Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2022/January

Do I need to use clickable links under GFDL

The application that my company uses to edit our webpage doesnt allow for clickable links in the copyright field, is it okay if the credit looks like this:

Jonathan Nélis / Wikimedia Commons / CC BY-SA 3.0 & GFDL https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License

I just realized that the links are clickable here since apparently that happens automatically, that would not the case on the site of our company though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Made to last (talk • contribs) 02:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC) copy paste is possible though.

Its about this picture: [[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Made to last (talk • contribs) 02:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

File: Virtudesk logo.jpg Question for Copyright

Hello everyone. I recently was drafting an article and inserted one of my own images. But I forgot to put the right copyright tag on the file. Can someone ensure I did this correctly? I added the tag "copyrighted non-free/fair use" in the description of the file page and added a new field, "other information" in order to add the tag. Did I do it right? Here is the page: File:Virtudesk_logo.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ares-2021 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Ares-2021: The file looks fine but its continued existence may be moot because the article is up for deletion. Please sign your posts with 4 tildes. ww2censor (talk) 13:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I see okay. Thanks Ares-2021 (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ares-2021: If your comment at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Virtudesk was intended to be a WP:!VOTE to keep the article, you should probably move it to bottom of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtudesk instead. Before you do that though, you might want to read WP:AFD#Contributing to AfD discussions and Wikipedia:So your article has been nominated for deletion if you're not familiar with how AFD discussions work. You might also want to read WP:SHAREDACCOUNT and WP:COI as well because other editors are likely going to ask you to clarify who is the "we" you're referring to in your post. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Extraction of WP:NFCC image from Proquest?

Margaret Wilson (novelist) is missing her picture. It is present in a NYT article, which is reproduced in ProQuest. The ProQuest article pdf states "Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission". Presuming that such a picture can be extracted from the NYT article and uploaded and included in her article under WP:NFCC, can this be done from the ProQuest article? By an Australian? Thanks, ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Hydronium Hydroxide. Wikipedia doesn't technically need the permission of a copyright holder to use one of their works as non-free content. It's nice perhaps, but not required for non-free content use purposes. However, relevant policy does ask us to avoid using non-free content whose provenance is unclear and which might've been obtained without being previously published by its copyright holder as explained in WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion. Perhaps you're worried that there are some types of non-copyright restrictions that Australian editors might be subject to, but those things aren't really much of a concern to Wikipedia and are going to be between you and the copyright holder. Since Wilson died in 1973, a non-free image her can, in principle, be uploaded and used per item 10 of WP:NFCI as long as it satisfies all ten of the WP:NFCCP. Generally, this means the the image is going to be used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the individual in question and there are no issues with WP:FREER. For a deceased person, it's obvious that a new freely licensed equivalent photo of them can't be taken, but that doesn't mean that an already existing free equivalent image can't be found or created. Given the fact that Wilson was born in 1882, there might be some older photos of her (i.e. ones taken before Janaury 1, 1927) which may have already lapsed into the WP:Public domain in the United States as explained here. If you can find any photo like this, then it would pretty much make the use of any non-free image of Wilson nearly improssible to justify. For example, there seems to be an image of Wilson here (direct link) that might work. The website hosting that image is releasing it under a non-acceptable CC license, but that might be a bit of an overstep since the file appears to now be within the public domain. It could be that the website's licensing hasn't been updated recently or that the website's licensing is attempting to cover everything (not just the photo) on the site. It could also be that the wesbite either misunderstands what it's allowed to do or is hoping that others won't notice what it's trying to do. So, you may want to ask about this at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright because that's where any freely licensed or PD photo of Wilson should likely be uploaded. Even if the photo I found can't be used, there may be others from the same time period which can. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Marchjuly for the comprehensive response. Being a photo taken in 1934, it looks like it might be PD in Spain unless the 2009 date was first publication (in which case it would be 1934), but would still be under copyright in the US until next century. Thanks too for the Hirtle Chart -- what a headache this all is. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Salman Irshad

