Wikiafripedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikiafripedia, the free encyclopedia that you can monetize your contributions or browse at zero-rating.
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 Wikiafripedia: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 Wikiafripedia: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 Wikiafripedia. 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 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 purge this page
(For help, see Wikiafripedia:Purge)

File:MacLean of Duart, Modern.jpg[edit source | edit]

I'm pretty sure that a cloth pattern like tartan probably doesn't need to be licensed as non-free unless the only reason for doing so is because of the photo. If that's the case, then this would fail WAP:FREER since anyone could take a similar photo and release it under a free license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I think you are correct, that the pattern is not subject to copyright, but the photo is. So non-free use is unjustified. We can leave this deleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
@Graeme Bartlett:. Another image has been uploaded as File:MacLean of Duart, Modern.jpg, but I cannot tell whether it's same as the one which was deleted or a different file just under the same name. Can you check on this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
The new upload is different, with a claim that the uploader took the photo, so this one looks OK. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Tartan patterns are very much the subject of copyright. Some are not as old as they seem and are still subject to copyright in the US and UK. see this Tartan copyright lawsuit as an example - X201 (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for that information X201. In that case, we would need to know the origin of the pattern to determine whether it's copyrightable. If it is then a photo of it could be freely licensed, but the pattern itself would need to be treated as non-free content. Perhaps the uploader MHist01 can clarify this since they say the photo is from their kit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
That is correct, I took the picture of my own kilt. They are especially made for each person, so I'm pretty sure that it isn't copyrighted MHist01 (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Just the opposite. If it is made for each person, then it is a new design and the designer will hold the copyright. - X201 (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
@MHist01: In addition to copyright matter, if the design is different for each member, then using one in the main infobox to represent the entire group seems a bit misleading. It would be better to use the band's logo (if it has one) than a picture of one member's kit. It also seems from you post like you're a member of the band. Is that correct? If you are, then you need to follow WAP:COI as I explained on your user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't think you understood that I said, that is my personal kilt (the one I wear), but we all have the same design. This is because each one is made especially for each person, yet they are all the same design. MHist01 (talk) 15:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
You wrote especially made for each person which could mean individually designed, individually fitted or both. Since it seems you meant individually sized, then the design itself may still be still protected by copyright as explained above by X201 and the individual sizing is irrelevant. Do you know who created the original design and how long ago it was created?
Also, since you do seem to be member of the band, you almost certainly are going to be considered to have a WAP:COI with respect to anything written about it. You should follow the relevant Wikiafripedia guidelines and policies for COI editing and refrain from editing the article except as explained in WAP:COIADVICE. You particularly should refrain from adding things like this, which is an unsourced claim and definitely not a WAP:MINOR edit. In cases like this, COI editors are generally advised to submit a draft to WAP:AFC for review instead of creating the article's directly themselves. Basically, your only citing the band's Facebook page and its website as sources; there are a few other trivial mentions (like listed in WAP:NORG#Examples of trivial coverage), but the lack of secondary, reliable significant coverage available about the band is a concern per WAP:NBAND and WAP:NORG. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Hospital teen image[edit source | edit]

Please review this file. It is not replaceable with a free image, any replacement would be under similar restrictions. It is used to support encyclopedic discussion of the article. The illustration is specifically needed to support the following point(s): Discussion of life-threatening lung illness and subsequent handwritten sign; an out-of-copyright image would not work. Per WAP:NFCC: #1 it is not replaceable by others images, and #8 it serves to enhance our readers understanding of the article topic. See discussion on talk page. According to the edit summary the image is replaceable. I can't find a replacement. QuackGuru (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

It is replaceable with prose. The only information it conveys is that the individual was sick, was hospitalized, and wishes to start an anti-vaping campaign. That does not require any image to convey; I just did it in a sentence. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
The image meets WAP:NFCCP and a valid rationale has been given. All 10 specifications under WAP:NFCCP have been met. An image that lacks a free content license may be used on the English Wikiafripedia. It increases our understanding of the article topic. Therefore, it is permissible to use. QuackGuru (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
You're missing the two-part NFCC#8. Its inclusion may help improve understanding, but its omission does not harm the understanding. It is a photo to pled to...compassion? concern? of others that vape, which we do not include for NFCC along with other numerous reasons. --Masem (t) 15:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Its omission harms the understanding of the topic article. Without an image it harms the understanding of a hospital patient hooked up to a like-supporting machine due to vaping. QuackGuru (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

See this file. It says "Discussion of life-threating lung illness of a hospitalized patient due to vaping and subsequent handwritten sign; an out-of-copyright image would not work" It is not replaceable by others images, and it significantly enhances our readers understanding of the article topic. It complies with WAP:NFCCP. Prose alone make the topic not easy to understand, especially for those who are not ER doctors or who have not seen a hospital penitent hooked up to a machine. A valid rationale for using the image has been provided. An image of a hospitalized patient who is hooked up to a life-supporting machine significantly increases our understanding of the article topic. Is there any argument that indicates it does not comply with WAP:NFCCP? QuackGuru (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

