Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2018/June

< Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Duplicate non-free, but possibly PD files

File:Wipr tv logo 2016.png and File:Puerto Rico Public Broadcasting Corporation logo.png are pretty much the same logo just uploaded by two differerent persons at different times. I'm not sure if "File:Puerto Rico Public Broadcasting Corporation logo.png" was just uploaded because the other file was removed from Puerto Rico Public Broadcasting Corporation with this edit by me from Puerto Rico Public Broadcasting Corporation, but I can't find anything which shows this is used by the corporation as claimed. So, techinically, I don't see how this non-free use is justified per WP:NFCC#3, WP:NFCC#8 or even just WP:JUSTONE. The question though is whether this logo really needs to be non-free in the first place. I'm assuming that Puerto Rico follows c:COM:TOO#United States, and that this seems OK to convert to {{PD-logo}}. The question then is which of the two files should be kept since both are not needed. Are there any reasons why one file should be kept over the other? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I did not even notice that there was another file. I will take a look at it when I have the time. Thank you for noticing!----ZiaLater (talk) 08:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Marchjuly is correct because Puerto Rico is a "unincorporated territory of the United States" so {{PD-logo}} should apply. I doubt we should keep either but get an svg made that can be moved to the commons. ww2censor (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Album Covers

I know that images of people do not qualify for fair use in BLP's, do album cover's with a living person qualify for fair use here on Wikipedia? TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but only for the article about the album, not for the person themselves. The album's cover would have no free alternative, whereas a living person has that likelihood. --Masem (t) 03:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
@Masem: If the Album itself is not yet notable enough to have it's own article yet a primary section exists on the article about the singer/songwriter (including it's own infobox and track listing) is it still allowed as long as it ONLY exists in the album infobox? TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
@TheDoctorWho: Pinging notifications don't work when they are added to already signed posts, so I'll ping @Masem: for you. As for your question, generally the use of an album infobox does not in and of itself mean that non-free album cover can automatically be used. As Masem pointed out, non-free album cover art is typically consider OK when it's being used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox or at the top of the a stand-alone article about the album in question; in other cases, however, a much stronger justification is required for non-free use as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3. Typically, the album cover itself (not just the album) needs to be the subject of sourced critical commentary to provide the context required by WP:NFCC#8. So, if there's something about the album cover (e.g., it's design, any controversy associated with it, etc.) which can be supported by corrsponding sourced content already in or which can be added to the article, then the type of non-free use you seem to be referring to might be possibly justified. If, on the other hand, you just want to add the album cover to a section which talks about the album, but which could be easily understood by readers without seeing the album cover itself, then I would say such non-free use couldn't be justified. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Understood thanks for the help! TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Hatch Show Print Posters

Can I upload this photo? https://www.flickr.com/photos/loustejskal/25546770245/ Hatch Show Print Posters (historic letterpress shop at the Country Music Hall of Fame And Museum and they sell these there too, so they have price tags).--Kursebi (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes you can, Kursebi. The photo is under the acceptable CC-BY 2.0 license. The posters themselves are c:Commons:De minimis because the subject of this photo is a wall of posters, not any one poster. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Finnusertop!--Kursebi (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Follow-up to years-old discussion about photos from 101 Ranch Oil Company

In December 2014, Jcmcapital posted a discussion regarding some photos which may or may not be in the public domain. I asked some questions so someone might be able to determine the copyright status, and only recently did Jcmcapital answer my questions (the quotation has some formatting changes from the original):

  • Who took the photo, and when?: Not sure as it was in my family library (101 Ranch Oil Co founder, McCaskey’s family), and from 1915.
  • When was this photo first released to the public? Not needed, It is dated 1951. And came from my family library.
  • Is there an online source where this photo may be found? NO. (same answers as above).

JCM


— User:Jcmcapital 17:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

As I'm currently not very active on Wikipedia I thought I'd pass the question back here. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 05:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

A quick opinion about a non-free image

I am just a bit worried that it is not permitted. The thing is, it is from a an article with "...Posted by Mike Sivier in Uncategorized ≈ Leave a comment..." above it. I am not sure the website owns the copyright, and I think I saw the image elsewhere. Also, if they are using the image, and we do not know who owns it, then it might be AP or some news agency that provides images, in which case, not permitted.

Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Where would the image be used? It would need to be used in at least one article per WP:NFCC#7, but which article(s) it's intended to be used in impacts how its non-free use is going to be assessed. So, in addition to WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFCC#10a, there is also WP:FREER and WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance cirterion to consider. For example. non-free images of deceased individuals generally are permitted per item 10 of WP:NFCI when they are used for primary indentification purposes in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article about the individual in question or the photograph in question, but the use in other related articles tends to be much harder to justify. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Marchjuly. I should have said. It would be for Razan al-Najar. Actually, it's not about the criteria. I am familiar with policy. This is about that specific image being allowed, considering the source information. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
As it stands, even the current image isn't really permitted, since it has "n.a." for two of its rationale elements, and all nonfree content criteria are always applicable. If the source is uncertain, it would be awfully hard to justify use of the image—for #2, especially, we really need to know who the author actually is. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Seraphimblade. Okay, I've filled in the fields to hopefully make the current image (File:Razan al-Najar.jpg) acceptable.
As for the image at the voxpoliticalonline.com site, we simply do not know who took the photo.
I suspect that someone will soon provide a free image. That would solve everything.
Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that, but if you think there's a good chance of getting a free image, you seem to indicate that you believe #1 is not met. If there's a reasonable chance of getting a free image, that needs to be pursued before we conclude that only use of a nonfree image is possible. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
You may be right. However, from what I've learned here over the years, if the person is dead, we can search for a freebie, and if nothing is found, just put in a non-free and hope a replacement comes along. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi again, Seraphimblade. I just noticed that you've been around a lot longer than me and probably know beter. Have I been wrong about this the whole time? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk)
I wouldn't say you've been wrong Anna, but it depends on whether you feel you've made a "reasonable search" for a free equivalent. If you just googled her name and took the first image you found (which happens to be non-free) and consider that to be reasonable, then some others might disagree with you. If, however, you dug a bit deeper, looking through photo archives, Flickr, blah, blah blah, and maybe even sent out a WP:BRP or asked at c:COM:RI or even WP:RI and still came up with nothing, then others are likely to consider a non-free OK. I think the point Seraphimblade might be making as that a non-free image of a deceased person should not be automatically considered a default placeholder image to be used until a free equivalent is found because the alternative of no image is considered acceptable; rather, a non-free should be used sort of as the last resort when a free equivalent cannot be reasonably expected to be found or created. My post isn't intended to be a criticism in any way; it's just my take on how NFCC#1 is being applied via FFD, etc. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Marchjuly. First, your views, whether criticism or not, are very welcome. It is how I learn to be a better editor.
My first step is always to do a search engine search with the CC filter. I cannot use Flickr or Google, unfortunately, due to my location, so I use horrid, horrid Bing. I then ask at IRC for someone to do a Flickr check for me (but not in this case and I'm doing that now).
So, I tend to do a reasonable check for a freebie, then turn to non-free.
You and Seraphimblade make good points. I guess there is a pretty broad range of what people do, and the rules are not too well defined. I guess the current image could be considered okay. If someone wants to challenge it with FfD, I'd encourage that. It would help me see what the community currently things and would help me in the future.
All the best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Original-glowworm-photo.jpg and copyright issues

The file information page for File:Original-glowworm-photo.jpg specifies the GFDL 1.2 (or any later version) and the CC BY-SA 3.0 licenses. At the same time, it is not clear that the depicted stuffed toy is freely licensed or uncopyrighted. Though the image is on the English Wikipedia and is not on Commons, the information about derivative works on Commons indicates that many toys are copyrightable under US law.

In the event that the photo itself is freely licensed and the depicted toy is copyrighted and not freely licensed, it would seem that it might be possible for the photo to be kept on the English Wikipedia (and not moved to Commons) as a case of non-free content. As of now, the photo is used in the Glo Worm article. There would be the question as to what non-free license tag would apply; one possibility is the {{Non-free 3D art}} tag, assuming that the toy would effectively be a 3D artistic work for the purposes of copyright. In addition, there is the {{Photo of art}} template which can help clarify the licensing of a freely-licensed or uncopyrighted photo that depicts a copyrighted 3D work.

(As an additional note, I did do a "search by image" search for the photo on Google Images, and I got many results. I do not know whether the photo itself was originally uploaded to Wikipedia and then reproduced elsewhere or whether the photo was uploaded elsewhere before being uploaded to Wikipedia (my understanding is that in the latter case, confirmation of permission via OTRS might be required.)) --Elegie (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

As an update, I have changed the information on the image's file information page to treat the image as non-free content. Any thoughts from others? --Elegie (talk) 08:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Screenshot of old software?