Hello everyone. I uploaded a picture of Salman Irshad from Youtube which was deleted as the video had been removed due to copyright. I have found a similar video, Link:[2], which is on the official Youtube channel of the Kashmir Premier League and it contains the same image. Can I upload this new picture? Could I kindly be notified on my talk page? Thanks, Hamza Ali Shah (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Hamza Ali Shah. Since Irshad is still living, a non-free image of him would almost certainly not be allowed per WP:FREER. This means any image of him found online is going to need to be either a freely licensed or public domain. Most YouTube videos are copyrighted content and the standard YouTube license seems to be too restrictive for Wikipedia's puposes. YouTube uploaders are actually given the option to release their original content under a Creative Commons license that Wikipedia accepts or the standard Youtube license, but Kasmir Premier League seems to have decided to do tha latter. So, the video you found could probably be cited as a reliable source for article content per WP:YOUTUBE, but a screenshot from the video can't be uploaded and used in the article without the WP:CONSENT of the video's copyright holder as explained here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Non free use fail

Hello, everyone. A bot reverted the addition of File:Club San Andres Crest.svg to the St. Andrew's Scots School infobox, stating "No valid non-free use rationale for this page". Could you please tell me which is wrong with that? I had edited the logo specifying it would be used in two articles, the aforementioned and Club San Andrés, so I need assistance to go on with this after my second attempt failed.

I had taken File:Chelsea FC.svg (with rationale use for three articles) as a reference to edit the Club San Andrés logo, however it was removed again. Hope you helped me so it could be useful for future edits, thank you in advance. Fma12 (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The issue was caused by a left-to-right mark in the non-free use rationale |Article=. I've removed it, and will be patching the bot to ignore such control characters. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Upload of individuals portrait on Wikipedia

I have been given permission by the author through email to use his image freely, can i upload it to Wikipedia, what should i keep in mind? thanks in advance Schrute123 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Schrute123, you should keep in mind that the image should actually be uploaded on Wikimedia Commons, it's where "free" images are kept. This is easiest if the copyright holder (often the photographer) uploads it themself, and the image is previously unpublished anywhere. Otherwise there's more bureaucracy to deal with, but I'm told it can be done.

Like WP, Commons is very strict about copyright. This link [3] may be of help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Schrute123. In addition to what Gråbergs Gråa Sång posted above, you might also want to take a look at c:Commons:Licensing and c:Commons:License revocation. It's great that the author has given you his permission, but he needs to realize that he's also giving everyone else in the world essentially the same permission and that anyone anywhere in the world will pretty much be able to reuse the photo at anytime for any purpose, even in ways that the author might not like. Generally, it's the person who takes a photo and not the subject of the photo who is considered to be the copyright holder of the photo; so, if the author took the photo himself and wants to given their c:COM:CONSENT for it to be uploaded to Commons, then that's great. He needs to understand though that his consent cannot be limited to things like "for Wikipedia use only" or "for non-commercial use only". The author isn't transferring his copyright over the image to anyone else, but he's making it a lot easier for others to freely use the image without them needing to ask him specifically for permission each time they want to use it, and he can't change his mind later on once he decides to given this kind of "advance permission". -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I have edited a wiki commons image

I have downloaded an image from Wikipedia commons, and edited it offline to illustrate/annotate it. For WP puproses, its content is different (so, to be used in different situations). The original has US Author's 70 year dead notice.

With what licence do I upload my version? As "My own work", or, like "Free download from internet"? -DePiep (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

File:AlgiersMotelIncident.jpg

File:AlgiersMotelIncident.jpg is licensed as non-free, but it seems like it might be {{PD-simple}} given that it’s only text. There is a small image on the binding, but that appears to be incidental and not really a significant creative element. Any opinions on whether this needs to remain non-free? — Marchjuly (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The design of the dust-jacket, which is what's pictured there, could potentially be covered by a design patent, and certainly by trade dress. The text "The Algiers Motel Incident . . John Hersey knopf" is not covered, because that is only text. But the color, position, and typeface are covered. Bill Woodcock (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Is this copyright disclaimer sufficient?

