Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2018/July

Possible screenshot for the Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade adventure game

Could a low-resolution version of this screenshot from this page be added to the Gameplay section of the article Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: The Graphic Adventure? This screenshot is of interest because it shows the action "Use slab-I with metal post" as an example of how a player can chose an action verb (such as "Use") and then one or more objects to which the verb should be applied. (In this screenshot, Indy has used a metal post to break apart a stone slab on the floor.) In addition, as a PNG image, the screenshot is less likely to have issues with compression artifacts than a screenshot in JPEG format. At the same time, there is a stained glass window visible in the screenshot, and I do not know whether that would pose a copyright issue with regard to the design on the window being a separate copyrighted work. (I do not know whether the stained glass design was preexisting or whether it was specifically designed for the game.) Even with the stained glass window, the screenshot should not necessarily comprise the "heart" of the game itself for fair use purposes (specifically, the screenshot should be all right regarding the third fair use factor, "Amount and substantiality".)

The Screenshots subsection in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Video games indicates that the Gameplay section of a video game article should have sources for the article section's text before a non-free screenshot is added. For the previously-mentioned Indiana Jones game article, I recently added references for some of the statements in the Gameplay section of the article. (Screenshot or no screenshot, the references should improve the article.) --Elegie (talk) 08:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Use of logo & screen shot

I'm writing an article on techquila.co.in. Am I allowed to include the logo and screenshot of the website on Wikipedia? thanks File: TechQuila Logo.png File: TechQuila Screenshot.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohitpandit80 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Unanswered question

I recently posted a question about Bow Wow Wow, and the possible use of their version of Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe & the cover of I Want Candy in their article, and a couple of other questions about copyrighted images.

I'm not getting any feedback on these questions, and I'm not sure what that means. I know if I readded their take on Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe to their article (which, by the way, was in their article long before I stated editing it), someone would remove it, and accuse me of defiance. I kinda wish that person would comment now instead of editing later.

Anyway, the question isn't far above this one. In summation, my questions are as follows:

Can their version of Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe be readded to their article?

Can the cover of I want Candy be used in their article to add to the point of the exploitation of Annabella?

Can either or both be used in Annabella's article in making the same points?

Would it be OK to use the cover of When the Going Gets Tough, the Tough Get Going in the infoboxes of Dave Barbarossa & Matt Ashman, who do not have images on wikipedia?

Would it be OK to upload an album cover that DOES NOT have an article, but is mentioned in Bow Wow Wow's article?

Thanks in advance, and happy Fourth to my fellow Americans reading this. Johnny Spasm (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Album art is generally only allowed on standalone articles about the album as listed at WP:NFCI#1. To reuse the album cover elsewhere requires some measure of significant discussion from secondary sources about the cover that would be hindered if the cover art was not present. From the situation that I read it as, the cover art with the nude poses don't really present that. Yes, that the one member was pressured to consider resigning for posing nude is discussed, but you don't need to show the art to understand "Annabella posed nude in this cover", not to what extent she posed nude or the like that requires visual aid, and understand the rest of the discussion points made about the band (Same with the I Want Candy cover). An interested user can click the album link to see it in full. Same logic for not applying to Annabella's article.

Non-free images like cover art cannot be used at all for infoboxes for living persons. (There's very limited exceptions where non-free can be used for living persons, this is not one).

Unless there is significant discussion about the non-notable album's cover art, it can't be used in that fashion as well. --Masem (t) 15:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, as far as significant discussion of the image goes, I don't think Annabella's ever had a microphone in front of her without that image coming up. Literally, half of what you find about this band on line brings that image up. Regardless of your disagreement, thank you for at least responding. As far as an image of Matt Ashman would go for his infobox, he died in 1995. How would one get an image of a famous dead person with these seemingly difficult guidelines? Johnny Spasm (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

La Grange (song)

Re: this deletion, why is there "no valid WP:NFUR for this page"? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

No idea. The FUR could maybe do with a bit of expansion (see File:Firth of Fifth.ogg, or better still, just listen to Firth of Fifth full stop) but it's not absent. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

There isn't a rationale for La Grange (song) at all. The only rationale for File:La Grange sample.ogg is for Tres Hombres. The current rationale should be replaced with one for the song and the sample removed from Tres Hombres. There isn't any critical commentary in the album article to support use there. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I see you've replaced the rationale. I've removed it from the album article. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I have both adjusted and expanded it. Not sure I'm yet ready to "listen to Firth of Fifth full stop", the sample has only been there for 8 years. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC):