To improve the Wizard (software) page I'm interested in the "Page Wizard" screenshot from this page I found via Google Images: [1]. It's historically significant, since as far as I can tell it was the first generally-available software wizard. But my *guess* is that it's not suitable for Wikipedia, since it's a stranger's screenshot of commercial software — even though there's no suitable replacement. What do y'all think? Cheers. Tophtucker (talk) 06:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Tophtucker: There are already many, many free images used in that article, so any nonfree image would fail NFCC #1 as being replaceable. Something is not "historically significant" just because it was first. The free images illustrate very well the concept of what a software wizard looks like. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: Thanks, that makes sense. "Something is not 'historically significant' just because it was first" — ha, so true; words to live by! Tophtucker (talk) 19:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Can I use wikimedia commons image on our website

Can I use wikimedia commons image on our website. If yes, then do I have to give credits or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.75.86.218 (talk) 08:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi 182.75.86.218. Without knowing exactly which image you're referring to it's hard to give you any answer other than to say that Commons only accepts files which satisfy c:Commons:Licensing. Commons images can, in principle, be downloaded by anyone for any use, but some licenses do require that proper c:Commons:Attribution be given by those using the files. You can find out more at c:Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
You should also check that the image on Commons has been correctly licensed. If it appears to have been improperly copied from another web page then you not use it, but should nominate it for deletion. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Questions about non-free image use in The Phenomenauts

Hello, I am attempting to educate myself about how to appropriately use non-free content. I have some questions about NFCC #8, "Contextual significance". I am trying to understand what kind of test can be used to determine whether "presence would significantly increase readers' understanding". From reading WP:NFCC I see that the burden of proof is on me to show that a given use is acceptable.

I have re-read through WP:NFC and WP:NFCC to try to understand. I have also read through Arguments to avoid and this Signpost entry on reviewing non-free images. I read through a dozen pages from the Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions archive on "contextual significance". I also read through the lengthy talk page of the user who recently removed the non-free image, to try to understand related cases, how they are handled, and the intent and scope of Wikipedia's non-free use. This has all been very informative.


I have been working on the article The Phenomenauts, about a music band. I had added three non-free images to the page:

  1. A screenshot of an animated music video created for the band, taken from YouTube.
  2. A picture of the back cover of a comic book, written about the band
  3. A screen shot of a video game, created about the band.


I thought my understanding was solid when I uploaded each of the images, and I attempted to leave a justification on each of the images' talk pages. However, it appears that at least one of these is in dispute, so I want to make sure I have things correct.


The first item, the music video screenshot, was removed from the page, citing NFCC #8.

Is this an accurate summary of the situation?:

  • The argument being made is perhaps "It is quite possible for a reader to understand that a music video existed, without having to see a non-free screenshot of that music video"?
  • If the music video screenshot was being used in an article about the music video itself, this would be a stronger argument for contextual significance? In that case, the non-free work would be depicting the actual subject of the article.


The screenshot was being used in a history subsection, about one particular album. The music video was made for one of the songs from the album. So is the argument for not using the non-free work perhaps "The article subsection is not about the music video itself, but about the album. Thus the reader can still understand the album, and the fact that a music video existed, even if the non-free screenshot is absent"?

For the remaining two non-free images, each exists in its own subsection. In both cases the subsection is specifically about the item itself. The comic book cover is in a section about the comic book. The video game screenshot is in a section about the video game. Does this provide a better case? I would argue that each use helps to significantly increase the reader's understanding in these cases. It is much easier to understand the comic book being discussed if you can also see the cover of the comic book and what it looks like. This helps to immediately identify it. Same for the video game screenshot.

In the image use rationale for the comic book cover I put: "This image will be used to show and identify the comic book discussed in this particular article section, and used as the primary means of visual identification". Is that strong enough of a justification? Should I clarify?

Thank you for your time! --Culix (talk) 03:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Culix: The standard for replaceability is that a free image can be used to illustrate the article subject, not subsections. In this case, a free photo of the band would suffice to illustrate the article about the band, so nonfree media would be replaceable by free (failing #1) in addition to failing #8. Nonfree media should be rarely and sparingly used. It would be a rare case indeed that it would be appropriate to use more than one nonfree file in an article, and for many articles, zero is the correct number. In this case, a free photo already is used in the article, so the nonfree media is not only replaceable but in fact actually replaced. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: Thank you for the reply. Okay, I see that a non-free image about the article subject would be inappropriate, because we already have free images of the band.
I would like to make a case that using a non-free image for the comic book cover and for the video game screenshot still passes NFCC #1 and #8. For #1, both of these images are depicting something for which there is no free equivalent. The comic book is not free, so it is not possible to create a free image of it. Likewise the video game is not free, and re-creating an image would not be depicting the same video game.
For #8, the images are being used to visually identify and convey the specific works discussed in each subsection. The video game screenshot, for example, helps the reader gain a better understanding of what the game looked like and how it is played, enhancing the text description. It is used as the primary means of visual identification. Having a screenshot makes it much easier to understand what the section is discussing. As per the Template:Non-free_video_game_screenshot, it is used to visually identify the game in question.
How is this for a rationale? I can clarify the wording if that helps. --Culix (talk) 05:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

mathematical function plots and/or mathematical concept explanatory diagrams

If a (a) mathematical plot of a function, &/or (b) an explanatory diagram illustrating a mathematical concept is published in a textbook or paper, and presumably copyrighted by its creator (true for case a?), would a recreation of it from scratch be acceptable?

Two cases, as above: (a) a mathematical function plotted graphically by LaTeX or other math software, (b) mathematical concepts illustrated graphically.

What guidelines or policies can you point me towards? Any attribution required for second case? Thanks! -- Paulscrawl (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello? Let me try again. (a) Is an original plot of a textbook mathematical function copyrightable? WP policies and guidelines, please (b) what attribution may be required for a recreation of a published explanatory mathematical diagram? -- Paulscrawl (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes normally it would be copyrighted. The choice of colour line thickness, range and scale on axes, use of symbols and placement of text would amount to creative work. So please plot the graph again yourself. The exception would be for a simple curve with no decoration at all, eg a circle, which would be pd-simple. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Graeme Bartlett.
I was concerned over Hubby56's seemingly unnecessary deletion of another editor's (or alt username?) apparently original Commons illustrations in Combinatorial species. Hubby56 perceived copyright violations (per his edit summaries). His deletions have since been restored by another concerned editor, Staszek Lem, whose restoration looks good to me, but I'm no expert on this subject matter (or Hubby56's history of user name changes).
I post and ping both here only in striving to help Hubby56 get straight about allowable images and where to draw the line with his documented history of adding unallowable original research.
My takeaway: make an original image (defined as above by Graeme Bartlett with modified graphic elements), but base substantial informative elements on a reliable source, adding no WP:OR. Comments welcome.
(NOTE: This section will be copied to article Talk page after it is archived here.) -- Paulscrawl (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh dear Paul, thanks for bring it ! it was me that I have temporarily suspended four diagrams. This kind of drawings were invented by a real person. My decision was to restore them (and I restored them) while mentioning below the first one the name of the inventor. Please check the difference. I have read somewhere in thousands pages whom he was and I have retained the name. :( now I have to re-parse everything to find the exact location in sources. And really quick ! gee, why is such a hurry around ? Hopefully Wikipedia will survive all of us.Hubby56 (talk) 03:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Hubby56 , no rush. You have made good progress in deleting original research from article and sandboxes for same and I only hope this forum for expert opinion on copyright vs. original images may help you further. I leave you to your best efforts and suggest seeking further guidance here. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 03:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Charles E. Winquist Photo

User:JJMC89 recently removed a photo which I thought I had been authorized to use. It is a Faculty File Photo California State University, Chico, Meriam Library Special Collections set me. I was told I could post it if I gave credit to special collections, a common practice. I have since filled out a form, which has been returned athorizing the use of the photo. I have upload two PDF files of this agreement, blanking out my name, address and other personal information. Do I need to upload this when I reload the photo? Will something like this work? Thank you. thumb|License for use of Reproductions Page 1 thumb|License for use of Reproductions Page 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clyde DeForest Switzer (talk • contribs) 05:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I cannot see those licenses, so perhaps you did not upload it on Wikipedia, but not only do we require that you can use an image, but that anyone at all can use it, including commercial, and that modifications are permitted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
​File:Charles E. Winquist.jpg was tagged as fair use, but did not have a rationale. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
@Clyde DeForest Switzer: Charles Winquist is deceased so it's possible that a non-free photo can be used per item 10 of WP:NFCI, but only really in a stand-alone article about Winquist himself and not in any other articles. You will need to make sure that all ten of the non-free content criteria are met, but pay particular attention to WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFCC#4. If you feel that the file you want to upload meets all ten non-free content use criteria then should probably use {{Non-free biog-pic}} for the file copyright license and {{Non-free use rationale biog}} for the non-free use rationale. A non-free use rationale and copyright tag are needed for all non-free files, and those which don't have them can be deleted per WP:F6 and WP:F4. FWIW, you only need original copyright holder permission if you want to upload the file under a free license; you don't need their permission to upload the file as non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Help with posting old historic pictures I didn't take

I have some historic pictures I would like to add to Wikipedia, but because I did not take them myself I don't know how to do this. There is more personal information to the circumstances of the pictures than I want to put openly on the web. If someone who understands the intricacies of posting pictures one didn't take could email me, I will send a link that explains (I hope) everything they need to know. If not, they can ask me question via email.