I filed an official information request for images from the New Zealand Police at https://fyi.org.nz/request/17508-photos-of-related-to-protest-march-9-november-2021 with the intent to use them on wikipedia. I specifically referenced the NZ policy recommending that government agencies use CC when releasing content. The police replied, denying any copyright on the images:

To the best of Police’s knowledge, under New Zealand law there is no copyright or other intellectual property rights in these images in New Zealand; and they may be copied and otherwise re-used in New Zealand without copyright or other intellectual property right related restriction. Police will not be liable to you, on any legal basis (including negligence), for any loss or damage you suffer through your use of this material, except in those cases where the law does not allow us to exclude or limit our liability to you. [Text is from FINAL RELEASE LETTER.pdf linked to above.]

Is that sufficient for their use on wikipedia? What license should I tag them with? Stuartyeates (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Stuartyeates, that sounds fishy. There will be copyright by default and it’s up to the copyright holder (presumably the Police as opposed to individual photographers) to release those photos with some suitable license. Victoria is our copyright expert. She’d know. Schwede66 08:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Stuartyeates, The assertion by the New Zealand Police that, under New Zealand law there is no copyright or other intellectual property rights in these images in New Zealand is incorrect. If they were taken by a person, under New Zealand law the images will automatically be in copyright. Even if they were taken by a machine e.g. by a camera detecting movement, copyright would exist. Below is my thinking so far and a few questions:

• Copyright ownership Who took the images? - i.e. were they an employee of New Zealand Police acting in the course of their duties? If so, then copyright will belong to New Zealand Police. I note that your official information request asked for copies of images "held" by the Police. Did the Police perhaps collect these images from anyone else other than the New Zealand Police employees? Did they collect them from news media or others taking photographs at the same time? They could have supplied you content under the Official Information Act request that they had collected and held but was not created by New Zealand Police employees. Can you check the metadata to determine this? If the images were not taken by New Zealand Police employees then copyright licencing becomes significantly more difficult to achieve.
• Copyright duration If the images were taken by employees of New Zealand Police then do they qualify for Crown Copyright status? Under the New Zealand Copyright Act 1994, the Crown is defined as meaning Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand and includes a Minister of the Crown, a government department, an Office of Parliament, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office; but does not include a Crown entity; or a State enterprise named in Schedule 1 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986. The New Zealand Police is a government agency with the Commissioner appointed by the Governor General. The Commissioner is accountable to the Minister of Police for the administration of Police services. So yes this is a government department and works created by employees of the New Zealand Police qualify for Crown copyright.

If the images were taken by employees of the New Zealand Police acting in the course of their duties then Section 26 of the New Zealand Copyright Act applies i.e. Where a work is made by a person employed or engaged by the Crown under a contract of service, a contract of apprenticeship, or a contract for services the work qualifies for copyright notwithstanding section 17(1); and the Crown is the first owner of any copyright in the work. Currently the duration for works qualifying for Crown Copyright is the end of the period of 100 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work is made.

• Copyright licensing So if the images were taken by employees of New Zealand Police in the course of their duties, the assertion the New Zealand Police made in the letter replying to your OIA that no copyright or other intellectual property rights is incorrect. Is the disclaimer a licence? I think not.
• An option for you to consider A mistake is a mistake. In my opinion the mistake the author of the letter has made is not a copyright licence issued by the agency. So, even though you've referred to the New Zealand Government Open Access Licensing Framework in your OIA request and encouraged the New Zealand Police to assign an open copyright licence to these images as part of the OIA process, the New Zealand Police has yet to do so. If I were in your shoes I would follow up with a letter to the Commissioner of Police requesting the New Zealand Police assign a Creative Commons CC BY licence to these images.

