Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/copyright

message: I don't think I have seen any discussion concerning copyright of photographs of 3D artworks.
Here I am guessing that a photograph of any sculpture would be a creative work and so any photograph of a sculpture published pre-1923 would be OK as  and any photograph released GFDL (or similar) would be OK.
However, could there also be copyright on the sculpture itself (or would that only apply to a 3D reproduction of the sculpture). Are there any differences if the sculpture or artwork is in a public place ( this link draws some distinction for public art). -- Solipsist 20:17, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos of old and public sculptures 

message: I have scanned numerous images from original pre-1923 books, magazines, postcards, etc for use in Wikipedia. The vast majority are from U.S. sources. What criteria can be used to determine when I can simply mark them as "PD" (public domain) as opposed to "PD-US"  (which marks the image page "This image is in the public domain in the United States and possibly other jurisdictions")? I have asked this before, and have yet to get an answer. Is this image of Gen Ludendorff scanned from a 1918 US magazine public domain? Or this 19th century view of the Palace of Westminster scanned from a US stereopticon card? How do I tell?  I'd like to mark many images as simply "Public domain" rather than PD-US if there is some way to tell when that would be allowed. -- Infrogmation 15:16, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-1923 Images from original sources 

message: On a related note, how can I know if I can use some of my old postcards, stereocards, etc printed in the UK or Germany? Is there a date similar to the US pre-1923 that is safe to assume public domain? -- Infrogmation 15:16, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old non US sources? 

message: Please see Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Copyright_question, thanks, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:15, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image copyright question 

message: I photographed some objects from a local (US) museum. I assumed that that would mean I owned the rights to the photographs (especially as the items in question are a couple centuries old, and therefore in the public domain), and could therefore upload them, but then I checked the museum's website, where I found this quote:
:Still photography of the permanent collection, taken in existing light, is permitted on condition that the photographs are for personal, non-commercial use.
Well, Wikipedia definitely qualifies as non-commercial, but personal? I'm thinking that's not going to fly. What do you think? Do I have to give up on uploading these pictures? --Iustinus 01:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you explicitly agree to this rule of theirs when you entered the museum? Was it prominently displayed where you bought the ticket? - Haukurth 19:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

text: WP does not qualify as non-commercial as stuff has to be released under the GDFL, which includes commercial use. See GFDL#Materials_for_which_commercial_redistribution_is_prohibited. Your only option then is fair use. pfctdayelise 14:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

text: It's likely the case that whoever phrased it as "personal, non-commercial use" was not considering GFDL, CC*, or other free licenses. Some museums realize a bit of extra revenue by charging commercial photographers specially, but you'd have to ask to find out if that's what's going on. In any case, it's up to each uploader to decide respect museums' rules, it's irrelevant to image legitimacy. Stan 22:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Museum 

message: Hi, forgive me if this has been covered anywhere, but I can't find it. Does it still fall under free use for an album cover, book cover, etc. to edit it? For instance in an article on Joe Blow, can one provide a picture of Joe Blow cropped from the cover of the book the Life of Joe Blow, captioned as "picture of Joe Blow from cover of The Life of Joe Blow" under free use? Does it matter at all if the book is referenced in the article? Gzuckier 14:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, now I've got somebody who doesn't like the use of even the intact unedited image of an album cover, well attributed, in a context where it is not the direct subject of the article. Anybody else have a personal preference they would like to share with the class? Gzuckier 14:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your friend is right, although there are many editors who don't bother to make the distinction (and I am usually one of them). See :Template:albumcover, which I assume the covers are being uploaded under, namely solely to illustrate the album or single in question. Just go to Jow Blow's official website, find a picture that looks vaguely press-release-style, and upload it under :Template:Promotional or :Template:promophoto. pfctdayelise 14:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing free use covers, etc.

message: The image is there becase the design on the coin features the Forth Bridge, so it is relevant to the article. However, the  license template says "their use on Wikipedia is contended to be fair use when they are used for the purposes of commentary or criticism relating to the image of the currency itself". Is the use in the the article fair use or not? Thryduulf 15:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: IANAL disclaimer - sounds good for me.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Image of £1 coin on [[Forth Bridge (railway)]] article