Though I have put many pictures and a few other things on Wikipedia, I'm not accomplished at, what I consider, the arcane processes of the site.foobar (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki name (talk • contribs) 18:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Normally we would require that the photos have been published before to use it for fair use. So if you can search online and look for publications in books, postcards, pamphlets that will help. Also you should know the copyright owner and when the photo was taken, and in which country. (eg if taken in Australia prior to 1955 they are likely in the public domain). You may also happen to know the heirs of the person who took the photo, and thus may be able to get a license permission granted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
As I said above I'm trying not to explain everything openly. They were taken in the U.S. I am the heir. But, it's more complicated than that. They 'were' published in a book.foobar (talk)
If you are the heir to the copyright of the photographs then you can licence the images however you wish. As they have been previously published then I would suggest that you email per WP:CONSENT to confirm that you are the copyright holder. Nthep (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, that's exactly what I was after. I've emailed per WP:CONSENT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki name (talk • contribs) 00:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
The commons has a specific copyright template for heirs: c:Template:Heirs-license with various parameters but you may also want to review these c:Category:License tags for transferred copyright so you will probably be better off uploading them there as there is no such template here. ww2censor (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

How do I correctly upload a company logo to an article page?

After having an unsuccessful first attempt, I am reaching out for some concrete answers.

I am trying to upload a company logo for the article SiteWorks. This is a simple logo with words and 1 geometric shape. This file can be found on numerous sites on the internet including their website. What is the proper way of doing this, and if not, what are the alternatives? Please be specific. TIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cck204852 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cck204852. Assuming that the logo you want to upload is the one shown on the company's official website, it does seems (at least to me) like it's below c:COM:TOO#United States and therefore can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons as c:Template:PD-textlogo. What you can do is download the file from the website to your computer, and then reupload it directly to Commons using c:COM:UPLOAD. Just follow the instructions and things should work OK. Once the file has been uploaded, you can add the file name to the article's infobox. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

question about designer info

how should I add an info to a photo? For example, I saw a train card on a wiki page, and wanted to put the name of the designer who designed the train card. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Jay Traquena (talk • contribs) 17:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

You should find the file information page for the image. Right click on the image and open a new tab, then if it says description page on commons, click on that. then click edit and add your information, perhaps in the description parameter of the info template. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Status of image

May I check the admissibility of an image? Would this photograph of two people taken in Paris in 1910 by a photographer who died in 1925 be OK under American copyright? (It was published in France in 1928 and is certified public domain in the country of origin by the Bibliothèque nationale de France.) Grateful for expert advice. Tim riley talk 08:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Well that link did not work. But if the image was in the public domain in France by 1996 (which seems possible if 1925+70 = 1995) then USA recognizes it and did not senselessly restore copyright under URAA. Also since it was published in 1910 it should be public domain in USA due to it being before 1923. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for that. Much obliged. Tim riley talk 12:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

File:JUUL Twitter Post.png

  • Laura Bach (31 May 2018). "JUUL and Youth: Rising E-Cigarette Popularity" (PDF). Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. p. 3.

Can the JUUL Twitter Post be uploaded to Wikipedia and used in an article under WP:FAIRUSE? QuackGuru (talk) 00:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I have some difficulty conceptualizing a scenario where such a screenshot would satisfy WP:NFCC#8. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Non-free content images can be used on a case-by-case basis. If that is the case then this one may need to be deleted. There may be more images in the article that may violate copyvio. QuackGuru (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

My non free Copyright to my artical Mushroom a collectors Item pdf file by Colm link Lynch

Which tag do I use to copyright my non free artical and how to I do this. I am not a good computer user. Kind regards Colm Lynch — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colmly (talk • contribs) 19:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

If you are talking about File:Mushroom By Colm`link Lynch.pdf you don't. Wikipedia doesn't accept non-free material like that and we are not a hosting site for your book. Even if you were to release it under a free license that is not the point of Wikipedia at all. We are not a publishing house or someplace to publish your work. --Majora (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Madrid#Picasso's Guernica

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Madrid#Picasso's Guernica. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

File:No-one likes a quitter, e-cigarette ad.jpg

I am concerned this non-free image is a copyright violation. The image does not appear to satisfy WP:NFCC#8. QuackGuru (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Concerns about copyright status

I am concerned that the advertisements could have inappropriate licensing. While they have been taken from government PDFs, they could have separate copyright statuses. QuackGuru (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion at Commons. De728631 (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Another concern about copyright status

I am concerned that logo is a copyright violation. QuackGuru (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: These are all hosted at Wikimedia Commons. You're welcome to either nominate such files for deletion over there or ask at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. As to this particular file, it needs a verification of the licence so I tagged it as such. De728631 (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

What is a non-free content?

I have found no explicit definition about what is actually considered a non-free content. As per Commons (possibly not applicable here), for a content to be considered free, it must be free in both the United States and in its source jurisdiction. In particular, if a content is free in the United States but not in its source jurisdiction, should it use a non-free exception template? Thanks --Discasto (talk) 12:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

On Commons, all content that is not free in both the source country and the US is non-free.
On the English Wikipedia, content that is free in the US but not in the source country is free and doesn't require a non-free tag and rationale (you an tag it with {{Do not move to Commons|reason=USonly}}). Content that is free in the source country but not in the US is considered non-free on Wikipedia and needs a non-free tag and rationale (you can tag it with an additional {{Non-free in US}}). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
It's interesting to find out this. Could you point at the English Wikipedia policy that states that? Especially as it is not documented and blatantly contradicts Wikipedia:Non-free content: Wikipedia's goal is to be a free content encyclopedia, with free content defined as content that does not bear copyright restrictions on the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, or otherwise use works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially. We're not talking about a copyright enforceable in a tiny jurisdiction, but in the source jurisdiction. The English Wikipedia is not the US Wikipedia (as far as I know). --Discasto (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Here you go, Discasto: Wikipedia:Copyrights#Governing copyright law, Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Discasto: On Commons, all content is free in both the source country and the US. Content that is free on US Wkipedia was generally published before 1923. Coldcreation (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Coldcreation: "US Wikipedia"? Are you serious? --Discasto (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Discasto: I'm pretty sure that was just a harmless mistake, so I probably wouldn't read to much into it. As for your original question, there are cases where a file originating in a country other than the US is licensed as Template:PD-ineligible-USonly. As pointed out above, this is usually because the file (if it originated in the US) would be considered to be PD for one reason or another. So, such files are treated as PD locally on English Wikipedia (because that's where the servers are located), and only pages on English Wikipedia can use them. Commons files on the other hand will not accept such files unless they are PD in both the US and in their country of origin. This is because the Commons servers are also located in the US, but Commons file can be used by any Wikimedia project. Generally, files are licensed this way because they are too old to be under copyright protection in the US, but it also is done sometimes for logos, etc. which are too simple for copyright protection per c:COM:TOO#United States, but may still be too complex to be treated as PD in their country of origin (for example, c:COM:TOO#United Kingdom). On the flip side of the coin, there are cases where a file might be PD within its country of origin, but is still considered copyright protected by the US. In such cases, the file is treated as non-free content on English Wikipedia (because once again that's where the servers are located), which means it needs a non-free use rationale for each use, and needs to satisfy all of the other NFCCP. An example of this is Template:PD-Australia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Photograph of an advertisement sign

On page 8 there is a photograph of an advertisement sign. Is the photograph on page 8 in the public domain since it was taken in a public place? QuackGuru (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not PD. Freedom of panorama in the US is limited to buildings only, but sculptures and 2-dimensional artwork are still copyrighted even if outdoors. So as this is a report on the situation in California, there's no reason to assume that the photo was taken in a country where the poster would be PD. De728631 (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Was this taken in Canada? different rules apply there. It would not be an infringement of copyright there. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Actually it would, Graeme Bartlett. c:COM:FOP#Canada: The freedom provided by the quoted section does not apply to typical two-dimensional works such as paintings, murals, advertising hoardings, maps, posters or signs. These cannot be uploaded to Commons without a licence from the copyright holder even if they are permanently located in a public place, unless they are in the public domain. --Majora (talk) 01:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
It was probably taken in the US. Exactly where nobody knows. I am trying to find other images that are compatible with Wikipedia. I think I have found potential candidates. See here on Fickrs. It is under creative commons. See here. It is in the public domain. QuackGuru (talk) 02:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The Flickr one is a derivative work so wouldn't be able to be uploaded to Commons. The one from The Guardian has potential. I would love to know where they got it from though. --Majora (talk) 02:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
It is listed under creative commons for all 22 pictures. I don't know where they got the other image for The Guardian. QuackGuru (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
My mistake. If the Flickr account also created the van design then it would be fine. I was thinking they took a photo of a random van and posted it to the Flickr account. That would be derivative. --Majora (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The Flickr account did not create the van ad. They took several photos and listed them under creative commons.
I do not know how to do a google image search for The Guardian photo. If such a search was performed then we may be able to find out where they got it from. QuackGuru (talk) 02:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh I already did. The only other use of it Google could find was from [2]. Also with no reason as to why the image is in the public domain. As for the van, if the Flickr photographer didn't create the ad then they can't release the ad under a free license. That would be like you taking a picture of a book cover and trying to release it under Creative Commons. It would be considered a derivative work and wouldn't be uploadable to Commons. --Majora (talk) 02:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The van photo is derivative work and not compatible with Wikipedia. There is still the other image. Is it okay to upload the The Guardian photo under the public domain?
I also found this on Flickr. It is listed under creative commons but I am not sure if the company uploaded the images. QuackGuru (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The only issue with The Guardian photo that would raise red flags is that we don't know why it is public domain. Did the author do that? Where did it come from? I doubt The Guardian staff created it and put it in the public domain. That one is a gray area I'm afraid.

As for the other image, if you can find a link between that Flickr profile and the company in question then yes. Unfortunately, I see very little evidence to that. You could also contact them and ask them if they would put a link to that Flickr account somewhere on that page or send in a note to OTRS verifying that the person is authorized. --Majora (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

It is a screenshot from the original e-cig ad from back in 2015. The company is not allowed to show that ad anymore because it promoted smoking. I assumed The Guardian staff contacted the company and they gave them permission under the Public Domain to use a screenshot. As for the other image, I would have to contact the company directly to upload the video. QuackGuru (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

KM Sinar Bangun

Hi, I found this photo on Facebook. [3]

Copyright is hazy in Indonesia. No idea the photographer etc.

The subject of the photo is now at the bottom of the lake. It is not clear if other photos of the vessel exist. Sumbuddi (talk) 07:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Sumbuddi: Based on this Indonesia entry for photographic work, 1971 seems to be the magic date and that Facebook photo is likely much more recent. However, the source gives no information about the date the image was taken and when, or if, it was ever published previously. Maybe you can find the photographer and ask them to release it under a free licence, so we can use it. Have you asked at the Indonesia wiki? ww2censor (talk) 09:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Image from German Wikipedia - File:Troccas-0-der-narr.jpg

Hi, I've imported the above image from German Wikipedia and copied the summary info across. I've also credited the German user who uploaded it. Is there anything else I need to do to? Is there an 'automated' way of transferring these images from German Wiki I can use? Thanks. Bermicourt (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Bermicourt: Why copy it here when it could be available to all language wikis if you uploaded it to the commons instead? ww2censor (talk) 18:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Ww2censor: Because it has a tag on German Wiki saying "do not transfer to Commons without an individual review" and so the commonshelper tool I use to do that won't work. I don't know why it's tagged when we know the creator died in 1851, so copyright presumably expired in 1951 or earlier. I'm assuming good faith, of course, on the part of the German user who uploaded it. Bermicourt (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Bermicourt: that's curious as it seems to be out of copyright so a reviewer could have reviewed it before uploading to the commons. You could tag it {{move to commons}}. ww2censor (talk) 09:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Goody two shoes cigarette ad.jpg

I am concerned this non-free image is also a copyright violation. The image does not appear to satisfy WP:NFCC#8. QuackGuru (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Youth Olympic Games.svg

Was wondering if this needs to be non-free. The Olympic Games ring imagery seems to be PD, and the text is not really eligible for copyright protection. Could the frame/box imagery be considered creative enough to be copyright protected? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

BBFC film classification logos

Is there any reason why File:BBFC PG.svg, File:BBFC 12.svg and File:BBFC 18.svg need to be treated as non-free and not {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} like File:BBFC 12 1989-2002.png and File:BBFC 18 1982-2002.png? Also, its not clear why File:BBFC 15 1982-2002.png and File:PG-12.png need separate rationales/licenses for the UK and US. If Wikipedia is going to treat the files locally as PD-ineligible-USonly, then complying with WP:NFCCP shouldn't be a concern. If, on the other hand, there is some reason why the files need to comply with the NFCCP, then most of the ways they are currently being used aren't policy compliant. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Case for audio sample use in The Phenomenauts

Hello, I would like to make a case for including sample audio clips in The Phenomenauts. Is this the right place, or should I post somewhere else?

I have been reading and following the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Music_samples. I have worked to comply with everything there. The Manual says "Music samples can be a valuable addition to articles about bands". My impression is that including sample audio clips is encouraged to help strengthen an article. Is that incorrect?

I have:

  • Clipped the audio to 10% of the originial length
  • Reduced the quality of each audio clip as specified in the MoS
  • Added licensing information and a fair use rationale for each
  • Worked to use a minimal number of samples to help comply with minimal use
  • Used the articles inside a section that discuses each of them in turn, and relates them to the band and the subject of the article.
    • For example, the three clips used in the Musical style section cover and illustrate the range of the band's music - rockabilly, new wave, and fast punk drum beats. Each of these is discussed in the section.
    • The audio clip used in the Promoting science and learning section is the band's motto, that consolidates their view on promoting science and learning. It is discussed in the section where it is most appropriate and related.

I have been looking at other example band articles, such as Tool_(band). This is a Featured Article that also makes use of sample audio clips. I have worked to incorporate them and use a small number to match. The MoS Music samples page also points to Love._Angel._Music._Baby., a Featured Article that uses audio clips.

The audio clips were recently removed. I would like to achieve consensus here and make a case that their use in the article is appropriate and justified.

Thanks for reading. --Culix (talk) 05:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: Hi Seraphimblade, since you proposed that the audio clips should be removed, I just wanted to add a note here in case you are interested in discussing it. Please do not feel obligated but I would highly welcome your feedback. Pardon the ping. --Culix (talk) 06:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
That many audio clips is highly excessive. It's possible one could be justifiable to show what the band sounds like, if supported by references, but we don't even use five in The Beatles. And these guys ain't The Beatles. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. I will re-examine the references and critical commentary to see what is the most relevant to see if there is a case.
Does it seem like Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Music_samples could use some clarification on the suggested number of samples that should be used? Or perhaps suggestions on how to determine what is appropriate? To me, reading "Music samples can be a valuable addition to articles about bands", as well as "There is no limit to the number of samples that can be used in one article" makes it sound at first that editors are free to choose the number of samples to include. Linking to Love._Angel._Music._Baby.#Songs as the canonical example seems to support using multiple files, since it uses three.
If the intended goal is much lower (e.g. if we think it should normally be zero), that feels useful to note. Perhaps we also want to include suggestions on determining notability and relevance.
I may write something up on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Music_samples to see if clarification would help. Then the discussion doesn't risk being auto-archived. --Culix (talk) 03:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


@Seraphimblade: Okay, I have made some edits. Do you have time to take a look? The strongest case might be for the song "Mission". This song was released after the band added a fifth member playing keyboard. It is an example of their synth/new wave style, incorporating keyboard sounds.

The song has received commentary from reviewers, such as saying it "added an extra layer" of sound to the band. I have incorporated commentary into the article, such as a reviewer saying that the song in particular was "an excellent example" of versatility, as well as talking about how the song incorporated styles from several music genres (second paragraph).

The song was notable for being included on the Warped Tour 2005 compilation CD. The music video for the song was also on the front page of both YouTube and Myspace back in 2006, where it received several hundred thousand views. It is also the shortest of the audio clips I had created, at 14 or 15 seconds.

How is that? Does this seem like a stronger/strong enough case for meeting contextual significance? I am happy to make further edits if that will help. I will continue to review the sources and think about this in the meantime. --Culix (talk) 05:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Rape in the United States has included copyvio for nine years; is revdel still the solution?

Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) here. Posting this logged out to avoid the attention of the article's creator, who has an uncomfortable history with me because of my tagging a bunch of their edits for close paraphrasing giving the impression of "hounding", and I have a serious question that I think probably needs answering without being dragged down by drama. If anyone else wants to notify the creator as a courtesy, fire ahead. I'll probably post here logged in once my question is answered.