Final note: none of this is legal advice, I'm not a lawyer. This is just how I'd approach it if I were in your shoes. Einebillion (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The person who wrote the letter obviously does not understand the basics of copyright law, which is why we cannot accept their statement as it stands. If requesting more details you would also need them to distinguish between those photos acquired from freelancers or other sources that are not covered by their own copyright as opposed to works by their own staff or work-for-hire. ww2censor (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Railway tickets

Edmondson railway tickets are not eligible for copyright, are they? Just checking that it would be OK to add these Palestine Railway tickets to Commons. Mjroots (talk) 07:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks to me like there might be enough original work in the composition that they might be eligible for copyright; but I don't see a copyright notice. Do we have any idea of the dates? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

That's an interesting question... Is the potential issue that, as printed matter arranged in a certain way, they might be subject to copyright, and that a simple image of them, which contains nothing else, is thus a violation of that copyright? While, by contrast, a photograph of a car is not, because that's a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional design? In any case, would any ticket-related copyright which might have applied to an image of these tickets not have expired, leaving only the question of the copyright on the photo itself? Man, these things really tie my head in knots. Bill Woodcock (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Orangemike: the tickets in question are from 1942/43. Dates are imprinted at left edge but hard to read Mjroots (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Under the copyright rules in place at the time, I believe there would have to be a copyright notice on the tickets for them to be copyrighted. I understand that it is Wikimedia Foundation's position that simple photos/scans of two-dimensional items in the public domain are not separately copyrightable, and constitute fair use. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

What licence to use on out of copyright images

I have some out of copyright newspaper images, from 1907 for example, I want to use, but what licence should I select when I load them into Wikipedia? I have been given permission to copy the images from a digital source, by the custodian of that source:

The two newspapers articles with photographs you list are out of copyright and the Library, as custodian, has no objection to you using them in the manner you describe [upload to Wikipedia].  When published we ask that you acknowledge the source of the images as detailed on ... Please regard this message as acknowledgement of your intention to publish.

Aoziwe (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

What country is the newspaper from? If the USA, {{PD-US-expired}}; Australia {{PD-Australia}}. Give attribution to the institution in the description page, something like "courtesy of...(name of institution)" - the acknowledgment is reasonable and courteous, but is not a legal copyright restriction. You can add text something like "If reusing, please credit (name of institution)". Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Infrogmation. Sorry, I think I had worked all that out, but which CC licence do I use? (The newspaper is from Australia so I will use both of those templates.) I need a CC licence as part of the upload. Aoziwe (talk) 11:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

You don't need a cc licence if the material is already in the public domain. Cc licences are for permission for others to reuse material that is still copyrighted. Nthep (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

So I will leave the licence in the upload form as "None selected". Thanks. Aoziwe (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Make sure you have added the US licence and country of origin licence in the information template. Nthep (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Copyright status of book published by NASA and its cover art

I've been trying to determine the copyright status of Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication and its cover art, which I've erred on the side of caution by currently uploading as a fair-use image. At a pre-FAC peer review, Sdkb commented the image might be PD as a government work, which is also something I'd been wondering, but neither of us are certain and it seems plausibly made by a contractor or otherwise under copyright. Any help is appreciated. Vaticidalprophet 08:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Using organizational images on Wikipedia

