Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2018/March

Apparently copyright work on archive.org

So, I clicked on 'Random Article' and ended up at Eurasian hobby, thus Talk:Eurasian hobby#Etymology of subbuteo. Intrigued, I found The Helm dictionary of scientific bird names (2010) on archive.org, which would appear to be very much in copyright. I don't imagine that linking to this url in a ref or cite book would be appropriate if this is the case. Can you help, please? MinorProphet (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

MinorProphet you can certainly use that source in a citation, but, as you state, the book itself is in copyright, so you cannot quote big chunks of text in articles. ww2censor (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

ww2censor, thanks very much for your timely and helpful reply. Would you happen to know how it is possible for archive.org to host the entire book?

Archive.org attempts to archive everything under fair use provisions (for example, it has a large collection of past video games that can be played under emulation, but certainly does not change the copyright nature of those games). In other words, archive.org should not be taken as an archive of freely-licensed work, though some of what it does host can be free. --Masem (t) 19:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I knew there would be a simple answer somewhere, thank you for providing it. Briefly on another matter, could you tell me why lmgtfy.com is on WP's url blacklist? MinorProphet (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Trying to do the right thing.

Trying to do the right thing. My son took a picture and asked me to upload it to wikipedia. He was in the room with me whilst I did so. Picture has now been deleted because it lacked evidence of permission. How do I fill in the copyright details so it meets the guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleMidge (talk • contribs) 14:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

It may be easier to let your son upload it under his own login then they can declare that they took the image, also consider uploading it to commons rather than wikipedia as it makes it available to other language wikipedias to use MilborneOne (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi LittleMidge. It looks like you're talking about File:Yuki cone snow decoration.jpg. That file was deleted the other day by an administrator named Fastily. You can try posting something at User talk:Fastily and asking what you can do to get the image restored. Just for reference, deleted files are not gone forever; they are only hiddne from public view. They can be easily restored by an administrator once the issues which led to their deletion have been resolved.

Finally, since you appear to be a "new" editor in the sense that you have not really edited since 2007, you might not be aware how Wikipedia has changed over the years. Image use/licensing requirements in particular seem to have gotten stricter over the years, so you might want to review WP:IUP to decide whether it's even worth trying to get the file restored. I'm not an admin, so I cannot see a deleted image; however, images are like textual content in that inclusion in an article is not automatic and sometimes even a properly licensed image is removed from an article if there's no consensus established for using it per WP:IUP#Image content and item 4 of WP:NOTGALLERY. You might also want to do a quick review of WP:TPG and WP:SIGN just to refresh your memory as to how Wikipedia talk pages work. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Generally accepted use of non-free logos in articles about a parent organization

I am anticipating a dispute with another editor so I would appreciate if others can clarify, correct, or affirm my understanding of how we do or do not allow non-free logos in articles. Specifically, it is my understanding that we generally do not allow a non-free logo in an article when the article is about the organization's parent organization. More specifically, we generally do not allow the copyrighted logo of a college athletics organization to be used on the college's main article when there is specific article for the athletics organization (where we do allow the logo to be used). Of course, there may be exceptions especially when there is critical commentary about the logo and it is particularly important for readers to know about the logo in the context of the college. But is my general understanding correct and in line with how these policies are applied in other areas of Wikipedia? ElKevbo (talk) 04:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Without actual examples I can't be 100% sure I'm understanding you correct, ElKevbo. But if I am, then yes you are correct. Non-free logos are fine in the article directly related to the logo. Parent or subsidiary pages are not fine (generally). --Majora (talk) 04:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Ping didn't work the first time. ElKevbo --Majora (talk) 04:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Here is the specific example but there are hundreds or perhaps a few thousand identical cases in other college and university articles. ElKevbo (talk) 04:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah no. You were 100% right to remove that. Not only for the clear violation of fair use but for the simple reason that there was no fair use rationale. The lack of a fair use rationale is ground for immediate removal from the article. Period. The burden is on the person that wants to use it to craft a valid fair use rationale. If you come across any other fair use images being used on pages without a separate, and valid, FUR feel free to immediately remove it. --Majora (talk) 04:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Majora: Thanks. But if the athletics logo is not explicitly discussed in the article (i.e., critical commentary, historical importance) and the athletic team is not the primary focus of the article (i.e., there is likely another copyrighted image - logo or seal - that is already used in the article that is associated with the broader institution) then can there be a permissible fair use rationale? That is the case for the vast majority of these articles and it has been my experience that most editors answer "no" to the question that I've posed. ElKevbo (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: I doubt it. If it is just there to show the link between the sport team and the institution then no. There would be no fair use rationale that would meet standards for that image. It would amount to "decoration" and need to be removed. If this is common perhaps it is time to start going through these articles and removing the logos. --Majora (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Government Open Data License - India