Basically most of the text of the first edit was lifted from this source without being marked as a quotation, and this text is largely still intact in the "Investigations" section. The offending text can be removed or paraphrased no problem, but do the 550+ edits that have been made in the article's nine-year history and include non-free text all need to be revdelled? I've seen this done with new articles, or obscure niche articles that have been around for a while but no one edited them, but ... here ...

182.251.140.243 (talk) 09:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

One suggestion would be to carefully re-draft the article without the copyvio. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Just remove or rewrite the copyvio. WP:RD1 requires that revdel use not remove the attribution of legitimate contributors. One may argue that this rule is not always obeyed, but IMO it makes hiding all 550+ edits to the article inappropriate. BethNaught (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
BethNaught, RD1 does not remove the attribution unless it removes the username. Our license allows for attribution by simple list, and admins can always see the diffs, which is why this is a non-issue. This is common practice for decade old copyvio (see William H. Keeler as an example). That being said, this doesn’t need RD1 in my opinion because there were limited ways of phrasing it. It falls within discretion and since it’s arguably limited close paraphrase, RD1 in these circumstances might be overkill. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Hijiri88: MCQ typically deals with media copyright issues. Problems with copyrighted text probably should be taken care of per WP:COPYVIO. So, if the answers you've gotten so far aren't exactly what you were looking for, you might also try asking for help at WP:CP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, the above answers have sufficed so it's kinda moot, but ... arrgh ... I was interpreting the "non-free content" at the top of this page as covering text as well. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
And the above is exactly why I originally posted logged out. DF has already been censured by overwhelming community consensus for this "stop hounding me" (ironic that he immediately noticed when I posted here while logged in), "I never violated copyright shut up", "you are insane", "you are a deletionist and hate ARS and want to destroy it" harassment, and really should be more careful about continuing it immediately after the thread was closed. Could someone now close this so it won't continue here? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
You put things between quotation marks and people will assume I actually said those words. That is misleading people. The administrator said "he should try to avoid your contributions and shouldn't seek them out." You violated his instructions. Dream Focus 23:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
It would be nice if editors could write without using Wiki-jargon so that more folks could understand and make suggestions. Thanks for listening. Some of these abbreviations confuse me even though I have BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
While I agree the excessive jargon is probably counterproductive, most of what's used above are just short-cut links to relevant pages with the alternative being to write out the entire page name as the link instead. Clicking on the links will take you to a page where more details can be found. Of the ones which don't appear to have been linked, "MCQ" is the short-cut link for this particular noticeboard, "copyvio" refers to "copyright violation", and "revdel" refers to "revision deletion" as mentioned in WP:RD1. Using shorthand such as this is often done on noticeboards perhaps since its assumed (maybe mistakenly and maybe too much) that those participating are more than likely to understand it, but asking for clarification when you don't is perfectly fine. For what it's worth (FWIW), similar shorthand is often used in edit sums (perhaps you've done so yourself  ) for the sake of brevity, with links being provided instead to more detailed pages. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

FlightRadar 24 screenshots use

Hello! Just to be sure - are FlightRadar screenshots allowed to be posted? My guess is not, since the map overlay is probably Google's, right? Just to be sure... (I was unable to find this topic anywhere in Commons discussions, hence this question.) --GeXeS (talk) 09:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Correct, not usable. No indication anywhere that the maps would be under a free-license. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Trademark vs. copyright and lots of logos at Tectoy

Hi all, I haven't been super-active on Wikipedia in a while and could use some guidance on logo copyright as I clean up an article. I'm working on a complete rewrite of Tectoy, a Brazilian company, and the editors before have added not one, not two, but three different logos of the company, and all of them are tagged as copyrighted. My question to the copyright experts here:

  • I can see the image in the infobox should be copyrighted, but wouldn't the last image on the page be trademarked but only a logo in typeface and therefore not copyrighted?
  • Would the first individual image be copyrighted? It appears to me that it should because I think it's more than just typeface, but it's basically typeface extending from a center point in 3D.
  • Does the fact that these logos are from Brazil and a Brazilian company affect the copyright/trademark status?
  • Depending on these answers, is it excessive to use all three images as they are, or should one or two be removed to meet the minimal use criterion of WP:NFCC? Worthy of note is that the first image in the prose, the one with the 3D logo, is one of the most important self-identifying logos because of the number of Sega products marked with that logo in the area.

I appreciate your feedback. Thank you, Red Phoenix talk 16:02, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The second and third logos are 100% {{PD-textlogo}}. Without a doubt. Those can be changed over and probably transferred over to Commons, although a non-.JPG version would be preferable for display on Wikipedia articles. As for the first one, I'm on the fence. Brazil actually has a higher threshold of originality than the US does so it is probably PD in Brazil. But it is probably below that bar in the US and therefore copyrightable here. So if it is copyrightable here it should stay under fair use. Trademarks don't matter as they are non-copyright restrictions. --Majora (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

File:John Doubleday with the Portland Vase.jpg

Would someone please advise as to the correct copyright tag for this work? It's an 1845 photograph that appears to have been first published in 1989 (i.e., 144 years after creation). I thought the current tag, PD-old-70-1923, would work because there is virtually no way that the photographer would have been alive 70 years ago (i.e., 103 years after taking the photograph), but this was called into question at FAC. Is there some sort of unpublished tag that would work instead? From what I can glean online, the photograph would have passed into the public domain in 1965, 120 years after creations. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The 120 years from creation rule is not to be used for anything published before 2003. Furthermore, you are making the error of looking at the section for unpublished works on this page. Once a work becomes published, you should instead look at the correct section for published works. Note that US law didn't allow unpublished works to enter the public domain at all before 2003.
If it was first published between 1 March and 31 December 1989, then the copyright expires in 2048. See c:COM:HIRTLE, "Date of Publication" = "1 March 1989 through 2002", "Conditions" = "Created before 1978 and first published in this period". The copyright term is "The greater of the term specified in the previous entry or 31 December 2047" - and 31 December 2047 is greater than the term in the previous entry, so that's what you should use.
If it was first published between 1 January and 28 February 1989, then you need to figure out whether the book had a valid copyright notice (or whether the book was registered with the United States Copyright Office within five years from publication). If there was a copyright notice or registration, then the copyright term still expires in 2048. If there was neither a copyright notice nor a registration, then it's in the public domain (use {{PD-1996}}).
What makes you believe that this wasn't published anywhere before it appeared in that book? Where did the book author find the image? Was the author in contact with people (such as relatives) who might have previously unpublished photos, or was the author only using other pre-existing publications as references? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Personal Photos Being Deleted

Hi

I realized many photos that I have uploaded to Wikipedia have been deleted. The comments vary from "the image is an unused duplicate or lower-quality copy", "the image is non-free and may only be used used in any articles on Wikipedia" etc, see attached long list of items.

I am new to making edits but those photos are of my personal contribution which I have endorsed for Wikipedia's use only and of high quality when I uploaded them. They have been changed to lower quality and ultimately deleted/ removed. Frankly, I have no idea on how to continue making updates as I have put in a lot of effort but in the end, most of the information have been wiped out. Please look into my case, thank you so much.

Warmest Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenchua (talk • contribs)