I work for an organization that has image files (mostly of individuals) that could potentially be used for biography pages (e.g. Virginia L. Miller). Since I don't personally own the images, am I allowed to upload them? What sort of copyright notice/permission would be needed? Thanks Geoffhunt3 (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind I just read through the previous comment and got my answer! Geoffhunt3 (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Geoffhunt3. Perhaps you've already reached this conclusion yourself, but if your organization holds the copyright on these images (i.e. they are not images provided to the organization by third-parties) and wants to give its WP:CONSENT (or c:COM:CONSENT) for these images to be uploaded and used, then that would be most appreciated because high quality images are always welcomed. Please note that your organization doesn't need to transfer its copyrights over these images to anyone (i.e. enter into a copyright transfer agreement) per se; it can simply release versions of the images under one of the free licenses the WIkimedia Foundation accepts to make them easier for others (not just Wikipedia) to use with some very limited restrictions placed on such reuses. There are a couple of ways for this to be done as explained here and here. If they do any of those things, then you (or anyone else really) would be able to upload the files to Wikimedia Commons and they could be used by any Wikimedia project (or by any third-party for that matter) without worrying about violating your organization's copyright over the images. If your organization does do this, however, it can't really change its mind later on or try to impose other types of restrictions via the Wikimedia Foundation, but it can at least require others to attribute the organization whenever they reuse the image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for the additional info Marchjuly! Geoffhunt3 (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Baldwin Locomotive Works Edits

I need help on knowing if all of the Baldwin Locomotive Works Drawings From The Locomotive Cyclopedias are public domain or not because I have vectorized most of the drawings and would like to supply them to the world — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjohns19 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Wjohns19: What image are you referring to? I presume you are asking about Baldwin Locomotive Works's drawing. For what reason would they be in the public domain, age, author died long enough ago, no copyright notice or renewal, or US Government works? More info please. ww2censor (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I am talking about the images from the Locomotive Cyclopedias published by Simmons-Boardman Publishing, I know that the 1922 edition is public domain, but was wondering about the 1938 edition.

Also there is the question about the reprints of the Locomotive Cyclopedias reprinted in the Train Shed Cyclopedia Volumes from the 1970s to the 1980s. I did some research and Greyhound Bus Lines ultimate owns what little was left of Baldwin Locomotive Works and put most of the stuff in public domain but not all, that's why I need some copyright help.

Basically I have been vectorizing as many Baldwin Locomotive erecting/technical/elevation drawings from the 1938 Locomotive Cyclopedia in adobe illustrator and cleaning them up, and those vectorized files become a type of file that doesn't lose resolution, i.e. you could make it 1 mile tall by 2 miles long and it wouldn't lose resolution/image quality if you hypothetically wanted to. These files can be used for people to put the images on t-shirts, hats, coffee mugs, reprints, laser engravings, Et-cetera so people can use them and make personal artwork with the drawings. I also wish to upload them to Wikipedia as a resource for people looking for the drawings for free on the internet so that they don't have to do the heavy and difficult research I had to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjohns19 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Civil War era images

I found an image in a 1959 article published in Oregon Historical Quarterly. The image is of a Civil War officer who served between 1864 and 1866. No information about the image was provided except the name of the officer. He is shown in uniform so the photo was obviously taken between 1864 and 1866. Since virtually everyone who lived through the Civil War has been dead for more than 70 years, is that image now Public Domain? Is there a general rule about how old an image has to be before it automatically passes into Public Domain even when the photographer is unknown?--Orygun (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Orygun US copyright law is based more on date of first publication, although age since death of the author (not the subject) does have some applications. It sounds like you need to check the copyright status of the Oregon Historical Quarterly assuming this was first publication of the photo. There are several possibilities which you can follow by reading c:Commons:Hirtle chart. Nthep (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Orygun A quick search suggests that it doesn't look like copyright was ever renewed on pre-1964 issues of the OHQ [4] in which case the image will now be in the public domain, but you might want to check with the Oregon Historical Society. Nthep (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Doesn’t U.S. copyright law have provision that says if the photographer is unknown copyright lasted 120 years from creation of the photo … so wouldn’t this photo taken ~1865 have passed that mark long ago and now be in Public Domain?--Orygun (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  Only if unpublished which isn't the case here. Nthep (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Ok, thanks! One last question … what if the photo passed the 120-year threshold before it was published. Wouldn’t that make it Public Domain before it was published, so publication shouldn’t be able to turn Public Domain photo into a new copyrighted image … right? In example above, it would be if publication occurred after 1885.--Orygun (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  Correct. I assume you meant to type 1985 not 1885? Nthep (talk) 10:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, 1985. Thanks for following up on my questions!--Orygun (talk) 05:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Ancient Aliens logo.svg