Works by the Government of India were all rights reserved. But GOI introduced National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy in 2012 followed by Government Open Data License - India in 2017. So "all shareable non-sensitive data available either in digital or analog forms but generated using public funds by various agencies of the Government of India" are now free to use. I created a license tag in Commons. It looks like Template:PD-USGov except that it is an "attribution" license. There are so many images by the Government of India are already used here under fair use. I think it is time to replace them with reusable files. (I don't know whether this is the right board for this topic. This is the best one I can find.) Jee 14:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

MacArthur Fellows

I think we dumped our MacArthur Fellow pictures a few years ago for having a non-com licence but it looks like they are now CC BY 4.0, (incl commerical) for the images of fellows. [1] Thoughts? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

It does appear to be accurate, Alanscottwalker. Take this link. It explicitly says that the photos are owned by the MacArthur Foundation and are licensed under the acceptable CC-BY (as opposed to the unacceptable CC-BY-NC-ND). I'm guessing the text of the website is still under the NC-ND restrictions but the photos are fine. Especially if there is an explicit release like that on the same page. --Majora (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

File:J.E. Rhoads and Sons Wordmark.png

Any reason why this needs to be {{Non-free logo}} and cannot be converted to {{PD-logo}}? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

None at all that I can see, in fact I'd already converted it to {{PD-logo}} before seeing you'd posted here. -- Begoon 07:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Begoon and thank you removing the GLNF template I added at WP:GL/I. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Image Removal On Wikipedia Page

I am in the midst of making updates to a wikipedia article where an image of a person would be used.

The image is owned by the individual and has been referenced by several media sources.

However, upon uploading the image to Wikimedia and properly referencing the image in the said Wikipedia article, it keeps getting removed.

Please advise as to why this is happening and what techniques could be used to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy so the image stays in the article?

Your help and advice is appreciated.

Tsmith47 (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Greetings, are we talking about the files you add to Kevin Adell? I suspect the removals happen because we have no indication that the image was irrevocably released under a free copyright license. That's a bit of a complicated concept; basically the photographer has to either a) upload them themselves to Wikipedia or b) send a permission notice to WP:OTRS following the guidance of Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Donating your photographs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Those are the files that I am referring to. I can appreciate that this somewhat of a complicated matter and will trust that either of the two methods you mention will work as a resolution. Thank you for the feedback and assistance on this. Best Regards.

Tsmith47 (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Launer London Ltd. article

My Launer London Ltd. article has many issues. Particularly, the royal warrant seal. How do I fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiaoid1993 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Is this image acceptable for upload?

Hi,

I just want to make sure that it's okay to upload the following image (I'm a bit unsure re: copyright): https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/914617252766474242/Ll503XHi_400x400.jpg

This is the new logo of the National Wrestling Alliance which has been in use since 2017. The photo linked is from the organization's official twitter profile (@nwa).

Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbx118 (talk • contribs) 22:37, March 8, 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Bbx118 but only under the fair use provisions. I'll do it in a second. For future reference you can request such things at WP:Files for upload. --Majora (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Majora, appreciate it! Bbx118 (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

imagens creditadas como "divulgation"

i want to use this image [2] in the article of the actress. The imagem is a divulgation of AVN Award for Female Foreign Performer of the Year 2008. None information about autor or copyright was found. Could use fair-use?Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Guilherme Burn: Assuming this is a living person, no, because such subjects are almost invariably available for photography. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

ok@Finnusertop:. Thanks.Guilherme Burn (talk) 11:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Portrait photo of TigerBelly hosts, Sep 2016.jpg

Not sure about the licensing of this file. I couldn't find any PD declaration on the source link and Facebook photos typically are not compatible with WP:COPY. Moreover, the supposed author of the photo is pictured in the photo which means that it might mean that further verification is needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

File has been deleted, so I guess that means the licensing wasn't OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Vucko.png

Is there any way to verify this is really PD as licensed? It seems to precede OTRS per c:COM:GRANDFATHER, but if uploaded like this today it would almost surely require some type of verification. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The International Olympic Committee is particularly...troublesome when it comes to their copyrights. This is the confirmed mascot of those games per https://www.olympic.org/sarajevo-1984-mascot and therefore would be a derivative work. You can't take a copyrighted work, make a derivative, and put it into the public domain. There are rare exceptions to this such as File:Olympic mascots.jpg which is licensed by the UK under an acceptable license. This particular one needs to be redone under fair use and removed from List of Olympic mascots. Its use on Vučko (mascot) is fine. --Majora (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

That’s what I thought should be done, but just wanted to see what others felt first. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Majora: Would you mind checking to make sure I correctly converted this file's licensing to non-free? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --Majora (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

File:WEON-LP.png

Does this need to be licensed as non-free? If it does since the alternative logo also in the station’s article is essentially the same minus the “searchlight beams”? — Marchjuly (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

That's PD, Marchjuly. Feel free to relicense the image. --Majora (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Majora for taking a look. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Majora: Converted the licensing to "PD-logo"; however, I checked for archived versions of the source url, but still haven't been able to find this exact image anywhere online. Do you think that's going to be an issue? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Eh. It is probably fine. I'm going to assume that they got it from the actual site and it looks right. There is proof of one without the beams and something that old is bound to be lost to time. I don't think it is going to be a problem. --Majora (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

How do I create a copyright tag

How to create a copyright tag — Preceding unsigned comment added by MTARAILROADEDITIOR (talk • contribs) 23:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. You basically waive any copyright in your contributions to Wikipedia when you click the "Publish" button. Did you not realize that? --Orange Mike | Talk 23:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

That's not true. Your contributions are still under copyright. It is just the CC BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL copyrights. You certainly don't waive copyright. In any case, they probably meant File:LIRR 7322-Babylon.jpg. Which is a copyvio. --Majora (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 January 18#Non-free road signs used in list article

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 January 18#Non-free road signs used in list article. — Marchjuly (talk) 08:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:CSD#WP:F5 and reasonable exceptions

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:CSD#WP:F5 and reasonable exceptions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

School logo licensing help

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools/Article_guidelines#Infobox_contents, the article "The Chiltern School" needs a logo in the infobox. I don't know if the school logo is under PD-ineligible-USonly or Non-free school logo. Can anyone help with this school logo? 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:35A9:1579:6BFD:67FF (talk) 11:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I expect you are talking about this: https://chiltern.beds.sch.uk/newsite/wordpress/wp-content/themes/the-chiltern-school/images/logo.png , that would be too complex for PD, so go for non-free school logo. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

File:The Chiltern School logo.png, uploaded and added to article. -- Begoon 11:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Let hope that people at The Chiltern School won't ask Wikipedia to remove it. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:35A9:1579:6BFD:67FF (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• They can ask, but we can readily claim fair use. The FBI once tried to get us to take down their logo. It didn't work. Granted, their logo is not copyrighted, but even if it were they would not have succeeded. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

This school logo is made in the UK. I don't see any schools asking Wikipedia to take it down. A fair use grant is added to allow the use on Wikipedia. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:35A9:1579:6BFD:67FF (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:35A9:1579:6BFD:67FF. Just want to mention a couple of things.