Hi Zenchua. It's generally OK to upload personal photos under a free license as long as they are of things which are not still under copyright protection and that copyright is held by another person; for example, you take a personal picture of the sunset and upload that to Wikipedia if you want, but you can't necessarily take a photograph of a magazine or book cover, etc. and do the same thing. In other words, unless you actually hold the copyright over the magazine or book cover you photographing, you can't automatically claim copyright ownership over it even if you have physical ownership of the book or magazine. What you've created might be considered a WP:DERIVATIVE in some cases, but the copyright of the original content being photographed typically still needs to be considered.
Wikipedia does, however, allow certain types of copyrighted content to be uploaded locally as non-free content. The permission of the original copyright holder is not needed for such files, but what type of files may be uploaded and how these files may subsequently be used is highly restricted by Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, and files which don't staisfy this policy can be removed or deleted as needed. Generally, non-free files are required to be low resolution per non-free content use criterion 3, so that probably explains why the high quality versions you uploaded were reduced in some way. Non-free files are also required to satisfy nine other non-free content use criteria for each use, so that probably explains why the files were removed. I'm going to ping Nthep and Stefan2 since they appear to be two of the editors who added image notifications to your user talk page or removed files and maybe they can provide more specific details about individual images.
Finally, from your username and the fact that most of the images you've uploaded appear to be to Morgan Chua, I am wondering if you might be connected to him in some personal or professional way. If this is the case, then most likely you have what is know as a "conflict of interest" or "COI" with respect to anything written about him on Wikipedia, and thus should take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. The Wikipedia community doesn't expressly prohibit COI editing, but it does highly discourage it with good reason, and COI editors are expected to adhere to relevant policies and guidelines when they edit. So, the more familiar you're with these policies and guidelines, the fewer problems you're likely to encunter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Marchjuly,
Those photos are of my personal collection which I’m willing to share and are not copyrighted. Also, those covers are designed by Morgan Chua, the ownership belongs to him since the publishers have eased production and the covers are more than 30-45 years ago.
Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenchua (talk • contribs) 05:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if copyrights of magazine covers, etc. automatically become void when the magazine, etc. itself ceases publication, even after 30-45 years. It's possible that someone else may still hold the copyright or share copyright ownership of them even if Chua designed them. Maybe another editor can clarify this for you. Even still, if they're not under copyright any longer, then most likely Wikipedia is not going to be able to accept non-free photos of them per Non-free content use criterion #1 just because somone else might possibly be able to take a similar photo and release it under a free license for the photo and and a Template:PD-URAA Template:PD-US-no notice or some other suitable license for the cover image, or find an image of the cover online or somewhere else and do basically the same thing.
One last thing about adding images to articles that has nothing to do with copyright licenses. Adding an image is like adding textual content in that it's OK to be WP:BOLD, but another editor may subsequently remove the image because they feel it's not encyclopedically relevant to the reader. The thing to do then would be to start a discussion on the relevant article's talk page per WP:BRD and try to work through the dispute. A consensus may be need to be establish for including a particular image in the article even if its licensing is not an issue. Wikipedia articles are not intended to be image galleries so to speak, so too many images might be seen as excessive by some.
Finally, you should clarify if there's any connection between you and Chua because this will make it much easier to try and help you when it comes to editing that article. The description of File:Morgan Chua.jpg says that Chua has a sone named "Zen Chua", so if that's you then please clarify. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Another note: Per WP:NFCC#10a, non-free files should have a source. File:Photo of Morgan Chua (Courtesy of SPH).jpg lists the source as 'SPH' but it doesn't say who or what SPH is, so I think that the source needs to be improved.
It seems that User:Nthep removed several images from the Morgan Chua article and that User:Diannaa removed some text from the article. They might be able to explain to you what they did and why they did so. Generally, we seek to avoid using too much non-free content. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I removed some quotations. There were about 700 words of quotations in a 1500-word article, nearly half the article. This is excessive, as our non-free content policy requires us for the most part to write articles in our own words and use quotations sparingly and selectively and only when there's no alternative. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
@Zenchua: you say above "Those photos are of my personal collection which I’m willing to share and are not copyrighted" however you have uploaded them all as non-free content and in my opinion the use of all of these in one article fails WP:NFCC#3a - "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." It doesn't take multiple illustrations of Chua's work to illustrate his style. Neither do images like File:Morgan Chua Bruce 2014.jpg add anything to the reader's knowledge. So there are two issues to my mind:
  1. Who is the copyright holder for each image, and if they are out of copyright why have the images not been uploaded as such,
  2. If they aren't out of copyright how does multiple use assist the reader is understanding Chua's style. Nthep (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Please, take a look

To patrollers and administrators,

Please, take a look at File:Danish Order of Freemasons (Den Danske Frimurerorden) - logo.png#Licensing:

"To patrollers and administrators: If this image has an 'appropriate' rationale please append |image has rationale=yes as a parameter to the license template."

If the rationale is okay, please mark it so. --PetersenAndersen (talk) 02:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Ex Librio William Roughead

I have a book from 1917 that has a Ex Librio William Roughead label in the front. It's a rather nice design. Can I upload it under {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, or is there enough ambiguity that I shouldn't?

That said, I doublechecked, and the image on the label is dated: 1907 R. Home. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Ex libris are not published, so {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} doesn't apply. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Samples of Debbie Harry songs

I noticed most of our articles about Debbie Harry's singles (see Template:Debbie Harry) have an audio sample in the infobox. This may be controversial, but I think in most of these cases (11 out of 17), our use does not comply with WP:NFCC#8, because the article does not actually discuss the portion sampled. Thus, the sample does not significantly help the reader understand the article and merely is WP:DECORATIVE. Here's a list of the audio samples (all uploaded by Dreamer.se, with a generic fair use rationale for each), and my analysis of each (quoting from the article where appropriate):

(Also, probably at least some of these samples are too long, because 30 second samples, as a rule of thumb, are only allowed for songs "5:00 and longer", according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music samples#What is the maximum length permitted?.)

Before I formally request deletion of the 11 files listed above, I ask: do I understand NFCC #8 correctly, as it applies to these audio samples? I'm skeptical of the notion that including one sample per single is generally allowed because it (arguably) illustrates the "Genre" listed in the infobox. And for any such files that should be deleted, would it be most appropriate to use {{dfu}}, {{di-fails NFCC}}, {{prod}}, {{ffd}} (since, if I remember correctly, these issues tend to be controversial), or simply remove usage and allow the files to be removed as unused non-free media? PleaseStand (talk) 04:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Aamir khan signature.jpg

Wondering if this needs to be treated as non-free or can it be converted to PD per c:COM:SIG. If it needs to stay non-free, then I cannot see how it complies with WP:NFCCP in anything other than a stand-alone article about the signature itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Australian images and URAA

This is a backlogged category: Category:PD-Australia_images_with_unknown_US_copyright_status_for_over_30_days,

What would the feasibility of just converting them to NFCC style images be? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean with a realistic chance of keeping them? Or converting them to speedyable non-free files that lack valid rationales? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
With full rationales obviously. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid it can't be automated, as these images have various different kinds of uses. Some might be valid, probably most are invalid. Some of them are pretty standard (ie. a more or less boilerplate rationale will do), others are stretching it and need carefully written rationales. It's probably impossible to tell which are which by automated means only. If we'd be able to narrow it down to those used in infoboxes/top of articles, those are probably the ones worth keeping and easiest to justify. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I reviewed several images that were clearly pre-1923 published images, mostly postcards, so they can be moved to the commons but the rest need detailed review. ww2censor (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Naturally this can't be automated. A bot for automatically generating FUR has been proposed before and strongly rejected. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

NFCC and non-free coats of arms/substitutes

Hello all.

For a while now, some of the biography articles of the Presidents of Sri Lanka have featured the Presidential Standard, which essentially functions as a coat of arms for each individual president here in Sri Lanka (see, for instance, this letterhead used by former President Mahinda Rajapakse, or this used by current President Maithripala Sirisena).

Some of these Standards were hosted on Wikipedia with a fair-use license, with the rationale that they, being coats of arms, needed to be on the BLP article concerned (see: File:Presidential standard- Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga.gif). Others (see: File:Presidential Standard of Sri Lanka (Maithripala Sirisena).svg) have been deemed to fail the criteria for copyrightability and are hosted on Commons.

My question here is, given that NFCC rules are to be applied on a case-by-case basis, whether the non-free files are allowed to stay on Wikipedia (and of course, in the articles), given their application as a coat of arms of an officeholder? - ක - (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Lawrence L. Shenfield

I have been asked to put a license tag on the photo uploaded of Lawrence L. Shenfield. What tag should I use? This photograph was found among Mr. Shenfield's personal effect upon his death in 1974. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C08040804 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Rhythm and Blues at the Flamingo

What was the problem with the audio file here exactly? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Martinevans123. The file was removed by JJMC89 most likely because the non-free use rationale for its use in the article claims that some of the non-free content use criteria are n.a. (non-applicable). For reference, there are ten non-free content use criteria and each of them must be satisfied for each use of a non-free file; so, techinically there are no "non-applicable criteria". JJMC89 can probably clarify this, but I believe you just need to flesh out the non-free use rationale a bit more to more clearly explain how all of the criteria are being met. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks for explaining. That was one of my earliest audio uploads (2010) when I was a lot less adept or knowledgeable. I've updated the rationale now and I hope that will be suitable. I'll await clarification from JJMC89. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Martinevans123: It was remove because there was no rationale for Rhythm and Blues at the Flamingo, only Georgie Fame. Now that you've updated it, there is no rationale for the latter. Also, WP:NFCC are never not applicable (new rationale has |Replaceability=n.a. and |Commercial=n.a.). — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Georgie Fame

What was the problem with this audio file here exactly? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

See above. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Very sorry, but I have no idea what you mean. You seem to be telling me that the format of the NFCC template has now changed. I'm really not sure how to correct either rationale to be compliant. At the end of the day it's exactly the same audio sample. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Are you saying the statement for the sample at Rhythm and Blues at the Flamingo is now acceptable? If so, could you restore it? Are you saying that it can only be used in one of those two articles? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Off-hand, I can't imagine any other article where its use would meet our stringent restrictions on the use of non-free files. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
You replaced the original rationale, which was for Georgie Fame, with one for Rhythm and Blues at the Flamingo. A non-free image must have a rationale for each article it is to be used in (WP:NFCC#10c). The current rational has |Replaceability=n.a. and |Commercial=n.a., indicating those criteria are not applicable; however, all NFCC are always applicable. Therefore, the current rationale doesn't support use in any article. If those two items are completed, then it could be acceptable in Rhythm and Blues at the Flamingo. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I have now adjusted those two fields. But from what is written below, that may make no difference whatsoever? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Actually neither of the two uses complies with our strict non-free policy which must comply with all 10 criteria and neither article has any critical commentary about the song. File:Georgie Fame and the Blue Flames Do The Dog excerpt.ogg also need to comply with the guidelines found at Wikipedia:Non-free content#Audio clips. Normally non-free use is allowable in article about the topic itself but there is no such article for the song. I know it has been around for some years but that is no reason to keep it if it fails our policy. I'm inclined to nominate it for deletion unless someone writes an article about the song itself or writes some sourced critical commentary about the song in the Georgie Fame article. To me it fails any likely use in Rhythm and Blues at the Flamingo as neither the song nor the album were "commercially unsuccessful" so there is little possibility of justifying it use there which already use a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 09:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
ww2censor, could you clarify what you mean above - that article says quite clearly that both it and the single were "commercially unsuccessful"? There seems to be some dispute here about whether that clip can be used in any article. If I had known this 10 years ago I could probably have wasted a lot less time adding audio clips to quite a few other articles. I was under the mistaken impression that they added to an "understanding" of the artist/ album concerned. (Take, for example, the audio clips at Van der Graaf Generator, added with the agreement of User:Ritchie333 and which is currently rated a Good Article; presumably they must all be removed also?) I'm also still unsure as to what constitutes "commercially successful". I'm still none the wiser as to whether or not a single audio file can be used to illustrate two different articles. From what you say above, about a sample being valid only for an article about a song, that would seen to be impossible. I'm also left wondering if there is any place for such music clips at Wikipedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Would someone care to provide a definitive summary and conclusion here?? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Martinevans123: I already stated the usual uses of non-free media and if the song does not have its own article them maybe it is just not notable enough to warrant one. If it was commercially unsuccessful then it probably is not notable unless there was some controversy about it or something else that makes it stand out. It would be a pity to have wasted effort on work that may be deleted but it happens, even years afterwards. Unfortunately other stuff exist is not a reason to keep other similar things. If you want to use such an audio file to show some of an artist's style you will need to provide some critical commentary about the song, per WP:NFCC#8, but it needs to be supported by published reliable sources. I don't see that this clip can satisfy WP:NFCC. ww2censor (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
ww2censor, yes I saw what you wrote, many thanks. I was asking for clarification, because what you said seemed to be slightly at odds with what JJMC89 said. I've also been discussing this with User:Ojorojo, who tells me there is now a new format for audio clips. Do you mean if the album wasn't sufficiently successful, or the song itself? And how does one make that judgement - is there a criterion? Are the requirements for critical commentary different between articles for artists and albums? Can the same clip be used in more than one article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
It would be very useful if you could point to one or two exemplar cases where there are no issues over fair use justification. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
ww2censor, so it seems an audio sample may be used, not only in an article that is not about the song itself, but even in more than one article, e.g. File:Electricity.ogg, yes? Was "Electricity" a song that was "commercially successful"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Fair use rationale Ethan Couch

To Patrollers and Administrators,

Please provide feedback, guidance, approval or disapproval with reasoning for this file File:Ethan Anthony Couch.png. I did post this dispute entry in the article's talk page concerning adding this image to the article. The image's file includes these completed templates: {{Non-free use rationale 2}}
{{ir-Mugshot}}
{{Non-free historic image}}

Here is the template {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} content posted by another editor on the image's file page:

"This file has a non-free use rationale that is disputed because of the following concern: Living person involved in high-profile public events. There are surely lots of images someone who owns one could choose to release, or someone could take a new picture.. Unless this concern is addressed by correcting any shortcomings in the non-free use rationale (templates such as Template:Non-free use rationale can assist in this), the file will be deleted or removed from some uses after Thursday, 5 July 2018."

I spent hours of research and there are no free image(s) of the article's subject.

Thank you,
Vwanweb (talk) 09:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Vwanweb: This simply fails our strict non-free policy WP:NFCC#1 because he is alive, not a known recluse nor serving a life-sentence without possibility of parole. He has been released and therefore a freely licenced image can be made or maybe one exist from before his arrest. ww2censor (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Verifying fair use rationale

To patrollers and administrators,

Please, take a look at File:Danish Order of Freemasons (Den Danske Frimurerorden) - logo.png#Licensing:

"To patrollers and administrators: If this image has an 'appropriate' rationale please append |image has rationale=yes as a parameter to the license template."

If the rationale is okay, please mark it so. --PetersenAndersen (talk).

  Done by another editor. ww2censor (talk) 09:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Verifying copyright

I have received a message regarding uploading a photograph I took and in which I own copyright.

There is no explanation as to how I reply, or how I verify the copyright position — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djc Thomson (talk • contribs) 19:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Assuming this is about File:SSC lounge.jpeg, you must choose to release it under one or more free licenses. I suggest adding the following bit of wikitext to the page: {{Self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Actually, you've done it right at Commons. The duplicate file here can be deleted. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Djc Thomson: A notification was left at User talk:Djc Thomson#File source and copyright licensing problem with File:SSC lounge.jpeg explaining what needs to be done. However, you seem to have already uploaded the same file to Wikimedia Commons as File:SSC Lounge and consulting room.jpg. Assuming this is now resolved, the one you uploaded to Wikipedia is no longer needed and can probably be deleted. Another editor has tagged the file with {{Now Commons}} which means it will eventually be deleted per WP:F8, so you don't really need to do anything more. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
However: Djc Thomson, you should add a better description to the commons image rather than Photograph taken 31st May 2018 that just duplicates the date field info, and please give it some categories, otherwise no one will likely find it or use it. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 22:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Not for the first time, I have no idea what you propose by "better description to the commons image". What on Earth are you proposing I do and why? Also "explaining what needs to be done". Really? Did you think that message gave clear easy to follow advice and a simple user-friendly mechanism to reply? I would completely disagree. I found the message incomprehensible and had no idea where to turn for advice. Until this evening I had never heard of Wikimedia Commons. Having posted two pictures I no longer need to use it. What do you say I have done wrong?Djc Thomson (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Djc Thomson: The notification added to your user talk page was a general template explaining what the issue was and providing links (the words in blue) to relevant pages where you can find more detailed information. For sure, such templates can be confusing when you see them for the first time, so it's OK to ask for clarification if you there's something you don't understand. It's possible that the person (ShakespeareFan00) who added the template didn't notice your subsequent question. Sometimes editors are WP:BUSY and might not be able to respond right away or sometimes they just might not be watching every page they edit. It can help to WP:PING another editor when you want them to reply, or to post something directly on their user talk page, but sometimes you have to just be patient and wait for them to respond. If your in need of an faster response, you can try a community noticeboard like this, try adding the template {{Help me}} to your user talk page, or try asking at the Wikipedia Teahouse.
As for the "better description" suggested by Ww2censor, I think that means adding info about the "who" and "what" in addtion to the "when" to the file's descritpion. So instead of just stating the photo taken on 31st May 2018, maybe state what the photo shows or where it was taken since that will make it much easier for others who might want to use. This also applies to adding "categories" to the file's page. Files uploaded to Commons are categorized in various ways because this makes it easier for others looking for certain type of files to find them. It's possible for another editor to add a description and categories, but the person uploading the file usually is in the best position to do this.
Finally, the people posting here are trying to help you in good-faith. You seem to be a fairly new editor, so nobody is going to expect you to know every policy or guideline for Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. Every editor gets frustrated, but try and understand that nobody is purposely trying to mislead you or make things more difficult for you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
That may be your view, but I have found the advice thus far less than helpful. I tried, at the request of the SSC Council, to upgrade the Society's page and related pages. As soon as I moved from text I found myself assailed with difficultis, the most obvious of which are (1) the absence of any obvious "reply" function to messages, this not being remotely user-friendly, and (2) the patronising assumption that I would understand everything. It took me around two hours to work out how to reply to Mr Fan00. I could not locate any communication Board and certainly would never have thought of "Teahouse".Djc Thomson (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
@Djc Thomson:It's unfortunate that your experience so far might not have been a bit bumpy. There are probably lots of things about Wikipedia that can be improved and maybe some of them are hard to see for someone who has been editing for awhile and is a bit more use to the how things run. New suggestions are always welcome, so perhaps you can post any you have at a place like Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) or at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) for review by the general community at large to consider. This page tends to focus on media content related stuff, but the Villiage pump deals with a much broader range of things. If, by chance, there's a better place than tht to post suggestions related to improving the usability of Wikipedia, then I'm sure someone there will point you in the right direction.
Now you mentioned above that I tried, at the request of the SSC Council, to upgrade the Society's page and related pages. I am going to add a template to your user talk page about Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for information purposes. It contains links to other related pages which have information which you might find helpful. Although Wikipedia doesn't expressly prohibit conflict-of-interest editing, it does highly discourage because it sometimes can lead to problems. Please understand I am just adding this for information purposes so that you can become better aware or the kinds of edits that the Wikipedia community generally consider OK for a COI editor to make, not to accuse you of doing something inappropriate. If you feel it doesn't apply to you, then the pages the template links to still contain lots of information that you might find helpful. I can even ask another editor who has lots of experience advising COI editors to chime in if you like.
Finally, it appears that one of the images you uploaded was deleted by a Commons administrator. I'm letting you know about it here just in case you were unaware that it happened. Although Commons and Wikipedia are operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, they are separate projects which have their own separate policies and guidelines. There is some overlap between the two, but there are lots of differences as well. Unfortunately, there's not much that anyone on Wikipedia can do about a Commons file being deleted, so you will need to ask about Commons matters on Commons. For reference, the file is File:SSC Library.jpg and the deleting administrator is Christian Ferrer. You can query Christian about this at c:User talk:Christian Ferrer. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
With respect, I don't think that adding details of past members of a learned legal society based upon public records creates any issue of conflict of interest. in any event I am fully aware, having written several published encyclopaedia volumes, of the distinction between fact and opinion. the information comes from verifiable published sources (with citations given), yet this seems to create a problem.Djc Thomson (talk) 11:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Bow Wow Wow