Uploaded an SVG for television series, File:Ancient Aliens logo.svg. I chose 'non-free logo'. Was this the correct option? Thosbsamsgom (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

It's a US logo so I would say it falls under pd-textlogo. Two typefaces and a diving line isn't copyrightable. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

What changes do I make to the upload? Thosbsamsgom (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Photograph of AP-BBF on Wikimedia Commons

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AP-BBF - PIA F27.jpg

This image is cited as Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International but there's no justification for this. The image source does not say anything about licensing and the home page (aparm.net which is also quoted on the image) specifically states that nothing from the site is to be used without permission.

The Wikimedia description of the photograph says the author is Abbas Ali.On the image itself are the words Abbas Ali Collection. Abbas Ali was a 19th century photographer so it seems unlikely that Abbas Ali was the author of this photograph taken in 1984.

The image is included on two Wikipedia pages (en and ru) which is how I noticed it in the first place. I don't see any evidence that this photograph is free to use and there's no justification on the Wikimedia page.

Am I missing something simple? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AkaSylvia (talk • contribs) 16:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

This is really a discussion for commons, where the photo is hosted, as only they can decide whether to keep or remove the file. While I can see nothing on aparm.net indicating that the photo has a free licence, the website does claim to be run by Abbas Ali - it is quite possible that the creator of this website has the same name as the 19th century photographer - they don't have to be the same person.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Fits NFC?

• File:Hits FM Music Awards 2068.jpg
• File:Home 2005tour ad.jpg

Definitely not suitable for commons but am unsure if it fits NFC criteria. Can someone please check and relicense them accordingly? --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

File:The Woman I've Become.jpg

It says You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

I got the image from Amazon not sure what tag to use.

Princessfourever (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no reason to believe an image on the Amazon.com website is in any way licensed or public domain, so this would probably be a copyright violation. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

File:The Double Life of Mr. Alfred Burton (novel).jpg

It seems like File:The Double Life of Mr. Alfred Burton (novel).jpg might not need to be licensed as {{non-free book cover}} since The Double Life of Mr. Alfred Burton (novel) states the book was first published in 1913. The source given for the image is this and a enlarged version of the image can be seen here. It looks like the file uploaded to Wikipedia was cropped to remove the side binding, but I don't think that would be sufficient to establish a new copyright per se for the crop per c:COM:2D copying. If, however, the cropping is considered creative, the file would still fail WP:NFCC#1 because an uncropped image could be unploaded and used instead. The only things that might be an issue are c:COM:United Kingdom because the book seems to have been published first in the UK and the description given for the file that states it's the cover of first U.S. edition. The book's author E. Phillips Oppenheim died in 1946 which means that the 70 p.m.a. requirement for ordinary copyright on a work with a known author would be met (I think) under UK copyright law. The book appears to have been reprinted a number of times over the years, but this particular cover would most likely be {{PD-US-expired}} if it was first published in the US prior to 1927. I found this online which seems to suggest that the entire book is PD in the US. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

can we use images from wikipedia

I was wondering if we can use the images from wikipedia on our own sites? I have reference at the bottom of my site that most pictures are from wikipedia. thank you— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.156.195 (talk) 05:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

It varies, see Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content#Images_and_other_media. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Many files used on Wikipedia are actually files that were uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. So, you might also want to look at c:Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia for additional information. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 and cropping

I've updated the article about Chinese diplomat Zhang Ming, and I'd like to add a photo of him. I've found one on Flickr, licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0. My questions are:

1. Can I upload this photo to Wikipedia? It seems the answer is yes, but I want this confirmed by experienced editors.
2. Can I crop this photo and upload the cropped photo to Wikipedia? This question is trickier. The CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 license says: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. This suggests that changes such as cropping are allowed if they are indicated in the metadata. But the license also says: NoDerivatives — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material. Obviously, simple cropping is not "remixing" or "building upon the material", but I'm not sure about "transforming". This page claims CC ND does not allow cropping, but I thought providing excerpts from CC ND works is allowed, and isn't cropping an image the same thing as providing an excerpt from a text? — UnladenSwallow (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@UnladenSwallow No, you cannot upload the photo to Wikipedia or Commons. Commons only accepts files that allow commercial use, which NC-ND specifically prohibits. As the subject of the article is a living person, it means that uploading the image locally under fair-use won't apply either. In the case that it was allowed, the ND part of the license would mean you could not upload a cropped version. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Berrely: Thank you for your detailed answer! I understand that I can't use the photo because of the NC restriction and because Zhang Ming is alive, but I still wonder about cropping. Suppose the photo was BY-ND. Creative Commons FAQ says:

The NoDerivs licenses (BY-ND and BY-NC-ND) prohibit reusers from creating adaptations. What constitutes an adaptation, otherwise known as a derivative work, varies slightly based on the law of the relevant jurisdiction.

Incorporating an unaltered excerpt from an ND-licensed work into a larger work only creates an adaptation if the larger work can be said to be built upon and derived from the work from which the excerpt was taken. Generally, no derivative work is made of the original from which the excerpt was taken when the excerpt is used to illuminate an idea or provide an example in another larger work. Instead, only the reproduction right of the original copyright holder is being exercised by person reusing the excerpt. All CC licenses grant the right to reproduce a CC-licensed work for noncommercial purposes (at a minimum). For example, a person could make copies of one chapter of an ND-licensed book and not be in violation of the license so long as other conditions of the license are met.

There are exceptions to that general rule, however, when the excerpts are combined with other material in a way that creates some new version of the original from which the excerpt is taken. For example, if a portion of a song was used as part of a new song, that may rise to the level of creating an adaptation of the original song, even though only a portion of it was used and even if that portion was used as-is.

It seems to me that a fragment of an ND-licensed image is "an unaltered excerpt from an ND-licensed work" and thus (assuming there was no NC restriction) could be incorporated into an article as long as the article could not "be said to be built upon and derived from" the original image (it isn't). In a different section, the FAQ says:

Generally, a modification rises to the level of an adaptation under copyright law when the modified work is based on the prior work but manifests sufficient new creativity to be copyrightable, such as a translation of a novel from one language to another, or the creation of a screenplay based on a novel.

An act of cropping does not seem to me to be manifesting sufficient new creativity, although it may certainly change the meaning of an image. Yet another section of the FAQ says:

You must also indicate if you have modified the work—for example, if you have taken an excerpt, or cropped a photo. (For versions prior to 4.0, this is only required if you have created an adaptation by contributing your own creative material, but it is recommended even when not required.)

I'm reading this as excerpt-taking and photo-cropping being examples of modification but not adaptation. Is there a page on Wikipedia that explicitly states that cropping is considered an adaptation and thus CC BY-ND works can't be cropped? — UnladenSwallow (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@UnladenSwallow I can tell you that almost any modification/adaption, especially cropping counts as a derivative work. In the terms of BY-NC-ND it says that "abridgment [and] condensation" count as derivative works. Whilst slightly technicised, condensation is the reduction or shortening of a work, which cropping falls under. I am not aware of any specific page that discusses this, c:Commons:Derivative works may be of use. (I too hate copyright) — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 18:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Berrely: Turns out, all ND images (even uncropped) are forbidden on Wikimedia Commons: c:Commons:Licensing § Forbidden licenses. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)