I'm just sorting things out, including dropping the sample rate to 22.5kHz and bit rate to 16-bit, and chopping the length to 21 seconds. Patience. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure a "critical discussion" of this track could very easily be found to allow re-addition of this sample at the Tres Hombres article also, if required. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm certain you can find a source somewhere that compares it to "Shake Your Hips" which appeared on Exile on Main St a year earlier, and while I know what a "one chord trick boogie" is (as do you), youngsters these days probably don't. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Now, just lookie here, Mister-so-called-Threesie, just what are you saying?? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

can i upload a link of website blog for the topic which is not found on wikipedia

can i upload a link of website blog for the topic which is not found on wikipedia. If i want to add the link on the reference part how it should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rinalp (talk • contribs) 11:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

If I understand your question correctly: no. Blogs are generally not regarded as reliable sources, since they are generally the product of one person or a small group of people, without any substantial editorial control. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

PD-SCAN

Would PD-Scan licence apply to a page from a book published in 1928? It's not absolutely clear unless of course, I'm missing something that is absolutely clear...Thanks in advance to anyone who can help! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Which book is this? Copyright law differs from country to country, so we would need to know the country where it was first published and the name of the author. For a quick test: If it is a British or Irish book, the copyright term is the lifetime of the author plus 70 years, so it's unlikely that you could use the scan. An American book published in 1928, there is a good chance that the book is now in the public domain. The only way for copyright to still be active in the US would have been a formal renewal in 1957, but not many authors or publishers did that. De728631 (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Template:PD-RO-exempt

The first part of this seemed clear, the second part isn't... Anyone here speak Romanian and able to re-translate the original so it's clearer?

I suspect what's meant is a no-additional copyright on Mechanical reproduction, but it's not very clear in that respect as I read it currently.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

18 (UTC)

Australian Defence Force Ensign

I see that the Australian Defence Force Ensign is not displaying on the Flag of Australia page and was recently taken down from the Flags of the Australian Defence Force page. Could somebody please explain to me what the issue with this image is and what I can do to help fix that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussieflagfan (talk • contribs) 22:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Aussieflagfan. Assuming that File:Autriservice.gif is the file you're referring to, if you click on the file's page you'll see that it is licensed as non-free content. Non-free content can be uploaded and used on Wikipedia, but such usage is not considered to be automatic and each use of a non-free file must satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. This policy is quite restrictive and in some articles it might be considered acceptable to use a particular file, whereas in others it might not per WP:OTHERIMAGE. Try checking the page history of those two particular articles to look for edits which removed the flag. Perhaps the person doing the removing left an edit sum explaining why. In general, Wikipedia tries to minimize the usage of non-free content as much as possible, so an image such as this might be allowed for a specific stand-alone article about the flag itself like Australian Defence Force Ensign or even perhaps about the origanization it represents like Australian Defence Force, but it's not typically considered acceptable in more general articles where images are primarily displayed in galleries, tables or as part of a list like the two you've mentioned above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I've now uploaded the file Jsf.gif. At this stage do we know if that file is going to suit all our needs? I want to know so as I may with confidence start uploading some more files from that source. Aussieflagfan (talk) 03:56, 8 July 20

See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jsf.gif. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Newspaper articles

I have some newspaper articles of my father's work at the Bureau of Mines that are from the 50's 60's and 70's How would I go about being able to upload them

Thank you Stephen Block — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrtime49 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mrtime49. I'm not sure why the articles themselves would need to be uploaded. The articles themselves might still protected by copyright and uploading text as images is not something which is usually recommended per WP:TEXTASIMAGES. If the newspapers are considered to be reliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes and you want to use them to verify content found in a Wikipedia article, you can probably just cite them as a source instead. Finally, your account seems new and your contribution history doesn't show you as having made any edits to any articles. However, if there is a Wikipedia article written about your father, then Wikipedia would consider you to have a conflict of interest (COI) with respect to that particular article and anything else written about him on Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't expressly prohibit COI editing, but it is something which is highly discouraged. So, before you try to edit/create any content about your father on Wikipedia, you should take a look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide to familiarize yourself with the kinds of edits that Wikipedia feels are OK to be made by COI editors. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Walter Breisky.jpg