1. Lots of templates have parameters for images; this, however, does not mean that an image is required to be used. The template parameter makes it easier to use images for sure, but it does not meant that one needs to be used. In addition, lots of WikiProject have individual guidelines regarding image use. While these may be helpful, they don't take precedence over community-wide policies or guidelines. Image use, especially non-free image use, is not automatic and should not really ever assumed to be so.
2. Non-free content, as pointed out above by Hammersoft, does not really require permission from the copyright holder. Permission is nice, but is only needed when releasin the file under a free license. Non-free content can be uploaded to Wikipedia if it's use meets Wikipedia's non-free content use policy; non-free use files which don't satisfy this policy will either be removed from articles or deleted altogether, whichever is more appropriate. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy has been made purposely more restrictive than fair use as explained in WP:NFC#Background and WP:ITSFAIRUSE; so, this policy is what matters and a fair use grant to allow use on Wikipedia does not really have any bearing whatsoever. The fact that nobody has yet to complain is also not typically relevant, and the file will be deleted if it doesn't satify relevant Wikipedia policy.

Using images can be tricky because of their licensing. Like text content though, image use is expected to comply with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Even when licensing is not an issue, a consensus may need to be established for using a particular image within a particular article when there is disagreement over such use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Central Bedfordshire (logo).gif

This logo turned out to be too simple for copyright protection. But it copyrighted in UK so it can't be in Wikimedia Commons. We don't need simple logo have NFCC. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:7954:6CD2:930:6A8 (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Trailer Park Boys logo.png

Not sure that this needs to be licensed as {{Non-free logo}}. Trailer Park Boys is a Canadian TV series and Canada's TOO seems to lean toward the US's per c:COM:TOO#Canada. Even if this is not {{PD-logo}} for Canada, it seems to at least {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} for local use on Wikipedia. Is there any reason why this should not be converted to some form of PD? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Marchjuly. Canada doesn't buy into the "sweat of the brow" thing, so you should be find to transfer to Commons as a PD-text-logo. GMG^talk 16:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Michelle Pfeiffer Header Image

I was wondering if I could get some help with uploading a newer image to replace Michelle Pfeiffer's current image since the one that is currently in use is over a decade old. You're help is very much appreciated. Film Enthusiast (talk) 04:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Film Enthusiast. There are other images of Michelle Pfeiffer available on Commons at c:Michelle Pfeiffer which can be used, but I don't think that a recent image of Pfeiffer is necessarily needed per se. You might want to discuss this at Talk:Michelle Pfeiffer to see if there's a consensus to change the photo. Finally, since Pfeiffer is still living, a non-free image cannot be used per WP:NFCC#1; therefore. any "new" image which you want to use will need to be either within the public domain or released under a free license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Uploading a game screenshot

Hi, In the page Dragon Quest IX there is a request to upload a screenshot of that game. I have a screenshot of that game I can upload but am unsure how to do this as when I go into the article and upload it (Edit, Insert, Media), it asks me whether it is my own work and I own the copyright, which I don't. However on the page Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Video games#Screenshots and cover art it says you can upload one non-free screenshot and since it has been requested I assume it is allowed. Am I uploading this in the wrong place? Thank you, JamesL567 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesL567 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@JamesL567: You can upload it at Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. Choose "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use." In order for the upload to be valid, you need to use it in the article to illustrate sourced commentary of the game that would significantly difficult to understand without an image. When you upload the image, you will be asked to write your reason why an image is needed and how it will be used in the article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Providing proof

Hey, so the image I used for the article Draft:Moscow Circus, File:Moscow Circus band line up.jpeg, is being questioned. I have proof that this file is okay to use despite it being copywrighted by the frontman of the band, but I'm unsure of how to go about showing this as it was sent to me on Facebook Messenger by the lead singer after showing him the article so far. Usernoot (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Usernoot. You need to direct the owner of the image to follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT so that the permission to license the image appropriately can be verified. GMG^talk 18:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

