Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2018/May
 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Images of musicians/living persons with no images allowed under commons
I'm not sure what to do in this situation. For example, I can't find any some rights reserved images on Flickr for 21 Savage, so should I just upload one from the net with the promotional material license (like this image: https://www.songkick.com/images/23299506)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeR0101MiNt (talk • contribs) 21:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry but no, because we do not accept copyright images of living people and as he is still alive and apparently active, a freely licenced photo can be taken, so it will fail WP:NFCC. Remember that articles do not have to have an image and there are many that don't because no free images are available. ww2censor (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your explanation. ZeR0101MiNt (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I wonder if someone better versed could evaluate the possibility of the fourth image here [1] qualifying as fair use in British_Airways_Flight_5390 -- unique historic image or whatnot. I think probably not but it's too good to not get a second opinion. Thanks! EEng 21:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Use_rationale_examples - must be uploaded locally - do not upload to Commons because they are not allowed. WP:F: use should be minimal and confined (with limited exceptions) to illustrating historically significant events, so if it will be used for the article, I'd say that it's covered. Per WP:NFCCP it passes No free equivalent, has been in previous publications, etc. Follow the directions for the upload, and you should be good to go. Atsme📞📧 03:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- However, EEng please be aware that any non-free image must comply with all 10 of non-free policy criteria requirements especially #8 which must show contextual significance for its inclusion. You may also find it useful to review the main non-free content page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 09:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
While I appreciate the responses, I know what the rules are, but I wanted a second opinion on their applicability here, particularly contextual significance. Thinking about it again today I feel more confident that the photo (with the blood and whatnot) allows the reader to visualize what happened to the pilot in a way otherwise not possible, but again, I was hoping for the opinions of others with more experience with NFCC. EEng 15:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that it could be justified under NFCC, particularly if it is used at that page and not at any other. I suggest paying particular attention to NFCC#8, contextual significance, when you write the image description page. As a practical matter, it's no big deal to upload it and use it, but the, um, rubber hits the, um, road when someone swoops down on it and takes it to WP:FFD. Luckily, yours truly wrote WP:AAFFD, so you can bone up on that and dazzle the FFD discussion with irrefutable logic in the event that it happens. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- ... or else just act dumb and hope it flies? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Tryptofish, can you do me a favor and do the paperwork, since you're obviously the right fish for the job? I'm getting ready to leave for Japan in a few days. EEng 21:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Have a great trip, EEng. Enjoy the sushi! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, no, I'm busy too. There's no hurry, so you can do it when you get back. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'll remember that next time you want your water changed. Martinevans123, can you ping me in a month, please? EEng 02:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
I could do with some fresh weed? I'll ping you every day, if you fill a shopping trolley.You never know, Japan may just have an internet connection? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)- Ahem...EEng - did you read what I wrote? I'll repeat the applicable parts: "...so if it will be used for the article, I'd say that it's covered. Per WP:NFCCP it passes No free equivalent, has been in previous publications, etc. Follow the directions for the upload, and you should be good to go." What part of my instructions failed your expectations as "a second opinion on their applicability here, particularly contextual significance", huh? Atsme📞📧 02:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'll remember that next time you want your water changed. Martinevans123, can you ping me in a month, please? EEng 02:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
New Logo
Dear Wikipedia team,
I'm working for the International World Games Association (IWGA). We have created and ratified a new logo 3 weeks ago which we would like to upload now on Wikipedia. You can find the logo on our webpage (www.theworldgames.org). There is for sure a copyright on that picture from our side, but we somehow have to upload the picture.
As I think I'm not allowed to upload pictures on Wikipedia so far, could you please take care of that or let me know what I need to do before I can upload the right picture. I can send to you a link to download/upload the picture as well.
Thank you! TheWorldGames (talk) 08:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Soviet films
Are Soviet films copyrighted? Seraphim System (talk) 08:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Copyright law of the Soviet Union may be helpful. You should probably also carefully review copyright rules for Russia and the former Soviet Union and copyright tags for Russia and the former Soviet Union for more information. ww2censor (talk) 09:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
File:400 Holiday Highway.png
It is now in the public domain because it's crown copyright has expired as of January 1, 2018, but this image is still under fair use. 86.22.8.235 (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- So go fix that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Does this really need to be treated as non-free per c:COM:TOO#United States? It seems simple enough to be below the US's TOO on its own merits. Moreover, if the licensing of File:Pepsi logo 2008.svg, the files in c:Category:Pepsi logos and the files is c:Category:Pepsi Globe is correct, then the circle imagery in the non-free version also seems like it would be {{PD-logo}} as well. If the only reason it needs to be non-free is because it is a user-created svg file, then such a non-free use would fail WP:NFCC#1 since it seems like a png or jpg file could be found which would be "PD-logo".