Is there any way to figure out the date this photo was taken? Walter Breisky was the acting Austrian chancellor for a single day in January 22 and he would've been almost 51 years old at that time. If this is some kind of official photo taken of him at that time, then it might be at least {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} and not need to be non-free content on English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Not that it helps but this 1927 image http://www.bildarchivaustria.at/Bildarchiv//BA/907/B10449491T10449496.jpg he appears older. MilborneOne (talk) 07:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Can't give you an answer, but this image(https://www.wien.gv.at/wiki/index.php/Walter_Breisky) shows him at about the same age. May open a new angle of attack; if you follow that image to it's upload page, and then go to the user who uploaded it, you'll find that it's someone who works at Wienbibliothek im Rathaus; I think it might be worth remembering those school German lessons. - X201 (talk) 07:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look X201. He does look much older in the 1927 image you found, but I'm not sure if we can say for sure it's 4 or more years older. The second image does seem closer in appearance, but I can find a date for that one. Anyway, I tried Tineye on the Wikipedia image, but came up empty. However, I did find this with a google image search. If this a really Getty photo, Wikipedia might not be able to keep it per WP:NFCC#2 and WP:F7. Getty also gives a date of a 1 January 1931 for the image, which means it's not old enough for PD as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Deleted image

Why you a delee a INLA a image a? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Offey123 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Offey123: which image are you referring to? Nthep (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Which tag to use when permission is granted

Hi, I have the written pemission of a copyright holder to use a picture he owns in an article, but I am confused as to which tag should be used for the file and how to specify I have the owner's permission for use. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkurzweil (talk • contribs) 11:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Permission from the copyright holder is generally insufficient to allow the use of a nonfree image. If the holder has issued an appropriate license, however, allowing, inter alia, anyone to use the work for any purpose, the image should be uploaded to Commons and a licensing statement sent by the holder to OTRS. Permission from the holder is otherwise generally relevant only when there are issues regarding WP:NFCC #2, "Respect for commercial opportunities". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

File:WFBY-FM 2016.png

Does this need to be non-free or can be converted to {{PD-logo}}? If it needs to be non-free, then the way it's being used in WBTQ#Previous logo fails WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#8. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Same thing for File:WVBX-FM 2014.png as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The first one looks too complicated with cloud-like distressing over the whole logo while the second looks simple enough to use {{PD-logo}}. ww2censor (talk) 11:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with ww2censor as well, Marchjuly. The distressed pattern would probably meet TOO. So that one should probably stay non-free. Since it is a "previous logo" and not actually being used to identify the subject anymore I would send that to FFD. --Majora (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ww2censor and Majora. The "WVBX-FM 2014" logo was converted and moved to Commons by another editor. As for the "WFBY-FM" one, I think discussing it further at FFD is probably a good idea. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Mahlathini and the Mahotella Queens‎

If the lead singer of a band is dead, and the are no other images available, is it OK to use an old image from an album cover under Wikipedia:Non-free content#Guideline examples point 10 ~ Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely. The picture it is a low resolution, significantly reduced 1/4 sized, fair use photograph of the deceased Simon 'Mahlathini' Nkabinde, lead singer of Mahlathini and the Mahotella Queens taken from inlay of 1990 album Rhythm & Art. The image provides the reader with an idea of the singer's usual stage outfit and his physical appearance -- BOD -- 09:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

image in question https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahlathini_and_the_Mahotella_Queens&oldid=849401334#/media/File:Mahlathini_1986.jpg -- BOD -- 23:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I think File:Mahlathini 1986.jpg is probably OK to use for primary identifiction purposes in Mahlathini, but I don't think its non-free use can also be justified in Mahlathini and the Mahotella Queens or Mahotella Queens per WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3, WP:NFCC#8 and item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI. Similarly, I think that File:Mahlathini Mahotella Queens.jpg can probably be justified for primary identification purposes in Mahlathini and the Mahotella Queens, but non-free use cannot be justified not in Mahlathini or Mahotella Queens. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Film poster removed from Cultural legacy of Mazeppa