And Usernoot it is not the subject's permission you need but that of the copyright holder, who is usually the photographer, unless the copyright has been transferred to them in a contact for hire. ww2censor (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Using maps found on Wikipedia in a future book

I have found your maps most useful in telling the migration of my family history...specifically the "mason-Dixon Line map also, called 250px-Cresapwarmap.pmg. I do not see a clear explanation of how, what is required and if I can use these maps in my family document that I wish to publish one day as a book. Thank you for your advice.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyoungblood9 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Lyoungblood9. First, I tweaked the section heading of this thread a bit per WP:TPG#Section headings to make the it a bit easier to understand. As for your question, subsequent re-use of the image files you find on Wikipedia really depends on the how the individual file is licensed. Some files you see on Wikipedia are within thpublic domain or released under a free license, while others are non-free content. Each license has its own specific requirements regarding subsequent use, and it's hard to be more specific than that without actually knowing the actual name of the file you would like to use in your book. Can you provide the exact name of the file or the name of the article where it is being used? This will make it much easier for someone to help you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content#Images and other media might also be interesting. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Lyoungblood9: I presume you are actually asking about the file c:File:Cresapwarmap.png that is hosted on the wikimedia commons, not here. It has a Creative Commons Share-Alike license and the template on the file page clearly states its conditions, one of which is attribution to its author. Because it is a commons image you should really read c:COM:REUSE. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

U.S. Second Family pet Instagram photo a work of govt.

Marlon Bundo is the pet of family of Mike Pence, Vice President of the U.S. If he "posts" a picture to his official Instagram account, does that count as work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties? GreenMeansGo wondered this so I'm asking here. wumbolo ^^^ 16:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Wumbolo: if you are referring to File:White House Photo of the Day 2017-05-10.jpg then the archive link I just added confirms this is an official White House photo. The Instagram photo you refer to may be the same one but you did not provide a link and I don't see it on the Instagram page. Stick with the official photo. ww2censor (talk)

Yeah. I was being silly. These are almost certainly taken by the VP's daughter and are not usable. GMG^talk 21:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Thora-logo.jpg

This file's description states "I, Janith Leanage, recreated this from the S. Thomas' College (A private school in Sri Lanka) school crest." Can it automatically be assumed that the uploader is "Jane Leanage" and that the orginal crest is not eligible for copyright protection. There is a crest shown on S. Thomas' College, Gurutalawa's official website and it looks like this, but I cannot find out anything else about the crest. I have seen re-creations of coats of arms on Commons, usually per c:COM:COA, but the indovidual elements of those re-creations appears to be clearly listed/clarified; moreover, it's not clear if "re-created" simply means the uploaded downloaded and reuploaded, or something more. The earliest archive version of the school'S website that I could find is from February 28, 2004 and it seems to shows this crest. That predates the file's upload by more than four years, but the website says the school was established in 1942. If the crest is that old, then maybe it is PD. Just not sure of either. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Photo by American taken in the Uzbek SSR published in New York...

Well this case is quite complicated...There is a fair-use photo of Tamara Khanum, first woman in the Uzbek SSR to survive dancing onstage without the Islamic veil taken and by Langston Hughes (died 1967) in 1934. The photo was taken in the Uzbek SSR by an American and published in the United States the same year. Uzbekistan copyright law would have the copyright expire in 2017, 50 years after the death of the author. American copyright law would have it expire in 2037, 70 years after the author's death. The photo was taken in the Uzbek SSR where the PD-Uzbekistan tag applies as works of the Uzbek SSR in a similar way the PD-Russia tag would apply to a work created in the RSFSR. Also because of the copyright renewal process, wouldn't the US copyright expire at 2019 at the latest? There was at least one copyright notice but I don't know if there was a second one and renewed.(just trying to be safe) If so, would the copyright end at 2019 overall? Is the image public domain now under Uzbekistan, or will in fall into the public domain in 2019, or 2037? Thanks.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

File:DSM_ANG_Base.jpg

I am working with the DSM_ANG_Base.jpg image. I don't think that the file is replaceable by text and, while not 100% essential to the article, is the best representation of the base available. I'm not sure how something that is available for free use under license from the original producer (in this case Google, via GoogleMaps) runs afoul of the non-free content policy. Can someone explain this for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtodsen (talk • contribs) 18:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jtodsen. I've created a separate thread for your question because you accidentally added to the one above which might be why nobody noticed it. For future reference, it best to start a new thread for questions such as these instead of simply adding your post to an existing unrelated thread.

