Wikipedia:Media copyright questions
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) |
---|
|
||||
Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Whether March of the Volunteers lyrics/sheet music are copyrighted[edit]
User:George Ho has raised the question of whether or not the lyrics of the Chinese national anthem are copyrighted and thus unsuitable to include on Wikipedia, as we have been discussing at the article's Talk page. His point is that the writer of the lyrics Tian Han died in 1968, so that under PRC law (where the term is author's death +50 years), the lyrics would still have been copyrighted on the WP:URAA restoration date in 1996 of Chinese copyrights in the United States. This would mean that the U.S. copyright is in effect for 95 years from the first publication date of the lyrics (1934), so that they are still currently copyrighted in the U.S. even though they are no longer copyrighted in the PRC.
As discussed in more detail on the Talk page, at Wikisource on the bottom of the page, there is a justification for use given which says that according to PRC copyright law effective in 1990 the lyrics should have been in the public domain in 1996 on the URAA restoration date applicable to the PRC. This is stated to be because of the exemption in Article 5(1) for: "laws; regulations; resolutions, decisions and orders of state organs; other documents of a legislative, administrative or judicial nature; and their official translations".
George Ho disagrees with this as he says the lyrics of the national anthem are not such documents as exempted in the above law. I somewhat agree, though the 1978 version (there are two versions, 1978 version and current version) of the lyrics and possibly the sheet music do appear in the text of a pre-1996 legislative document. But we seem to disagree whether the exemption would apply to the 1978 lyrics and sheet music as a result.
I would very much appreciate opinions on the copyright status of the works in question as it relates to their inclusion on Wikipedia. Fiwec81618 (talk) 04:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
I can't think of a title.[edit]
Hi, I added a picture of a ident from the 2017 "Oneness" set on BBC One in the History of BBC television idents page, and it has been removed, I'd like to ask if one of these two options can be carried out:
- Undo the edit on the page, putting it back or
- Removing the picture from BBC One 'Oneness' idents as it's the same picture as the one that got removed on the former page.
If the answer is not clear-cut, I'm fine with trying to find a solution with you. --Jamo62 (talk) 09:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- The bot that removed the file left an edit summary which linked to WP:NFC#Implementation. Did you go to that page and check what is written there? The bot is removing the file per WP:NFCCE because it has not been provided with a non-free use rationale specific to that particular use, and the bot will keep removing the file every time it re-added to that article without adding a corresponding rationale for the use to the file’s page. The file has a rationale for its use in the other article which is why the bot isn’t removing it from there, and you probably shouldn’t remove it as well. Adding the missing rationale should stop the bot, but adding a rationale doesn’t necessarily make a non-free use valid per WP:JUSTONE and the file’s use in the article could still be challenged if someone feels the use isn’t justified per WP:NFCCP. If you have more questions about the bot, you can always ask JJMC89 because he’s the administrator operating the bot. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Public Domain Status[edit]
Hello, fellow editors. I am wondering about the status of this film here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-4XchLQq9A&list=PLfsB4bwNClRK6_glHaK4qN0TnkpBRQy-B, called Grande Ole Opry. As you can see, it is on YouTube but there is no indication of any copyright status. It was released by Republic Pictures. It is a long shot but is there a chance it has lapsed into the public domain like so many other B-movies? Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Gandalf the Groovy Sorry but you're out of luck, copyright was registered in 1940 and renewed in 1967 [1], so it'll be in copyright until 1 January 2036. Nthep (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Photograph of Robert Beverly Hale on si.edu[edit]
Hello, I wanted to upload an image of Robert Beverly Hale to the English Wikipedia article about him, but I have no idea how copyright works, so I thought perhaps posting a link to the image here would help me determine whether it was okay to post.
The photograph was taken by Peter A. Juley. It's available on the Smithsonian Institution Archive website— I hope that means I can upload it.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prismboy7 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- It says "Usage Conditions Apply", which, if you follow that link, elaborates that to mean "may only be used for personal, educational, and other non-commercial uses consistent with the principles of fair use". From that and the rest of the page it sounds like the copyright is still held by Peter Juley's heirs or by the firm Peter A. Juley & Son. Without additional information regarding date of creation or publication, we can't consider it free which means we can't put it on Commons. Now, all that said, it probably is usable locally here on Wikipedia (in a much reduced size--scale it down before uploading) under fair use. The more elaborate guidelines regarding non-free images can be found at WP:NFCI. It's been a while since I've uploaded an image, but I'm pretty sure the File Upload Wizard sets up all necessary non-free templates as long as you answer the questions appropriately. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Prismboy7 Agree with VernoWhitney, upload it to WP as non-free [2]. Size is fixed after awhile by a bot, so you don't need to bother with that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Paul Cushing Child[edit]
I haven't been able to find an image of Paul Cushing Child that is in the public domain. I was unsure if this photograph could be used under fair use (Child is deceased, #10 WP:NFCI) because the image's use restrictions state: Schlesinger Library on the History of Women in America, Radcliffe Institute: This image may not be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the Schlesinger Library. Please contact slref@radcliffe.edu. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Can images be uploaded as non-free fair use if the original source doesn't exist anymore and the authors can't be identified[edit]
There are some users who insist that Place (Reddit) needs an image of the final version of the 2017 experiment (at the moment, let's see what they think at the end of this year's, since technically it is the same image being edited). The issues are 1. Reddit took it down when it was completed, and 2. it was made by thousands of anonymous contributors.
There exists screenshots made of it and uploaded by people (e.g. here), but all of these could be considered copyvio, not the original source, and so something that even fair use should not be taken from - add to that all of the otherwise-copyright images recreated by the Reddit users, it does not seem like it is possible to fairly attribute the source or the authors or the copyright holders, and so not possible to sufficiently claim all NFCC points. Kingsif (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)