This image was removed from Cultural legacy of Mazeppa. I wrote the article, and copied the image from Mazeppa (film). I'm no expert, but the "Non-free media rationale" given on the image page seems reasonable enough. Could you please re-instate the image, or tell me why exactly it's unsuitable? Thank you. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Carbon Caryatid: In general non-free images can only be used to identify the topic in question, i.e, the film and not as an image in a more general article. It must comply with all 10 non-free policy requirements, which it does for Mazeppa (film). Besides which each and every use of a non-free image must have it own non-free rational justifying its use in that article. The fact that a film was made on this topic is already well made in prose in the article Cultural legacy of Mazeppa and the lack of an image will not detract from the reader's understanding of the topic. See: WP:NFCC#8. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Sorry to not have better news for you. ww2censor (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Updating logo and photograph of Boston Conservatory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Conservatory_at_Berklee I'd like to update the logo shown in their infobox to their newest version, and add a nicer image of their main building. Are these fair use, or non-free content? I don't want to mess up being in the gray area: These are likely not public domain or anything. Thank you, I've never uploaded an image before but have kind of taken to improving this page for the Conservatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benitag (talk • contribs)

Buildings in the United States can be photographed and placed in the public domain, so if you are able to take a newer photo of the facility, you can upload those to commons under a free license. As for the logo, that will remain non-free but you can just upload the newer logo as a newer version of the same file, and then make sure to update the necessary details there. --Masem (t) 04:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

How to satisfy copyright status of the derivative work?

I received a Di-no license-notice notification for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:St_George_Bank-Building_Society_Passbook.jpg

The image is of a bank passbook from a now-defunct company.

The instruction say I need to add a "copyright status of each incorporated work", but I can't find any tags specifically relating to incorporated work. Do I just need to add a normal PD-self type of tag? The instructions are very confusing. John Rotenstein (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Assuming you took the picture of the bankbook, keep your PD tag, but add in Template:Non-free 2D art and make to add a non-free rationale. The image can't be free until that character designs falls out of copyright, but once it does, the 2D art template goes away, and your PD stays. (that's probably decades from now...) --Masem (t) 23:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi John Rotenstein. If, as Masem suggests, the artwork in the passbook needs to be treated as non-free content, I'm not sure you'll be able to justify the non-free use of this file in St.George Bank#History per WP:NFCC#8 and WP:JUSTONE even if you provide a non-free use rationale. There are really only two mentions of the passbooks used by the bank in the article: once in the file's caption and once in the sentence "Shortly after, the black light signature system for passbooks was introduced, a system which had been adopted by the banks in the late 1960s." I don't think the reader really needs to see this particular image to understand that sentence and the bank's logo/mascot character is already shown in the main infobox. So, unless there's more added about this particular image itself or a stronger contextual connection between image and article content is provided, I don't think its use will meet Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Ryukyu independence flag.svg

It seems as if this file probably can be licensed as {{PD-logo}} or {{PD-simple}}, or at the very least as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} even if by chance it's above c:COM:TOO#Japan. Is there any reason this needs to stay non-free? If there is, then it cannot be used in Template:Country data Ryukyu per WP:NFCC#9. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

PD-simple would apply to the graphics. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

French or Spanish terms apply?

The artist is Spanish, but did a lot of their work in France: File:Marià Pidelaserra - A Mountain. Montseny. Sunset - Google Art Project.jpg, Spain until 1987 had longer copyright terms. Which apply?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

It would depend on where the work was published - ie put on public exhibition or reproduced in a book. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

how to i can uplod my new wikiipedia

hi sir/medam i can interest uploding process of my information in wikipedia plese give me suggetion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.61.135.232 (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

You need to create an account to upload images. Once you do, take a look at this page. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 12:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Besides a registered account you also need to be an autoconfirmed user. ww2censor (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Policy regarding use of data sets

Example: [1]

I've always thought figures like these are okay to use. Have I been wrong? Where is the policy? I'm sure I remember reading it years ago. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

No Anna, I think you are correct. For a work to be eligible for copyright protection, it must be uniquely creative. This does not mean you can present the data in an aesthetic manner substantially similar to the source presentation which can entail enough creativity to warrant protection. I hope this is helpful for you. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi John Cline. Nice to hear from you. I trust you are well. Thank you kindly for the guidance. I'll keep that link. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

From now on, I will paste the following into discussions where the use of figures is disputed on grounds of copyright. Does this sound okay? Copy edit?

As long as data is aesthetically different from the source, it should be in the public domain. This is because "...bare facts are in the public domain. Works must show sufficient human creativity to be eligible for copyright at all...and...The Supreme Court of the United States has explicitly rejected difficulty of labor or expense as a consideration in copyrightability..."

Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

And I might toss in:

In other words, ...Compilations of facts, but not the facts themselves, may be copyrightable if there was creativity or originality, such as deciding which facts to include, and arrangement of the facts. Hard work gathering the facts cannot make them copyrightable...

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Image of a historical building in the Philippines

A few years back, the user added this template to the file, rationalizing that "There is no Freedom of Panorama for architectural works in the Philippines, so not Commons compatible unless the depicted structure is itself in the public domain". However, the reported architect of the building depicted died in 1964 and based on the reckoning used under Section 214 of the Philippine Intellectual Property Code, it would enter the public domain after 2014. It is okay then to replace the "Do not move to Commons" template with the "Copy to Wikimedia Commons" template on the said file? -Ian Lopez @ 03:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Probably, if it is actually accepted that Aguinaldo was the author of the present architecture the house. Commons even has this category for images of this building, so it seems that this file could go there too. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Advice sought

I have a friend who has published an atlas. The maps in it are his own work, and contain a small copyright notice.

He has been approached by a Wikipedia editor, who wants to pay him to make a modified version of one of the maps so that he can upload it to Wikimedia Commons. My friend is willing to agree to this, so long as it can be done without his losing his own right to use the map, and modified versions of it, in other works that he may subsequently publish. He would prefer to use a license which requires acknowledgment of him as original creator of the map, by anyone who uses it or maps derived from it.

The modifications will include translations into other languages.

This friend has asked me for advice on the copyright issues. He is aware that I have uploaded various images to Commons; but I don't know enough to give him reliable advice, so I'm asking here.

Some questions are:

• Is this plan likely to work, or are there snags that I have not mentioned above?
• What licence should be used for the upload to commons?
• Should the small copyright notice within the map be removed, retained, or does it not matter?
• The editor wants to make various arbitrary changes to the map (as well as some necessary ones including translation), because he thinks it will help with copyright issues. My friend is reluctant to undertake this extra work. My view is that such arbitrary changes would be pointless: the result would still be a "derived work", and my friend would anyway control the copyright and be able to release it.

I would appreciate your advice on all the these issues. Maproom (talk) 11:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• When an author offers a work under a free license on Commons, he never loses his own right to use his work and to still do whatever he wants with it. However, by offering a free license, he allows any other person to also use that freely-licensed work. He will not control who will use it or how they will use it, as long as they conform to the terms of the free license he offers.
• He can require ackowledgement by choosing a free license that requires acknowledgement. Many free licenses exist. Choosing one is a matter of personal preference. For example, I publish my own photographs under the license CC BY-SA 3.0, so that is the license I would naturally suggest, but other users might suggest other licenses that would be just as good. Just make sure the chosen license has at least the equivalent of the "BY" (attribution) requirement. From what you wrote, it seems your friend may find useful to choose a license that has also the "SA" (share-alike) requirement, requiring that other people who make creative works derived from his map must offer their modified works under the same license, which, among other effects, will assure your friend that he, in turn, will have the same right to reuse the creatively modified works that other people create from his freely-licensed map.
• That is all good in theory, but in the real world, you must also be aware and be prepared to live with the reality that a large proportion of reusers outside the Wikimedia websites do not automatically conform to the terms of the license. From my experience with the reuse of my CC-licensed photographs by the media or other reusers, I observe that about a third or less of the reusers actually include the required acknowledgement.
• To your four specific questions:
  • 1 Yes, good plan, as long as your friend is aware of, and is comfortable with what it means, including the aspects mentioned above.
  • 2 Cf. above.
  • 3 If you mean the notice in the modified version to be uploaded to Commons, it's probably better to remove it. It does not matter much, though, because the map being under a free licence, anyone can remove the notice from the image anyway, as long as they preserve the required acknowledgement somewhere, for example in the accompanying description or legend. Still, it can be useful to reusers if your friend suggests a wording for the acknowledgement. If you mean the notice in the unmodified original image published in his atlas, that would require a longer comment. I would rather not start writing it if that's not what you're asking.
  • 4 It "will help with copyright issues"? I'm not sure I understand the question. It may have to do with the comment I was trying to skip in point 3 above.