The above might also apply to File:Pepsilogo.png. This version of the logo is in 3D, but the shadowing and water droplets on the logo might be sufficient enough to boost in above the TOO. So, I this one I'm not as convinced. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Architect of the Capitol: Public Domain with exceptions?
The Architect of the Capitol has a lot of great images available, but they give conflicting guidance on whether they are in the public domain. The AOC image gallery page for instance, says they are "in the public domain and, unless otherwise noted, may be used without permission for educational, scholarly, or personal (i.e., nonpromotional, nonadvertising) purposes" but goes on to say that 1) "When any of the AOC's images are used in print or electronic publications, the photographic credit line should read "Architect of the Capitol."" 2) "Photographs from the records of the Architect of the Capitol may be used for scholarly or educational purposes; they are not made available for promotional or advertising purposes" and 3) "A detail or cropped image may not be used in a publication unless (a) it is clearly identified as a detail or cropped version of the larger work and (b) the full image appears elsewhere in the publication" Photos from their Flickr account has similar language.
But my understanding is that "public domain" means 1) attribution cannot be a condition of use (although obviously it's a requirement here on Wikipedia), 2) free for any use - commercial or otherwise, and 3) no restrictions on derivative works, like cropping. Further, AOC wouldn't have the ability to overrule US government policy. It seems to me that the AOC is just wrong here, and misunderstands the nature of public domain works. Can someone verify that I'm not missing something? Thanks in advance! MarginalCost (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- @MarginalCost: Images on Wikipedia are required to be freely licensed, which can mean things other than in the public domain. It is entirely fine for a free image's license to require attribution (including to specify what the attribution should say), and to require that modified versions be explicitly identified as having been modified. However, free licenses may not restrict the type of use, including restricting use to "educational only" or "noncommercial only" use. Free media must be reusable by anyone, without permission, for any purpose, including commercial and for-profit purposes. So for that reason, the license on these images is nonfree. The fact that they've said they're "in the public domain" is apparently a misunderstanding in terminology, as public domain means that anyone may reuse the images in any way without any conditions whatever. But if they're the copyright holder, and they set certain conditions, those still apply. In this case, those conditions mean their license does not meet the criteria of a free one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Seraphimblade: Sure, I get that PD isn't the only kind of license that can be used. But does the Architect of the Capitol, an organ of the US Congress, have the authority to set its own copyright policy independently of the rest of the Federal government? It's hard for me to imagine so. If what you're saying is correct, we have more than 8000 images to delete from Commons (not to mention a template.) MarginalCost (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- If you're stating that they're engaging in copyfraud, that's a different matter. But there are federal contractors who set their own copyright policies. It's a difficult area, and might require some digging to require if they're covered under the "federal images are automatically PD" rule despite what they may say otherwise. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- From my reading Architect of the Capitol is a US federal agency, not an independent agency, so unless their images are provided by outside contractors, as some of NASA images are, their images are US government work and therefore in the public domain. The website statement is contradictory; images cannot be PD and unavailable for other uses. Their Flickr account states they are government work, so any restrictive claim there or on their website is not acceptable. We often see organisations or people claiming copyright or making restrictions. This is most likely based on their lack of understanding of the copyright of their images. They may also use such restricting language to discourage other uses. There are several US military Flickr streams, whose images are clearly marked as the work of US government employees, yet the licences are restrictive. ww2censor (talk) 11:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Ww2censor: That's quite interesting. It might be a good idea to bring this up on Commons. Even if this particular agency hasn't come up (which it may have), I know that they've looked into similar cases before. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Seraphimblade: I should have looked at the commons to see what's going on there with Architect of the Capitol images. Sure enough there is a specific copyright tag PD-USGov-Congress-AOC for their images of which there are 4,500+ in a category for Images of the Architect of the Capitol. So unless there is any question about an image possibly being copyright for some other reason, I think you can upload their images without worry. There is a 2nd category for their Flickr images at Files from US Capitol Flickr stream. There has also been a commons discussion yuo want to review: c:Commons:Village pump/Archive/2013/05#Licence information in public domain images. ww2censor (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks ww2censor, that's exactly what I thought was going on. MarginalCost (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Seraphimblade: I should have looked at the commons to see what's going on there with Architect of the Capitol images. Sure enough there is a specific copyright tag PD-USGov-Congress-AOC for their images of which there are 4,500+ in a category for Images of the Architect of the Capitol. So unless there is any question about an image possibly being copyright for some other reason, I think you can upload their images without worry. There is a 2nd category for their Flickr images at Files from US Capitol Flickr stream. There has also been a commons discussion yuo want to review: c:Commons:Village pump/Archive/2013/05#Licence information in public domain images. ww2censor (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Ww2censor: That's quite interesting. It might be a good idea to bring this up on Commons. Even if this particular agency hasn't come up (which it may have), I know that they've looked into similar cases before. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- From my reading Architect of the Capitol is a US federal agency, not an independent agency, so unless their images are provided by outside contractors, as some of NASA images are, their images are US government work and therefore in the public domain. The website statement is contradictory; images cannot be PD and unavailable for other uses. Their Flickr account states they are government work, so any restrictive claim there or on their website is not acceptable. We often see organisations or people claiming copyright or making restrictions. This is most likely based on their lack of understanding of the copyright of their images. They may also use such restricting language to discourage other uses. There are several US military Flickr streams, whose images are clearly marked as the work of US government employees, yet the licences are restrictive. ww2censor (talk) 11:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- If you're stating that they're engaging in copyfraud, that's a different matter. But there are federal contractors who set their own copyright policies. It's a difficult area, and might require some digging to require if they're covered under the "federal images are automatically PD" rule despite what they may say otherwise. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Seraphimblade: Sure, I get that PD isn't the only kind of license that can be used. But does the Architect of the Capitol, an organ of the US Congress, have the authority to set its own copyright policy independently of the rest of the Federal government? It's hard for me to imagine so. If what you're saying is correct, we have more than 8000 images to delete from Commons (not to mention a template.) MarginalCost (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
If File:DaleCoyneRacingwithVasserSullivan.png is simple enough for {{PD-logo}} at first glance, then File:Dale coyne racing logo.png should be as well, shouldn't it? Conversely, if the latter needs to be non-free, then the former probably needs to be as well since the only difference between the two logos is that the non-free one has a bit of coloring added to it and the PD one has "with Vassar Sullivan" added to it minus the coloring. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Linking to source published by websites that are clearly not the copyright holder
I know Wikipedia encouraged editors to provide links to cited sources, if they are available online. Does Wikipedia have any policy or recommendation about providing links when sources can be found online but the entity making them available online is clearly not the copyright holder? An example would be a fan-maintained website that includes "press clippings" on the subject the owners are fans of. DrLuthersAssistant (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hi DrLuthersAssistant. This noticeboad tends to deal with media files (usually ones already uploaded or ones someone wants to upload to Wikipedia), but it sounds like you're asking about WP:ELNEVER; therefore, you might be better off asking about this at either WT:EL (if you're question is general in nature) or WP:ELN (if you actually have a specific website in mind). I will add that in some cases WP:CONVENIENCE is allowed when linking to sites intended to be used as reliable sources, so maybe that helps answer your question. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, Marchjuly. The information at WP:ELNEVER is very clear and answers my question.--DrLuthersAssistant (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
BBC Copyright & Fair Use
I want to upload an image that is originally from the BBC Website (here). I'm new to Wikipedia and copyright in general, and am wondering whether using this image is allowed. According to the BBC's TOU (here), I need to email them to get permission to use it (see the Can I use images or screenshots? section). However, I'm wondering whether uploading it to Wikipedia would be allowed under Fair Use (the UK's Fair Use policy is here, butI can't make sense of it), or whether it would be barred for copyright restrictions.