The file you're asking about was tagged for speedy deletion by Ronhjones for not satisfying WP:NFCC#1. Generally this means that there's a reasonable expectation that a free equivalent image can either be found or created to serve the same encyclopedic purpose (which in this case is primary identification). A "free quivalent" doesn't necessarily have to be the exact same image; it just has to be one which can basically serve the same purpose. Moreover, a free equivalent does not have to be one that currently exists or one that you're expected to create yourself right at this moment; it could be one created by someone else and some point in the future. I'm not 100% sure, but I don't believe it's a good idea to automatically assume that content you find on GoogleMaps will be compatible with Wikipedia's licensing reuirements for free content. The map may be free for you to see online and even free for you to download, but it might not be from free from copyright protection and that is what matters the most when it comes to Wikipedia. The map might be fine for fair use purposes on other websites, but Wikipedia's non-free content use policy has been made intentionally more restrictive than fair use. Ron is a pretty experienced editor (he's an administrator on both Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, and also an OTRS volunteer), so it's unlikely he would randomly tag a file for speedy deletion without a pretty strong policy-based reason for doing so. Anyway, I've pinged Ron, so perhaps he can clarify things further. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Certainly Google Maps is not a free image - their license does not allow commercial usage (see Section 2a at https://www.google.com/intl/en_uk/help/terms_maps.html). This image is just for use in an infobox - so there's nothing there that will be the subject of critical commentary. Therefore one can argue that the Google aerial image is not necessary and can be replaced - either by someone flying over and taking a picture or using one of the free map sites available. A quick look found http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1827097#map=14/41.5273/-93.6621 (Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0), but there are probably others. We can only use fair-use when we are confident that there is nothing else possible. In addition a free image will be bigger and not subject to the NFC Image Size Guideline. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Copying within

Can I copy verbatim a sentence from one Wikipedia source to another if it's properly cited on the new page? George David NH (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@George David NH: While not really a media copyright question, I think it's worth answering. Text from one Wikipedia article can generally be copied to another, as long as proper attribution is followed. Text from outside sources generally can not be copied to Wikipedia, unless it is a brief quote. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Vipul_Patel_6738.jpg

I have forwarded an email that gives permission to make this file available. The same email was sent directly to Wikipedia by the Global Robotics Institute, which owns the file and uses it as part of a media kit. Proboscidian (talk) 10:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Proboscidian: There was no need to copy the whole email here so I have removed it and for privacy reasons the email address you showed is gone too. If the email was sent correctly, the person who sent it should have received an automated reply with a OTRS reference ticket number. For now, based on what you say, I have added the template {{OTRS pending}} to the image but you need to be wait for the process to happen because the OTRS system is rather backlogged several weeks. Thanks for letting us know. ww2censor (talk) 11:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I can confirm that ticket:2018030510010977 has been received and is in the queue. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Pioneer Academics logo 2018.png

I'm not sure whether the country of origin of this company is considered to be the United States or China, but I'm wondering if the file needs to be licensed as a {{Non-free logo}} in either case. It seems to be nothing more than the name of the company with the second "e" reversed. If this needs to remain non-free, it's going to have to be removed from the user sandbox where it's currently being used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: What page was it on? --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 12:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

It is not used in any article and not in the one mentioned in the rationale, so I've tagged it for deletion as an orphaned non-free media. ww2censor (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@AntiCompositeNumber: The file was being used in User:PioneerAcademics/sandbox which was deleted for a different reason after I my initial post about the image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