-- Asclepias (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks, Asclepias, for your advice. (As for item 4 – I suspect that the editor in question has little understanding of copyright, and his suggestions are misguided.) Maproom (talk) 07:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Croatia national football team#Non-free use of File:Croatia national football team crest.svg

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Croatia national football team#Non-free use of File:Croatia national football team crest.svg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

copyrighting photos

The photo I have comes with permission from the subject, who has no problem with it going to wiki commons with attribution. How do I code that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewblood37 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

What you need is not permission from the subject of the photograph, but permission from the photographer. Maproom (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Adding an image to Soccer on Fox Sports

Hello, I was curious if another editor who was more experienced in dealing with WP:NFCC rules and guidelines could please explain to me what I would have to do in order to place File:FOX Soccer Logo new.png into the infobox of the main Soccer on Fox Sports article? Please message me and let me know if there is anything I must do or what guidelines I must follow in order to add that particular file to the infobox of that particular article. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm still on the Bow Wow Wow thing...

I posted a question about Bow Wow Wow, and the possible use of their version of Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe & the cover of I Want Candy in their article, and a couple of other questions about copyrighted images. I didn't get a ton of feedback on these questions, but I got the impression that most of the Wikipedia editors who commented on my question were in disagreement with me on their use. I strongly believe that both images should be used in Bow Wow Wow's & Annabella Lwin's article, and I honestly think that anyone who researched the band as much as I recently did would agree with me.

While I have always been a fan of their music, I never really got into the history of the band. When you read about what a simply, innocent young girl Annabella was, and how she was portrayed as just the opposite by Malcolm McLaren, and how she was completely exploited by him and her bandmates, these images really take on a whole new meaning. They are instrumental in the telling of their story, and both articles are lacking as a result of them not being used.

I've looked at articles for other bands on Wikipedia, and I've seen less justifiable use of different covers & copyrighted images elsewhere. Whereas I don't wanna argue against their use, a side by side comparison of Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe's & I Want Candys use in Bow Wow Wow's article vs. Sgt. Pepper's & the cover of the White Album in The Beatles' article, one is unquestionably more important & justifiable in telling the band's story. One tells the story of an exploited teen. The other is "The biggest band in the world made a really cool cover, then had a plain one with numbers on it."

I'd also like to change the image used for the band's article to the cover of When the Going Gets Tough, the Tough Get Going. The image currently in the infobox is a cropped version of a copyrighted image (and a terrible one at that). What difference would one copyrighted image make over another? Dave Barbarossa & Matthew Ashman also do not have images in their infoboxes. Would it be all that terrible to use When the Going Gets Tough, the Tough Get Going with a caption something like, "Dave Barbarossa with Bow Wow Wow, first on the left"? Johnny Spasm (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Just for reference, this is a continuation of a discussion originally started at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 68#Bow Wow Wow and then subsequently moved to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2018/June#Bow Wow Wow and Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2018/July#Unanswered question. I gave my responses here and here, and my opinion hasn't changed. Maybe others this time around will provide you with some different advice, but at some point continuing to repost the same question(s) over and over again until you get an answer you like might be seen as a bit WP:REHASH by some; so, you need to be a bit careful. I'm also just going to point out that File:TheBeatles68LP.jpg is not licensed as non-free content, so you can't really compare how it's being used to how a non-free file is being used or how you would like a non-free file to be used. I also think it's not going to help much to try and argue WP:OTHERIMAGE even with respect to other non-free album covers.

As for changing/replacing the band's infobox image File:Bow Wow Wow 1982 Berlin.jpg with File:Bowwowwowwhenthegoinggetstough.jpg, the former is not non-free content; it's released under a free license and is from Commons, so once again it's like comparing an apple to an orange. Now, if you feel that the Commons' file's license is incorrect, you can start a discussion of it a c:COM:DR if you want. Wikipedia non-free content use criterion #1, however, really encourages us to use free equivalent images instead of non-free ones; so, I'm not sure if you'll be able to establish a consensus to use the album cover in the article about the band. The same can be said for the still-living David Barbarossa since non-free images of still-living individuals are pretty much never allowed except in certain cases (some you can find in item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI). FWIW, Barbarossa has a Twitter account and still seems to be active. Maybe you can email him or his reps and ask for a donated or freely-licensed image? Might also try WP:RI or c:COM:RI to see if by chance anyone can find anything of him online which has already been released under a free license. Matthew Ashman, however, has been dead since 1995 and non-free images used for primary identification purposes of deceased individual is usually considered acceptable per item #10 of WP:NFCI as long as there are no WP:NFCCP (mainly WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFCC#4) issues. Whether the album cover should be used (maybe a crop would be better) or some other image should be used instead might be worth discussing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I know I'm being a pain int he ass with these questions. In my perfect world, I get 100 responses. Even if they all disagree with me, I feel like I'm being read and heard. Anyway, I like your idea for contacting Barbarossa, and will do that. I think I might even do that for a couple of other people without pictures in their infoboxes. Ashman, however, is dead. Same question, his infobox. Johnny Spasm (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Web video screenshots

I see WP guidelines for software screenshots, but I could not find ones about using user-made screenshots of video. It's confusing because on various articles I have seen that they are never used in infoboxes, but are commonly used in the articles themselves. Would a screenshot (or a collage of screenshots) be allowed in an article?
I have sometimes seen that shots from YouTube videos, for instance, have in the WMCommons file rationale that the original video was uploaded under Creative Commons, but I am not sure how to find that information about an individual video. I am assuming that being uploaded under CC is NOT the case for YT in general. Thanks.--MattMauler (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Upload advertisement in public domain to Wikipedia Commons?

Bessie and H.C. Mecklem advertisement, Talent, vol. 4, no. 4 (October 1893), p. 14.

This advertisement, from 1893, appeared in a lyceum trade publication, titled Talent, that became defunct in 1930. Can I upload it to Wikipedia Commons on the basis that it is in the public domain?

Saxhistorian (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Saxhistorian: You have already uploaded it, so I've refined some of the details. Obviously the work is not your own unless you are now more than 140 years old, so don't claim the work as yours, it's probably just your scan or you found it online. I assume you scanned it but if it is online then state that url instead under the source field. Being a pre-1923 US publication it is in the public domain, therefore as a slavish copy, there is no new copyright you can claim so I have added the proper licence {{PD-1923}}. ww2censor (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Strategic Command Operations of Venezuela seal.png

This is currently licensed as {{PD-VenezuelaGov}}, but that PD license seems to be insufficient for Wikipedia's or Commons' purposes because it appears to place a restriction on derivative use. So, the question is whether this can be PD under another license or whether it needs to be converted to a non-free license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

the only restriction seems to be for those with foul intentions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

US copyright owned by now-defunct organisation

Alice is an employee of BobCo, Inc., and she produces a published work in the scope of her employment. It's a work-for-hire and protected for 95 years from publication. BobCo is a non-profit advocacy organisation that doesn't have any physical property, and some years later it runs out of money and dissolves. Assuming that nobody addresses this question before dissolution, who owns the copyright to Alice's work? She doesn't, since it's a work for hire. Unlike a company whose assets can get bought (whether or not in receivership), BobCo didn't get bought by anyone. Does it belong to whoever the final members of the board were? Moreover, imagine that several years later a group of people resurrect BobCo under the same name and performing the same type of advocacy; are they able to claim continuity and thus assert ownership of the work Alice created?

Don't worry about a legal-advice request; this is just a puzzle that arose in my mind. Nyttend (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Not a 100% firm answer, but copyright is treated like all other tangible property of a company when it dissolves. If the dissolution is forced, the copyright might fall to the bank or agency that gains the assets. If the dissolution is voluntarily, then the copyright falls to one of the owners of the company. --Masem (t) 13:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

This is an orphan work, with differing rules in different countries. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Um, why would non-US rules matter? Meanwhile, I was talking a situation where people just give up on the organisation. It's not implausible that members of a small incorporated organisation would just give up and formally decide to stop meeting, and since nobody "has to" do anything about intellectual property (it's not like it's sitting around, unlike office supplies), they might not even think about what to do with this. And finally, do incorporated nonprofits always have owners? If so, I can see that being an answer. Nyttend (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Image rights

I placed an image I found within Wikipedia's library of images provided with free license, and someone removed it. Is there any justification for its removal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afklinst (talk • contribs) 20:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I take it you're talking about File:BG-0269.jpg? Over at Commons, someone tagged it for deletion because it didn't have sufficient permission. This was either cluelessness or bad-faith tagging, because the uploader claimed it as an own work and provided a standard license, so I've undeleted the image and put it back into the article. Nyttend (talk) 23:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Replacing the celebrity image

Can we replace the celebrity image which was uploaded by another user.The image uploaded is showing the pic which was taken for particular TV role, where as the looks are changed a lot now.Celebrity's personal photographer provided me the image to replace older and gave free access to use it.Kindly advise.Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkits23 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

You need to give more details - i.e. what celebrity, before anyone can give you an opinion.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Logo Uploads?