Thanks,
--Drunken Sailor7 (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Drunken Sailor7: No, it'll fail the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria specifically criterion #1 "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Judith Keppel is still alive so even if you can't find a freely licenced image of her, the possibility of a freely licenced image being created exists. Incidentally the Non-free content criteria are deliberately very strict to reduce the amount of non-free content on Wikipedia and are more restrictive than the governing law which is US Fair use even though the image in question is from the UK. Nthep (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Nthep: Alright, thank you.Drunken Sailor7 (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Images of animals (from Twitter)
The image in question: File:Grape-kun_swimming.jpeg
Image source is on file page—it comes from a still image from a video on Twitter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolcam6578 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- Unless said video explicitly says that it has been released under a suitable free license, then you cannot upload still from it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Why was that image in violation of WP:NFCC? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- File:Blacky.gif does not have a WP:FUR that addresses the WP:NFCC. 10c is not satisfied, but I haven't reviewed the others. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- Essentially an administrative error that it has no WP:FUR? Just the fact that it does not name Blacky pictures test? The others? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- A FUR needs to address all the criterion at WP:NFCCP. Mentioning the article name is required to satisfy 10c. I was referring to the other criteria. On further review, I'm not sure that criterion 8 is met. If it is, the rationale doesn't address it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- So, looks like faulty rationale. Why can't these be fixed? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- If you can write a FUR that addresses all the criterion at WP:NFCCP, then go for it.
[I]t is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale
. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)- I'm sure you'll be able to advise me. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- If you can write a FUR that addresses all the criterion at WP:NFCCP, then go for it.
- So, looks like faulty rationale. Why can't these be fixed? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- A FUR needs to address all the criterion at WP:NFCCP. Mentioning the article name is required to satisfy 10c. I was referring to the other criteria. On further review, I'm not sure that criterion 8 is met. If it is, the rationale doesn't address it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- Essentially an administrative error that it has no WP:FUR? Just the fact that it does not name Blacky pictures test? The others? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Image of long dead person
For the User:Shrike/Félix-Marie_Abel I found picture of him that I want to use two pictures [2] page 172(next to last) and [3] as far I undestand it can be used as fair use becouse person is dead more then 50 years ago but when I tried to upload I should fill author and other details that I just don't know can someone help me with that?--Shrike (talk) 06:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Shrike fair use is allowed if a person is dead (does not have to be 50 years) and freely licensed or public domain images cannot be found. You should do a search for the latter first. Since this person lived in the early part of the 20th century, it's possible that there are public domain images of him. If your search turns out inconclusive, you can upload either of the images you found as fair use. Use Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard and fill in the details. If some of it is unknown, type "Unknown". But upload a fair use image only after you have moved your draft to article space; fair use images are only allowed in articles, not drafts. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Charles E. Winquist Photo From Special Collections & University Archives at Mariam Library, California State University, Chico
I just talked with Special Collections & University Archives at Mariam Library, California State University, Chico, and they believed the photo was taken by a campus photographer after Charles Winquist won the award for Outstanding Professor. The photo was taken in the 1980s in his office on campus. They have given permission to use this photo. Is there a form I can send from Wikipedia they can sign for upload with the photo? Or perhaps, if Special Collections & University Archives sends a signed letter or other form? Or should I try to contact family members?
I just recieved this:
(Not done, because there is nothing to do. The article is not deleted, and neither is (yet) the photo at File:Charles E. Winquist.jpg. The problem is that the photo doesn't have any indication that it is public domain, the letter you quoted above doesn't say it's public domain, and the photo has never been released to the Wikimedia Foundation under an acceptable free license. The copyright holder must send communication to the Wikimedia Foundation releasing the image for publication. The communication must be from someone identifiably the copyright holder or a representative, not some random Wikipedia account posting a letter on this page. Note that even if you have permission, you are not republishing the photo, the Wikimedia Foundation is, and the Foundation has not received permission, and you are not authorized to give it because you aren't the copyright holder. See WP:CONSENT for more details.)
~Anachronist (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC) Akella Raghavendra
How do I direct Special Collections & University Archives at Mariam Library, California State University, Chico, to the Wikimedia Foundation?
Thank you.