WAP:NFCC#1 says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created" - my emphasis. While no free images may be located currently what prevents the creation of one e.g. by a relative on one of the patients taking an image and releasing it under a free licence? Nthep (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
It's fully replaceable, in both the idea of prose, and that it is clearly possible that a similar photo could be taken with a free license given the number of patients hospitalized by vaping. It is not like she was a 1-in-a-billion case. There's thousands of hospitalized vaping patients, a photo of them hooked up to such machines taking freely would be just as effective. --Masem (t) 15:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
WAP:NFCCP does not indicate it is acceptable to replace an image with prose. Since it greatly increases our understanding of the article topic it meets the burden of non-free content criteria. Without an image, it harms the understanding of a hospitalized vaping patient.
The inclusion criteria is not if someone in the future might release an image under a free license. It can't be created under a free license at the moment. I have searched for free similar images. Another image of one of the hospitalized patients due to vaping is not available under a free license. Any replacement would be under similar restrictions. Therefore, it passes Wikiafripedia:Non-free content criteria#1. QuackGuru (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
agree w/ QuackGuru's interpretation of Wikiafripedia:Non-free content criteria#1--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
A free equivalent is not limited to free images; it can also be text as explained in WAP:FREER and that seems to work just as well in this case. I don't think a non-free image of a patient hooked up to a hospital machine is needed for most reader's to understand that patients in hospitals are sometimes hooked up to "machines" as part of their treatment. Sure, there might be some person out there who has never seen such a thing on TV or in a movie, who may not be able to understand such a thing, but I think most reader's will be able to understand it which makes it harder to justify the file just on that fact alone. Moreover, non-free images are not used by default just because a free equivalent image doesn't currently exist; there needs to be a reasonable expectation that a free equivalent image can pretty much never be created. As others have pointed out above, it seems possible for another image of even a different patient to be taken and released under a free license by the copyright holder. The only way this file might be possibly OK per NFCC#1 and NFCC#8, in my opinion, would be if the photo itself (not the patient in the photo) was specifically the subject of sourced critical commentary found in reliable sources; in that case, content specific to this image should be added to the article and supported by citations to such sources. For example, if this photo has gone viral and has started being used in public-awareness campaigns, etc. about the risks associated with vaping, then maybe it's impact would have spread beyond that particular article or that particular moment and it could be used.
Anyway, if you disagree with the arguments presented here, you can nominate the file for discussion at WAP:FFD and see if a consensus can be established in favor of the file's non-free use. The file can always be restored if it's deleted per WAP:F5 if there's a consensus that it's OK to use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Clearly fails WAP:NFCC#8 because the reader's understand is not harmed by replacing the image by prose as previously noted. This sort of justification has been tried before. ww2censor (talk) 23:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, pretty much an open-and-shut case. Fails both NFCC#8 and #1. About "significance": nothing in the image goes beyond the factual information that "somebody got ill, they were in hospital, while in hospital they decided they wanted to start a campaign". Or rather, yes, of course there is something that goes beyond that factual information: it's the emotional appeal of seeing the young distressed women's face in that situation. But emotional appeal is not something that's our business conveying. Emotional appeal is for POV-pushers. Things that constitute "significance" in the sense of NFCC#8 need to be issues of legitimate, factual encyclopedic content. Then, about "replaceability": it is quite obviously and trivially replaceable. This is a living individual. If that person really wants to start a campaign, nothing stops her of creating and releasing other photos of herself presenting her plea. Or indeed, releasing this photo under a free license. Has anybody even asked her if she'd be willing? Fut.Perf. 09:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Someone could ask her on Instagram or Facebook to upload the same photo to Wikimedia Commons[1][2] under a compatible license. QuackGuru (talk) 09:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
If she took the photo as a "selfie", yes. Otherwise, it would need to be the photographer who does so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Another fallacy in above to point out is : "The inclusion criteria is not if someone in the future might release an image under a free license." The potential of a future free image is always taken into account, though we do also consider timeliness. For example, if a new skyscraper is announced, its clearly notable from that, but construction has only broken ground and construction will take 2-3 years, we would reasonably allow an architect's non-free drawing to stand in for those few years as the identifying image on the article, but once that building is completed, then that non-free rational disappears, since a free image could be hand. In contrast, we would NOT allow a non-free image on a notable upcoming product that is six-or-so months out from release, as we know that's a more finite time scale and we know that a free image can be made when the product hits the market. --Masem (t) 19:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Starting a vaping campaign with her cousin[edit source | edit]

The photo has since gone viral and she said she will be launching a campaign with her cousin to fund research for more information about vaping. It's impact has spread or will spread beyond that particular moment in the hospital, and therefore it could be used. QuackGuru (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

