Commons:Problematic sources

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Jump to: navigation, search


Shortcut: COM:PRS

The Commons accepts only images

There are many images available from many sources that do fit these criteria. But some sources, in particular on-line sources, may be problematic. They may host images that appear to be free or in the public domain at a first glance, but that may actually be copyright-protected.

This page lists potentially-problematic sources. For banned sources that host little or no free content, see Commons:Bad sources. For usable sources see PD sources.

Contents

[edit] Image repositories

[edit] Flickr

See also Commons:Flickr images

Flickr is a great resource that hosts many images that are freely licensed. Nevertheless, some care must be taken when intending to import a Flickr image to the Commons.

  • Most Flickr image pages contain a statement "This image is public". This is not a copyright statement. It just means that the image can be viewed by anyone.
  • The copyright statement at Flickr is a line saying either "© All rights reserved" or "Some rights reserved".
    • If it says "All rights reserved", the image is not freely licensed, and must not be transferred to the commons.
    • If it says "Some rights reserved", click on that text (it's a hyperlink). This takes you to a license page explaining the licensing conditions for that image. If that license says anything about "non-commercial" or "no derivative", it's not a free license, and the image must not be moved to the Commons. If it only mentions "attribution" or "share-alike", then it's basically ok.

Even if a Flickr image is freely licensed as {{cc-by}} or {{cc-by-sa}}, some care should be taken. Anyone can upload anything at Flickr, and place any license claim on his uploads. Some people upload copyrighted works and license them freely, even though they do not own the copyrights on the images they upload. We call that "flickrwashing", or a "flickrvio". (Do they have the terms "commonswashing" and "commonsvio" or "wikiwashing" and "wikivio", too?) Some common sense is needed. Is it plausible that the Flickr uploader did take the image him- or herself? If it looks like a poster, promotional photo, wallpaper, screensaver, celebrity shot, advertisement or some such, it's suspect. Take a look at other uploads of the same Flickr user. If there are other such items in the user's uploads, extra careful evaluation is needed.

A related problem is that Flickr allows uploaders to change licenses, but there is no publicly visible history of such license changes. An image may be freely licensed at one point, but later be switched to a more restrictive license or to "all rights reserved". Flickr images uploaded to the Commons are therefore reviewed automatically by a piece of software here at the Commons running autonomously. If that software finds that the image is still freely licensed at Flickr, it records that fact at our Image description page. Trusted users (admins and community approved users) may also review Flickr licenses manually. If the Flickr license changes after a successful review, the image may be kept at the Commons because free licenses cannot be retracted.

There is also the FlickrLickr system that can be used to upload properly licensed Flickr images to the Commons.

[edit] Project Gutenberg

Although not primarily an image repository, Project Gutenberg also includes images that have been published in the books they host. The problem is that they operate exclusively under U.S. law and consider anything published before 1923 as being in the public domain. They only claim their books to be in the public domain in the U.S.[1][2]

Non-U.S. works found at project Gutenberg can be uploaded here at the Commons only if they are also in the public domain in their foreign source country. This is a subtle pitfall that even experienced contributors cannot always avoid.

The illustrations from Beatrix Potter's books, for instance, are copyright in the UK until 70 years after the author's death, i.e., until the end of 2013. (Potter is also the painter of the illustrations.) As an example, The Tale of Benjamin Bunny was published in 1904 simultaneously in the U.S. and in the UK.[3] The work is in the public domain in the U.S., but not in the UK, where it is regarded a British work. As British works, these images are also copyright in the rest of the European Union. Therefore, the illustrations cannot be hosted at the Commons.

Other examples are Alice B. Woodward's illustrations in Adventures in Toyland: Woodward was British, died 1951, and the book was originally published in the UK in 1897. Or Edmund Dulac's (d. 1953) illustrations in Stories from Hans Andersen, Hodder & Stoughton, London 1911. Or also most illustrations by Arthur Rackham (d. 1939).

Photographs from Gutenberg e-books may also pose problems. One example are British photographs that appeared in Newcomb, A; Blackford, K.M.H.: Analyzing Character, Blackford, New York, 1922. That book is in the public domain in the U.S. But the photo of John Masefield (Fig. 33), for instance, was done by E. O. Hoppe (d. 1972), a British photographer,[4] and the photo of Henry Hartley Fowler (Fig. 63) was taken by Ernest Herbert Mills (d. 1942), another British photographer.[5]

In some cases, such images can be hosted at the English-language Wikiprojects. The English Wikipedia operates only under U.S. law, and thus considers any work published before 1923 as being in the public domain. See Image:Henry_Fowler.jpg, Image:John Masefield head.jpg, or also en:Category:Edmund Dulac. The correct license tag for such images at the English Wikipedia is {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}.

When can such works be hosted at the Commons? That depends. If published before 1923, the works will be in the public domain in both the U.S. and in their source country (as required by the Commons) once they go out of copyright in the non-U.S. source country. For Potter's works, that's at the end of 2013, Woodward's at the end of 2021, Dulac's at the end of 2023, and Rackham's at the end of 2009.