message: I recently found two untagged images (now using permission, which is better then nothing), that I have confirmed where uploaded by their creator (a professional book cover artist). I have contacted him and he wishes for them to remain on Wiki (and is willing to upload some more), but he is not sure which tag is the best for him. He wrote: I am still confused--now that I am able to examine the permissions, is there any one I can use that doesn't give up my copyright to the work?  I am happy to let Wikipedia use it, but it is still a valuable intellectual property for me that I regularly re-sell, so i don't want to put it into public domain, or give up the copywrite. I just want to give permission for it to be used in this one instance, but i don't see any permission that does that. Can you advise how to proceed without giving up everything?  I know we don't accept permissions anymore. What do you think can be the solution? Perhaps he can release under a copyleft a low-res version, and keep full rights to a high res ones, like we did with :Template:Polish coats of arms by Tadeusz Gajl?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Please recommend the best tag 

message: I have proposed at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags that  should be deprecated in favor of .  Please comment there.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:CopyrightedFreeUse]] should be deprecated 

message: Sorry if this as been asked before, but what is the proper tagging of a photo taken from a magazine? I know there is a tag for magazine covers, but what about a picture inside the mag? --Jaysscholar 14:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images from magazines 

message: Earlier today, I had this conversation at the Help Desk:
Trademark
Does anyone know if there's a forum to discuss copyright status on WP images?  I'm having a little trouble finding a place to ask my question.  In particular, I'm concerned that WP doesn't use the Commons template (:Commons:Template:Trademarked) for trademarked pictures such as pictures of products, etc.  Does anyone know about this, or know where else I can ask this question?  tiZom(2¢) 19:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I just noticed that we do have :Template:Trademarked, but it is not nearly as widespread as it should be.  I guess I'm just curious as to why...  tiZom(2¢) 19:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It's pretty hard for me to figure out a use on Wikipedia that would violate the trademark (other, perhaps, than things like a "this user Hoover(tm)s up vandalism" userbox or something equally cretinous, all of which would violate the copyright anyway).  If the template is intended to warn users about the non-wikipedia use (its wording is rather wooly) then it doesn't belong, as we're not here to offer legal advice. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: So if someone takes a picture of a trademarked product (let's say for argument's sake :Image:Pepsicup.jpg), and licenses it under GNU free doc license, then anyone can use this picture for any use (which may even involve commercial use), so long as they simply credit the photographer (User:Appraiser)  Something about this just doesn't seem right... unless I'm missing something - which is often the case :o)  tiZom(2¢) 20:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Aha!  I just found Wikipedia:General disclaimer#Trademarks.  Case closed.  tiZom(2¢) 20:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trademark question 

message: So I have an image of a photograph of a musician on stage, and I took this photograph from the audience area. What likely is its copyright status? Can I release it to the public domain on Wikipedia? Please advise. Thanks, AppleJuggler 03:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  If I took a photograph of a musician performing in a concert from my seat, what copyright do I have of this? 

message: There is an open Rfc page on image use policy & copyright which can be found here, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FC Vorskla Poltava image. --Palffy 21:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image copyright question 

message: I took a picture of a 3 dimensional objects that have a logo. Can I use this pic in Wikipedia?  
Image use policy 
It says:
"Photographs of three-dimensional objects almost always generate a new copyright in addition to copyrights of objects." 
There are many instances of the logos apearing in many pictures. Bravehartbear 23:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This image (which is wrongly labelled, btw) is of a logo copyrighted by the Church of Scientology. It can only be used under fair use provisions, since no permission has been given. It must comply with the rules set out at Help:Image page#Fair use rationale. Fair use images can't be used in templates, as that's incompatible with the fair use requirements. They can only be used in an article (emphasis added!) about the topic that the logo represents. -- ChrisO 23:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures of a 3 dimensional objects that have a logo 

message: I'm the creator of this image. Is there anyway to publish this image on my user page? Is this a derivative work? Hessam 23:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:fa:Image:Persian wikipedia poster.JPG]] 

message: The logo of my app has been uploaded with a "public domain" license and, despite what the Permission field says, without permission from the author: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Joplin-icon.svg
The actual license is there: https://github.com/laurent22/joplin/blob/dev/Assets/LICENSE
How do I go about correcting this? I don't mind if the logo appears on the Wikipedia article, but I don't want it to say it's public domain. It's like Firefox, even though the app is open source, the logo usage is restricted.
Also what to do about the history of this file? The template is lying when it says "This work has been released into the public domain by its author" because I've never released it into the public domain. And I wouldn't want someone to dig this up and says "well that version was open source so it can be used freely". Any suggestions?
(Also I'm a bit shocked that it's possible to grant so many permissions on behalf of someone else - without providing any proof that they are authorised to do this)
92.40.176.255 (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I've updated the license. Hope I did it right. 92.40.177.101 (talk) 10:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invalid license on logo