It's stil failing NFCC#8 as there is no explanation of what the contextual significance of this image is. I note that the Journal Post article you referenced uses several images of her from her Instagram feed, so where is the critical commentary about this one image that gives the significance of the image in the hospital bed. Even if you can establish that contextual significance there is still the question of NFCC#1 and why a freely licenced image cannot be obtained. Nthep (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
The critical commentary about the post is discussed in the Daily Mail. I have not added content from the Daily Mail to the article. Only a handful of hospitalized vaping patients are speaking out during the outbreak. Only a handful of hospitalized vaping patient photos are being posted and discussed online. It is going to be difficult to find a replacement. News outlets are allowed to use the photo, but for a Wikiafripedia article it is not allowed. QuackGuru (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
DM is not a reliable source. --Masem (t) 19:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
The Daily Mail is another news outlet using multiple images from her Instagram account so again no commentary on this specific image. Her agreement with newspapers to allow use of her Instagram images in not our concern, she may have a commercial agreement with them or they maybe committing copyright theft - regardless, Wikiafripedia policy about non-free use is clear. It's annoying, I know, there are many non-free images I would like to use on articles but can't because I cannot make out the rationale to do so. Nthep (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Image of Bloxham Hall, ancestral seat of the late General Robert Manners (grandson of the Duke of Rutland)[edit source | edit]

Good morning. For a long time I have had an image of Bloxham Hall, but now there is an appropriate article for it to be uploaded to ( I would like to upload it. I have received the following email from the copyright holders, so I imagine there will be no difficulty in putting it on Wikiafripedia? However, the whole process terrifies me - I lack IT skills - and I don't even understand the questions, never mind knowing the answers. Is there any way this could be made easy for me? The email follows: (Redacted) To:arbil44 28 Oct at 10:20 Hello (Redacted) You have the permission of SLHA to publish the image or images of Bloxholm Hall mentioned in your previous correspondence with our Society (through (Redacted)). Please acknowledge the source. No fee is charged but donations to SLHA, a charitable organisation, are welcomed. Regards (Redacted) Publications Committee Society for Lincolnshire History and Archaeology Arbil44 (talk) 12:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Arbil44: Without more details it's difficult to answer fully. Is this an old photo which may be out of copyright and the above is all about attribution of source? Or, is it a newish photo (e.g. under 100 years old) that may well be still be in copyright and the email was about consent from the copyright holder. If it's an old photo and there are some more details e.g. when the photo was taken, the name of the photographer (or that the photographer is unknown) then there may be enough to go on. If it is more recent then no, the email doesn't suffice as we need a more specific consent from the person who took the photo or their representatives if they are dead. Nthep (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I will ask the questions you pose. On looking closer at both your questions and the image itself perhaps I don't need to trouble the Society for Lincolnshire History and Archaeology again because their printed image was from a sales brochure dated simply "1917". Does this make things simpler and, if it does, can you help me deal with the upload because it really does scare me! Arbil44 (talk) 13:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
discussion continued at talk:Mary Ann Mansel. Nthep (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Main Street Connect logo.png[edit source | edit]

Would the calligraphic/scripted "M" used in this logo be considered simple text? If so, then this could probably be converted to {{PD-logo}}; if not, it likely fails WAP:NFC#cite_note-4 as a non-free former logo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Photo of Canadian soldiers with a dog in World War Two[edit source | edit]

I wanted to add this picture to a Wiki article about the dog. The photo is from Library and Archives Canada, and its copyright is listed as expired. Since its claim is expired, can I upload it to Wikiafripedia even though I didn't get explicit permission from LAC? CplKlinger (talk) 07:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As the source page says the photographer is unknown and that the source is the Canadian government but it is dated at October 1941 then this work is definitely PD in Canada as either it is a Crown Copyright work and can be uploaded to Commons using the licence template {{PD-Canada-Crown}} or it an anonymous work and {{PD-Canada-anon}} is the appropriate licence. Due to the source being given as government I think the first is more likely. Note there is a template commons:template:LAC to help correct sourcing of files from Library and Archives Canada. Nthep (talk)

The 19 family letters written to Herbert Mansel by members of his family[edit source | edit]

Evening Nthep. I'm not sure if you saw my other query on the Mary Ann Mansel talk page? You may be deliberating your reply, of course, but just thought I'd put it here in case you haven't seen it? Arbil44 (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Screenshot of software[edit source | edit]

I'd like to upload a screenshot of a recent (non-free) software synthesizer, as the one on the current software synthesizer article is of a pretty ugly, old (10+ years) app - not a great example. What are the copyright restrictions around screenshots of software? Popcornduff (talk) 00:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

mw:Commons:Screenshots#Software states that screenshots of computer software cannot be uploaded to Commons unless with a Free Software License (e.g., MIT, GNU GPL). Do you have a software synthesizer that is released recently and is open source? If so, feel free to upload a screenshot. (talk) 09:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
To be more specific, if the program itself was notable and had a standalone article, we'd allow a non-free screenshot of it to show its interface (if the interface was discussed). However, to discuss a general software concept like a software synthesizer, as long as there are options for free images from open-source programs we need to use those. --Masem (t) 15:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I suspected as much. Thanks for the replies. Popcornduff (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC)