Cprice061

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Cprice061!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

File:Bakker Headshot.jpg

Hi Cprice061. Did you take this photo yourself? There's no COM:EXIF data or any other information given which supports a claim of COM:Own work so it's hard to verify things. In such cases, it's often helpful to send a COM:CONSENT email to Wikimedia VRT to avoid any misunderstandings which could lead to the file being tagged or otherwise nominated for deletion. If, by chance, you didn't take the photo yourself, you can't upload it as your own work and the person who did take the photo will need to email their consent to VRT. Just for reference, this photo found being used online looks really similar to the one you uploaded, minus the color. If you or someone else somehow converted that photo or a similar photo into mono-chrome, then a derivative work might've been created, but it still wouldn't be considered 100% own work; so, even in that case, the consent of the person who took the original photo would still be needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for flagging this; the image has been in my possession and is copyright free (released by the Institution, and given to employees for free use) but I have inquired further to see if I can't get written confirmation of that from media relations. As a follow up (since you seem to know); if I want to clear use of a book cover, would I need to contact the publisher and get the same written permission, or under Fair Use just request it be uploaded? Thank you for your help! Cprice061 (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Generally, the person taking a photo is considered to be its copyright holder. Simply having physical possession a photo doesn't mean there's been a transfer of copyright ownership. If someone working for the institution took the photo as part of their job and works created by employees of the institution become the sole property of the institution (i.e. a en:work for hire), then the institution may be the copyright holder of the photo. The institution may choose to release the photo under a copyright license accepted by Commons if they want, but simply giving the photo to employees for free use doesn't mean it's no longer protected by copyright. In order for photos to be kept by Commons, it needs to be clear the either (1) the photo falls within the public domain in both the United States and the country of first publication or (2) the copyright holder of the photo has agreed to release a version of the photo under a free license that Commons accepts. For reference, (1) means that for some reason the photo either was never eligible for copyright protection or is no longer eligible for copyright protection, while (2) means that the copyright holder is basically making a version of the photo freely available for anyone anywhere in the world to download and use at anytime for any purpose (including commercial and derivative uses). In the case of (2), the copyright holder still retain copyright ownership over the original photo, but the version uploaded to Commons can pretty much be re-used by anyone who wants to do so in any way they want to do so as long as they comply with the terms of the license chosen by the copyright holder. If the copyright holder wants to do that, then great; if not, the file will most likely need to be deleted.

As for book covers, most of them are too complex to be ineligible for copyright protection and Commons doesn't accept fair use content of any type. So, unless the book cover is too simple (bascially just text with no creative elements at all being used) to be eligible for copyright protection or the copyright holder agrees to make a version available under an acceptable free license, it most likely can't be uploaded to Commons. The copyright laws related to threshold of originality can vary quite a bit from country to county, but any type of photo, logo or other graphics appearing on the cover most likely will make it too complex to be ineligible for copyright protection. Most book cover copyrights are owned by the publisher of the book, but in some cases the actual designer of the cover might also share in copyright ownership. If the cover also incorporates copyrighted works created by others, then there's a good chance it would be considered a derivative work: the cover itself is copyrighted, but that the individually incorporated works are also copyrighted separately of the cover. In such cases, the cover can't be uploaded to Commons without the consent of all the copyright holders. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I have contacted both the media branch of the institution as well as the publisher of the book to send over permission confirming they are okay with its upload and use! Thanks Cprice061 (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Whoever sends in the email should get a reply that includes a VRT ticket number. This is sort of like a reference number and can be used to check the status of the email. VRT members aren't allowed to discuss the details of the emails they receive on public Commons or Wikipedia pages, and they will only discuss specifics with the email senders; however, they can sometimes answer very general questions from others about the emails at COM:VRTN. If there are any problems with the email, VRT will likely let the sender know about them via email.

If VRT verifies the licensing, at{{PermissionTicket}} template will be added to the file's page to let others know this; if there's a problem with the email, a {{Permission received}} template will likely be added instead. If, by chance, the file ends up deleted before it can be verified, then don't worry; it can be restored once the file's licensing has been verified.

You might want to also ask the copyright holders to take a look at COM:LRV, COM:L and COM:REUSE for reference because those pages contain information they probably should know. Please try to explain to the copyright holders that any type of license that places restrictions on commercial and derivative re-uses of the file are not accepted by Commons. If the copyright holders want to limit the file's use to "Wikipedia only", "educational use only", or "non-commercial use only", then they shouldn't give their consent to upload the file to Commons. Commons is primarily concerned with the copyright status of the files it hosts; other non-copyright related matters are going to need to be resolved by the copyright holders themselves. They should also understand any issues between the copyright holders and re-users are going to need to be sorted out outside of Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I have received a reply from the publisher; is there a way to upload the image to be seen on wikipedia, without personally being the copyright holder, or putting it in the commons? Thank you for your help again! Cprice061 (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

conversely, if I direct the publisher to the COM:CONSENT page you linked above, can they release a work that has not yet been uploaded, or should I do that preemptively? Cprice061 (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Only files uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons or English Wikipedia servers can be used (i.e. can be displayed) in an English Wikipedia article as explained here; in other words, adding a link to an external website containing a file will not allow the to file be displayed within the article. You can add some types of external links to the "External links" sections of an English Wikipedia, but they will only be displayed as an external link is displayed. People who click on the link would be able to see any photos displayed on the website, but the photos will not be displayed on English Wikipedia.

A copyright holder can give their consent for any of their work to be freely reused to some degree regardless of whether it ends up being eventually uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. There are probably different ways they can do this, but a common way is to use a en:Creative Commons (CC) license as explained here. Bascially, the copyright holder simply adds a CC license of their choosing to their website or wherever their work is published that states they are releasing the content for re-use by others as long as they comply with the terms of the relevant license. If, for example, the copyright holder uploads work to their website and then releases it under a license that Wikimedia Commons accepts, then essentially that's equivalent to giving their consent for Wikimedia Commons' purposes and the file can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons without anybody needing to email VRT as explained in COM:VRT#When contacting VRT is unnecessary. As long as a source url or some other information is provided that allows the copyright holder's consent to be verified, verification by email isn't necessary. Not all CC licenses, however, are acceptable for Wikimedia Commons; so, if the copyright holder wants the file to be OK to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, they need to make sure they choose an appropriate license.

If the copyright holder uploads their work to Wikimedia Commons themselves, they can use the Commons:Wikimedia VRT release generator for license verification instead of email, and usually this is done after the file has been uploaded. If the copyright holder intends to regularly upload their work to Commons, they can use the release generator each time or the can email their consent to VRT as explained in COM:VRT#Licensing images: when do I contact VRT?. Basically, they're creating a sort of open-ended VRT ticket that will cover all the files they upload to Commons. As long as they continue to upload the files using the same account as specified in their email in accordance with whatever conditions they specify in their email, there should be no problem. If they switch accounts or someone else tries to upload one of their works, separate verification may be required. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

File tagging File:Bakker Headshot.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Bakker Headshot.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

-- Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)