It's probably {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}, but we probably don't need to keep it around, either. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 March 28#File:United States Postal Service Logo.svg

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 March 28#File:United States Postal Service Logo.svg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Skeid2.png

Does this need to licensed as {{non-free logo}}? There's not much on Norway's TOO at c:COM:TOO#Norway, but this just appears to be the organization's name in calligraphy of some type. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I don't believe so. A summary of their TOC is "A work may be protected by copyright if it is the result of an individual creative effort, requiring a minimum of individuality or originality of the work. It is not a requisite that the work has a certain artistic merit or quality." A Study also stated that their TOC was very low, compared to other countries. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

License for scans from books

Hello. Is it okay to upload scans of artwork from books? If these artwork photographs were done by someone else, which license and copyright tag I should use for them? I would like to upload an image of sculpture created by artist who has died on January 1962. The book was published in 1982. I've never uploaded images here so I’m not sure about copyright status for scans from books. Kriptekss (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kriptekss: Unless the book itself states that the photographs within come from another source (in which case whatever copyright was used in the book would be the same used here), or the author of the book releases the images under a valid copyright license, then the images are Non-free image, and must be used in accordance with the policies regarding them. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Bulgarian Government Works and Public Domain

So, Dzhema Grozdanova is copied directly from here, which appears to be a Bulgarian government website. Unfortunately, c:COM:CRT is pretty sparse on details other than pointing to c:Template:PD-BulgarianGov, which does indicate that some works of the Bulgarian government are PD, but... honestly I've never dealt with this particular issue myself before. So dropping a note here in case someone knows more about it than I do. GMG^talk 12:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Obtaining permission from owner of a video clip

I wish to upload a video to Wikipedia.

Please advise the required form of the permission (to use in Wikipedia) required from an owner of the video. Further, say this is an e-mail, please advise the address to which such 'permission'e-mail should be sent. Duncan.france (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• A careful reading of Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission should answer your questions. If not, please let us know, and we'll be happy to answer. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

File:The Chiltern School logo.png

There is a new logo for The Chiltern School. Source of new logo: https://chiltern.beds.sch.uk/newsite/wordpress/wp-content/themes/the-chiltern-school/images/logo-new.jpg. But if this new logo too complex for PD? 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:68E2:5C3:8EFA:B178 (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The UK has a pretty low threshold of originality per c:COM:TOO#United Kingdom and I don't think this would be considered {{PD-logo}} in the UK; the US, on the other hand, is more liberal when it comes to its threshold of originality per c:COM:TOO#United States, so it's possible that this could be {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. This latest version does not seem too different from the current one, which is licensed as {{non-free logo}}; so, it might be a little too close to call and better to also treat this as non-free as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

If this logo {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} or {{non-free logo}}? 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:68E2:5C3:8EFA:B178 (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm with MJ. This is a pretty complicated logo compared to a lot of things, and it's better to err on the side of non-free logo. GMG^talk 14:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, so it time to upload the new logo, replacing the old one. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:68E2:5C3:8EFA:B178 (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• I concur the logo exceeds WP:TOO, and should be marked as non-free. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

At this point the new logo should be uploaded by now. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:68E2:5C3:8EFA:B178 (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Your original question was about whether the file was too complex for PD. If you wanted someone to upload the file, then you need to make that clearer. Someone watching this noticeboard may do it, but you can also ask at WP:FFU or you can ask Begoon, the uploader of the existing file, for help, If you don't want to wait for someone else to get to it, you can register for an account and upload the new version yourself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

 Updated with this version - per OP request: see [3]. I concur that this exceeds WP:TOO, cannot be {{PD-logo}} and should be treated as non-free. -- Begoon 02:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Flag of Cambridge, ON.gif

A number of Canadian flags at the municipal level are licensed as non-free content. This one might be PD, but I don't think the {{PD-because}} license being used is the best choice here, and it might be based upon a misunderstanding of PD. If File:Cambridge, Ontario Coat of Arms.jpg needs to be treated as non-free, then maybe this needs to be treated the same way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)