I'm looking to upload the logo of a company whose page I have been editing recently. I am unaffiliated with the company, so I don't have many of the details wikimedia is asking for, like the date that the logo initially appeared on the internet. Could you provide some clarification on the protocol for this situation? For reference, this is the wiki page I'm speaking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PTC_Therapeutics

— Preceding unsigned comment added by CatherineLuc (talk • contribs) 21:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi CatherineLuc. Is the logo you want to add the one shown here? If it is, then you can upload the logo locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content per item 2 of WP:NFCI. You can do this using the file upload wizard; just follow the instructions on the FUP page and you should be OK. One thing about the logo on that webpage is that it actually may be simple enough to be below the threshold of originality for the United States and be considered to be within the public domain. Since PTC Therapeutics is based in the US, it might be possible to upload this to Wikimedia Commons using the Commons upload wizard instead per as c:Template:PD-textlogo. My opinion is that the logo is probably PD and uploading it to Commons would be the way to go, but you might want to wait to see what others might say before doing so. Regardless of whether you upload the file as non-free or public domain, or to English Wikipedia or Commons, you should also add Template:Trademark (c:Template:Trademark) to it after the file has been uploaded.

FWIW, public domain files can be uploaded locally to English Wikipedia, but such files are eventually moved to Commons to make it easier for all Wikimedia projects (not just English Wikipedia) to use them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

List of Peanuts characters - image removed

I've noticed the 26 July, 2018 removal of File:Peanuts gang.png (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Peanuts_gang.png) from the List of Peanuts characters. The file's page provides a rationale for use of the image, and Theo's Little Bot reduced the image's size to maintain compliance.

I feel compelled to undo the edit believing it to be in error, however, I am uncertain about whether the Wikipedia:NFCC has been correctly applied, or the violation as claimed by the editor who removed it from the article is sound. I wanted to ask someone first about this specific incident before deciding how to proceed.
Thank you for looking into this specific instance and providing feedback thereof.
Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Christopher, Sheridan, OR. It's probably a good thing that you didn't simply just "undo" the edit because it would've probably only been removed again. WP:NFCC#10c states that a separate specific non-free use rationale for each use of a non-free image needs to be provided. Files lacking such a rationale for a particular use can be removed per WP:NFCCE. The file does as you say have a non-free use rationale, but that's for its non-free use in the article Peanuts; there is no non-free use rationale provided for the non-free use of the file in "List of Peanuts characters". Looking through the page history of the latter, it appears that the editor adding the image to the article here back in 2015 either didn't know about NFCC#10c or just forgot to provide the required rationale. It also appears per the page history of File:Peanuts gang.png that the missing rationale was never provided by anyone since then. Sometimes it takes a bit of time for someone notice an image such as this, but my guess is that is why it was removed by JJMC89. The "simple fix" in a case like this is just to provide the missing rationale, but things are not always so clear per WP:JUSTONE. Using non-free images in list articles can be tricky per WP:NFLISTS, but this type of usage might be OK per item #1. So, if you feel the file's non-free use in list article is WP:NFCC compliant, you can provide the missing rationale; just try not to simply copy-and-paste the one for Peanuts, but instead make the rationale as specific as you can for the use in the list article. You'll find more information on how to write such a rationale at WP:FUR#Necessary components and the other section on the FUR page. Once you've provided the rationale, re-add the file to the article. If anyone disputes the rationale you provided, they can either discuss things at WP:FFD or tag the file with {{di-disputed fair use rationale}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Just a question

If I were to take a picture of one of my My Little Pony toys or something like that then would it be considered legal? And should I try to make it look slightly different from how it looks when You'd first buy it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlantic Ranter 9705 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Atlantic Ranter 9705. Wikipedia doesn't really give out "legal" advice so to speak as explained in Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer, but it sounds like you're referring to c:COM:TOYS and WP:Derivative work. It's not clear what you're intending to do with the photo you take, but read through those two pages and see if you can find the information you want in them. In general, when you take a photo of something you hold the copyright on the photo; things, however, become a little more complicated when you take a photo of an object still protected by copyright because you also need to take into account that copyright as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)