I've recently done a lot of work on Bow Wow Wow articles. While editing Annabella Lwin's article, I added the Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe cover used for the album See Jungle! See Jungle! Go Join Your Gang Yeah, City All Over! Go Ape Crazy!, and it was removed, citing Fair use issues.

To me, this isn't a violation of fair use. I'm sticking with the subject matter of the band, and the controversy this cover caused. Malcolm McLaren caused controversy by having a fourteen year old girl photographed nude for the cover of her album. Why wouldn't that image be in that 14 year old girl's article?

I've been told to provide fair use rationale, but where would I do it? Edit the actual image itself to say, "It'll be in the articles about Bow Wow Wow, Annabella, and maybe someday someone might put it in the Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe article?

Follow up question: There are several Bow Wow Wow albums that weren't significant enough to merit their own articles. Would it be a violation of fair use to upload these images for inclusion in the band's article? Perhaps an image next to the paragraph where the album is referenced, or just a cover of one of the countless hits collections in the section of their article that is the discography. Specifically, I'd like to upload the image of the Bow Wow Wow album Original Recordings. Bow Wow Wow's first release was Your Cassette Pet, and as the title would suggest, it was only on cassette. They then changed labels, and after having moderate success on a new label, the old label released an album with all the music from Your Cassette Pet on vinyl. Whereas Original Recordings doesn't have an article, it's mentioned in the Your Cassette Pet article, and I'd like to include an image of it in this article. I mean, would that be all that big a crime?

I went through the fair use criteria item by item. I hope I've done this correctly:

1) No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. No, there isn't. As this image has been used multiple times by the band on several albums & singles, there are several non-free images.

2) Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material. As far as I've ever seen, this image is not for sale anywhere. I'm not 100% sure if I've answered that question.

3) Minimal usage: I genuinely believe that Bow Wow Wow's version of Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe belongs in their article, Annabella's & possibly the article about the painting (though I have no intent to put it there). I don't find that overuse. Likewise, I believe the cover of I Want Candy should also appear in their article as it conveys the point that the band & McMaren were defiant, and did it again after causing controversy the first time.

a) Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. Again, this image is used repeatedly by the band. I'm not interested in posting all the times its been used.

b) Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace. Admittedly, I'm not sure what this means. Edit the image? The image is already on wikipedia, and I'm just looking to add it to an article to which it relates. I hope I've answered this question.

4) Previous publication. Non-free content must be a work which has been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia by (or with permission from) the copyright holder, or a derivative of such a work created by a Wikipedia editor. Yes, countless times.

5) Content. Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic. I would say.

6) Media-specific policy. Non-free content meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy. For example, images must meet Wikipedia:Image use policy. It's already on wikipedia once, so again, I would say so.

7) One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article. I'm looking to take an image that is in one article and use it in 3. I'm looking to take a second image that is used once, and use it in a second.

8) Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Aside from their music, the exploitation of their teenage lead singer is what Bow Wow Wow is most known for. This image in their & her article really drives that point home. I cannot state how relevant to their article I find these images.

9) Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.) I actually broke this rule once recently in trying to get this issue resolved. My apologies.

10) Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following: Identification of the source of the original copyrighted material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder, and year of copyright; this is to help determine the material's potential market value. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources § Multimedia.

A copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content.

The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline.[2] The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use.

This has all already been done by the original uploader of the image.

Looking forward to response. Johnny Spasm (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - I removed the link originally as I thought it was unlikely to pass WP:FAIRUSE - but there's really a pretty good argument for its importance in context, and it's definitely a notable event in Lwin's biography. So actually, I'll support it now - David Gerard (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Obvious NFCC violation, absolutely no basis for including in article. Nonfree image of living person. The fact that Annabella Lwin was photographed nude for an album cover is more than adequately conveyed by text alone, and "driving home" such a point is certainly not an exception to generally applicable NFCC requirements. The Brooke Shields tweener nudes were more controversial and more prominent, and we don't display those in her bio, not do we display any of the nudes of the under-18 Playmate that got Hefner arrested. NFC#UUI #6 indicates that a link to the album article should be sufficient here. We shouldn't let our nonfree content standards be eroded to include multiple copies of an image of a naked 14-year-old girl. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
The Brooke Shields thing is obviously not the same thing. We obviously do not wanna upload nude images of a child, especially if something is showing. Nothing is showing in the Bow Wow Wow version of Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe, and it's an image that is already in the commons. It would merely be reused in two more articles in which it also relates (again, possibly a third if some future editor finds a need to include it in the actual article about Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe). Originally making this point, I likened to the image of Steve Gromek & Larry Doby in Gromek's article. That image was controversial in its time, and later evolved into an important image in the telling of the story of integration in baseball and America. Currently, the Bow Wow Wow article states that they used a nude image of her for the cover of an album, and a Scotland Yard investigation ensued. After the band promised to play nice, the image was used 2 more times, and a second nude image (also, nothing showing) was used on the next album after that. Right now, the reader is left with a "Just believe me, OK?" As opposed to letting them see the image that caused the ruckus. Johnny Spasm (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Just for the reference of others, this discussion began at WT:NFC#Bow Wow Wow and was subsequently moved here. I'm not sure what is meant by "it's an image that is already in the commons". If "commons" means "Wikimedia Commons" and File:Seejungle.jpg is the image being discussed here, then that image is not from Commons; it's non-free content uploaded locally to English Wikipedia which makes each use of it subject to WP:NFCCP. FWIW, Commons does not accept non-free files and copyrighted album covers are pretty much speedily deleted as soon as they are found. So, I am going to assume that this was just an unintentional mixup of Commons and Wikipedia. As for the other stuff, I pretty much posted my thoughts on this in my responses at WT:NFC and nothing posted here has caused me to change my mind. I'm not going to repost everything I posted at NFC here, so if others are interested please check that thread. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
If it's an issue that I posted this question more than once in more than one location, I can delete the other posts. I'd like to point out that there is more than one question in this question. The main question is about using Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe in the Bow Wow Wow article & Annabella's. Then, there is the question of whether or not I Want Candy can be used with the same justification. I also wanted to know could the cover of an album not significant to warrant its own article (for example Fever, Super Boom or any of Annabella's singles) be uploaded for use in the artist's article. Since posting this question, another question popped in my mind. Neither David Barbarossa nor Matthew Ashman have pictures in their infoboxes. Would it be OK to put the cover of When the Going Gets Tough, the Tough Get Going in their infoboxes with a caption something like: "Matthew Ashman with Bow Wow Wow, far right." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny Spasm (talk • contribs) 14:35, 1 July 2018

Urban Light

Hello everyone! I started a discussion on Talk:Urban Light to discuss whether it meets the threshold of originality. There were 2 fair use images on the article when I first looked at it last night. The lead image was blurry and poor quality, which lead me to look around and I found a collection of images on Commons and more online. I understand it is an art exhibit, but because they are simply lamps that are evenly spaced, it might not be copyrighted. I'm invited people to examine and comment. Killiondude (talk) 16:25, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2018/June&oldid=1142595926"