If first published after 1923, it depends on the effect of the URAA copyright restoration for foreign works in the U.S. (But such works are not (or should not be) hosted at Gutenberg either, since they are copyrighted today in the U.S., too.) Works that were simultaneously published (i.e., within 30 days) in the foreign source country and in the U.S. are treated as both U.S. and foreign works. In the foreign source country, they are domestic works. In the U.S., they are U.S. works, and as such not subject to the URAA copyright restorations. But if the work was first published in the U.S. more than 30 days after the foreign publication, and its copyright was not renewed in the U.S. or the U.S. publication otherwise failed to comply with the U.S. requirements for copyrights, then the work was subject to these URAA restorations. The URAA restored the U.S. copyrights on such works if they were still copyrighted in their foreign source country on the URAA date, which is January 1, 1996 for most countries. (List of URAA dates.) If the U.S. copyright on a foreign work was restored in the U.S., it was restored to the full U.S. term: 95 years since the original publication for works published 1923 - 1977. Such works may be uploaded only if both this U.S. 95-year term and the copyright term in the non-U.S. country (typically 70 years after the author's death) have expired.

For works created and published 1978 or later, the U.S. copyright term is also 70 years after the author's death. For works that were created before 1978 but first published 1978 to 2002, the U.S. has a special rule: such works are copyrighted in the U.S. to the later of the end of 2047 or 70 years after the author's death.

[edit] United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM) displays a lot of images from World War II. Their sourcing is inadequate; they very often state only who gave the photo to them, but not where the image originally came from and who the photographer was. On many images, they state "© USHMM".

Many of their images are evidently German photos taken by Germans during World War II. These photos must not be uploaded here (yet) even in cases where the USHMM claims the images were in the public domain as they are in general copyrighted in their source country, Germany, for 70 years after the photographer's death. (Or until 70 years after the original publication or the creation, if the author of the photo is truly unknown.) In the U.S. (and in the UK), such photos may indeed be in the public domain due to special legislation concerning confiscated enemy property, but this does not make the images copyright-free in Germany. You may, however, upload such images locally at the English Wikipedia, where their description should include the tag {{Do not move to Commons}}. This applies to all images at the USHMM where a German origin must be assumed (for instance, all images from Nazi calendars). Unfortunately, this means that nearly all photos of Nazi leaders are off-limits for the Commons.

Other images at the USHMM may be fine to upload here under the tag {{PD-USGov}} or one of its subtags. In particular, mugshots of the accused in the Nuremberg Trials and the Subsequent Nuremberg Trials may be assumed to have been taken by U.S. officials as part of their duties, and likewise for images from the courtrooms in those trials. Some such images were also published in the proceedings of these trials, the "blue" and "green series".

Images on which the USHMM claims copyright, either for themselves ("© USHMM") or for someone else ("© any") must not be uploaded at all. Even if the USHMM itself is unlikely to be the owner of the copyrights on all such images, it must be assumed that a "© USHMM" is a cautionary copyright notivce indicating that someone still holds the copyright. Maybe the USHMM, or maybe someone else. (Museums and archives frequently do this instead of placing individual copyright notices giving the true owner of the copyright.)

[edit] Common cases

[edit] Celebrity shots

Freely licensed photos of celebrities (actors, football/soccer/rugby/tennis/... players and other athletes, pin-up girls, porn "stars", and so on) are hard to find. Most such photos, even if claimed to be freely licensed, are actually copyrighted, and most copies of such photos that you can find on-line are actually copyright violations (or used on these web sites under a restrictive license or under a "fair use" claim).

For celebrity photos, there are several places where one may check whether the image is such a copyrighted photo:

If an image is listed at one of these sites, it's copyrighted and not freely licensed, and thus must not be uploaded at the Commons. Of course, Google's image search can also help.

Extreme negative example: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Keira Knightley.jpg.

[edit] Fan sites

Fan sites very often use celebrity photos without caring much about copyright. (A few fan sites may actually have their own photos, but that's the exception from the norm.) For instance, many images found here are actually copyright violations taken from FilmMagic. Furthermore, many such fan sites are notoriously bad about maintaining credits for images. For instance, there is no photographer info at all for the images found here, not even any uploader info. At least some of these images are copyright violations. For instance, this image is clearly the same as image ID 2434227, ©RDiamond/WireImage, 23 Mar 2004.

Photographs from fan sites should therefore in general not be uploaded to the commons. We need precise and correct photographer and location information, and precise and correct licensing information, and the license must be a free license. Because fan sites often do not own the copyright to the images they host, it is futile to ask the operators of fan sites for a permission.

Example: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:BrendaSong Katrina.jpg

[edit] Forums and blogs

Images from blogs should in general not be uploaded to the commons. In virtually all cases, blog authors do not own the copyrights on the images they show, very often, they just hotlink to images hosted on other sites. An image from a blog is acceptable at the Commons only if

  • the image is not hotlinked from some other site, and
  • there's a clear statement by the blog author on his blog that he is the rightful owner of the copyright on the image and that he licenses it under a free license: either that he places the image into the public domain, or if he mentions a specific license explicitly (such as {{cc-by}}, {{cc-by-sa}}, or {{GFDL}}) and that license is a free license, and
  • if there are no indications that the blog author's statement was incorrect. Such an indication would be for instance finding the image on other websites where content is typically not freely licensed (commercial image banks, newspapers, etc.), or also if the image is found elsewhere, and it has a higher resolution or was uploaded earlier at that other website. (The WaybackMachine of the Internet archive can help to find out when an image first appeared at a particular web site.)

If you contact a blog author to obtain a permission, make sure the permission gets also sent to our OTRS permission archive, and please consider using one of our e-mail templates.

[edit] Promotional photos

Promotional photos or press release photos are copyrighted. Despite common and misleadingly vague phrases such as "may be used freely", publicity photographs are generally provided with the understanding that they will be used in unmodified form for informational purposes in a context related to the subject of the photographs (such as an article about the product, company, or person depicted). Uses of such images are thus restricted to reporting about a particular event or to promoting a product or person. This is essentially a restricted, revocable license, and does not imply that anyone were free to use the work for any purpose (commercial or noncommercial) in modified or unmodified form. Such releases are not a free license.

Promotional photos may be uploaded to the Commons only if there is an explicit release under a free license. Preferrably, that release is also sent to our permissions archive (OTRS).

[edit] Professional photographers' images

Professional photographers' photos are very rarely freely licensed. But some professionals do license some of their work freely, and some even contribute themselves to the Commons by uploading their own work. This is great. But sometimes third parties upload professional photos of others at the commons. To avoid copyright violations, we can accept professional photographers' works only if:

  • The source, photographer, rights owner, and specific license are clearly indicated. (That is actually true for all image uploads at the Commons.)
  • An explicit release confirming the license has been sent by the photographer (or rights owner) or forwarded by a Commons contributor to our OTRS permission archive. The e-mail address is permissions-commonswikimedia.org.

Sending a release to OTRS is imperative if the images have already been published elsewhere in a book or online. In that case, the photographer/rights owner should also double-check: if he granted someone else an exclusive license to publish the image, he cannot himself freely relicense and upload the image at the Commons. An explicit release sent to OTRS is also mandatory if the image is not uploaded by the photographer/rights owner him- or herself. To request permission, please consider using one of our e-mail templates.

If you yourself are a professional photographer and upload your own photos, you also must send an explicit release for any of your images that already have been published elsewhere. We even strongly encourage sending an explicit release to OTRS for your as yet unpublished own work of professional quality, as it helps prevent future confusions. An additional way of leaving a permanent record (but not a substitute for an OTRS release!) is to put author and licensing information into the EXIF data of the image itself.

You may be actively contributing to the Commons now. But will you do so in ten years? In twenty years? In that time, your freely licensed image may have appeared in countless other places, and the provenance of the image and the fact that it was originally rightfully uploaded here under a free license may have gotten lost. (It shouldn't, but such things happen.) If in ten years some confusion arises whether one of your images was wrongly uploaded and was actually a copyright violation, an explicit OTRS release stored in our archive goes a long way to resolving the matter quickly.

An example of a professional photographer's photo that would have been deleted here had we not succeeded in getting an explicit release is Image:5705 MNA12064 C Recoura.jpg

[edit] Images of copyrighted artwork

TBD. Examples: photos of paintings of recently deceased or still living painter. Again, we need an explicit release sent to OTRS, otherwise not acceptable. Example: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Peter-Lalor-by-Peter-Graham.jpg.

Sculptures etc.: unless the artwork is permanently installed in a public place in a country that does have "freedom of panorama", we again need an OTRS release by the copyright owner of the artwork shown in the image. Example: Image:Babe Ruth statue.jpg (sculptor has agreed to GFDL for the image).

[edit] Particular cases

[edit] Lafayette Studio

In general, images made by the Lafayette Studio and archived at the V&A Museum are copyright, even though these are old photos and the photographers died more than 70 years ago.[6] The problem with these images is that most of them were never published while they were originally under copyright. The negatives were "lost", then rediscovered in 1968, and then again forgotten until 1988.[7] They were presumably first published in 2002 at the V&A web site, then at [8].

In the EU, there is a so-called publication right. If a hitherto unpublished work is published for the first time after the work's original copyright has expired, the publisher is granted an exclusive publication right on the work for 25 years from the publication date. This is the case with many of the Lafayette photos.

Lafayette Studio photographs may only be uploaded if it can reasonably be asserted that the image was published while it was originally under copyright (details of the earlier publication must be given on the image description page). Otherwise, it must be assumed that the V&A Museum indeed holds a publication right on these images.

Examples: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Emperor Wilhelm II of Germany (1859-1941).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Consuelo Vanderbilt;coronation- 9 augustus 1902.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2006/04#Image:Lafayette 1899 arthur reginald french.jpg

[edit] See also

Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Problematic_sources"
Personal tools