Clyde DeForest Switzer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clyde DeForest Switzer (talk • contribs) 17:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Uploading Instagram image for a living person's biography
File:Vikram-Sakhalkar.jpg I have uploaded this photo that I got from Vikram Sakhalkar's official Instagram account. Can I use this photo in Vikram's wikipedia page? Anonymousaa (talk) 09:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- No, not without specific permission for the copyright holder who is usually the photographer and the subject of the image. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page to see the types of issues like this one. ww2censor (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Help! - EDITOR685422
I recently uploaded recently this file: File:Sen. Ralph Recto official.jpg
I got a message from MifterBot that I need to specify the image's copyright status. I sourced the file from Recto's official website and therefore I assume it is Free Use. What do I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EDITOR685422 (talk • contribs)
- EDITOR685422: Sorry but you cannot assume that just because an image is found on a website without any specific copyright notice, that it is in the public domain. Most images found on the internet are copyright to someone and in this case you do not know who the copyright holder is. Usually it is the photographer and you need their permission given under a free licence. This image does not compley with any of the statements made in the template: either released into the public domain by the copyright holder, the copyright has expired, or the work is ineligible for copyright. ww2censor (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- ww2censor: If so, the source, which is inarguably public since it provides information about the person the file is a government official, and since the "copyright holder" is also an official employee of the Philippine government, for what purpose would the image serve other than for reuse in the web and in official portraits in government buildings? Please do clarify this matter further to me. Much gratitude. EDITOR685422 (talk) 10:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- @EDITOR685422: Being available in public is not the same as being in the public domain. If the copyright holder is a government official AND the image was created as part of their official duties then is maybe a public domain image. The issue is that at the moment the information you have provided doesn't establish whether this is the case or not. You've only linked to his own website and even if I look at the specific image file http://ralphrecto.ph/senator_ralphrecto_fb.jpg that doesn't indicate who took the photo and their employment status. That's the information that needs to be provided to determine if this a public domain item. Nthep (talk) 11:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- ww2censor: If so, the source, which is inarguably public since it provides information about the person the file is a government official, and since the "copyright holder" is also an official employee of the Philippine government, for what purpose would the image serve other than for reuse in the web and in official portraits in government buildings? Please do clarify this matter further to me. Much gratitude. EDITOR685422 (talk) 10:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- I see. If the photo is somehow deleted, do I lose uploading privileges? EDITOR685422 (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Just for reference, photos which are deleted aren't really gone forever; they are only hidden from public view and can possibly be restored at a later if whatever issues which led to their deletion are subsequently resolved. As for having your uploading privaledges taken away, that kind of thing only typically happens when an editor repeatedly continues to inappropriately upload files despite being warned to be more careful. In such cases, an adminstrator may be asked to intervene to prevent any further disruption or any further copyright violations being uploaded. Those tend to be extreme cases though where the editor is not really paying attention to what the Wikipedia community is saying. Making a good-faith mistake once or even twice will most likely not result in such serious action being taken; so, just try not to keep repeating the same mistake over and over again and you should be fine. If you're not sure about the licensing of the next file you want to upload, you can always ask for help here first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- I see. If the photo is somehow deleted, do I lose uploading privileges? EDITOR685422 (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
DeVry University logo
Currently, on DeVry University, File:DeVry-University-Logo.png is the official logo used as the image in the article. That image is from 2014; DeVry has since updated its logo (higher resolution from a recent press release) and this altered design can be found throughout its website. According to the filenames of these instances, it appears this new logo was adopted in 2017. I do not know if the older logo is still in use (though changing logo-header-devry-2.png to *-1.png reveals the old logo), nor whether the new design is on its campus buildings. I might as well ask here how to proceed, especially since I have never uploaded any file on Wikipedia, let alone a copyrighted one. Given my unfamiliarity with this whole process and the legal concerns involved, I am naturally hesitant about what to do. Perhaps I am just being paranoid, but I would rather be paranoid than prosecuted, legally or otherwise.
Specifically, is this logo change important enough to change on the article or are minor cosmetic changes like this usually ignored? Is the old logo design still the official logo of DeVry University and, if not, is it legally problematic to continue using and describing it as such? What specifically do I need to do to satisfy WP:LOGO and WP:NFCC? Does either (or both) logo qualify as copyright-free? If this new logo is uploaded, should the old logo and file be deleted? Tangentially, DeVry's official Twitter account uses yet another different logo design. Does this at all matter? The pertinent policies and guidelines coupled with the information at File:DeVry-University-Logo.png already give me some indication on what the answers to these questions might be and on how to proceed, but I would rather not do so based on inexperienced guesses.
Any advice or instruction here would be appreciated. If this is not the appropriate place for such questions, please direct me to a better one. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 07:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- I think there are a couple of things you can do here. The first one would be to simply go to the old logo's page and click "Upload a new version of this file" (it's near the bottom of the page). Just follow the instructions, and upload the new logo to Wikipedia. Once you've done that you can edit the non-free use rationale as needed to reflect any changes in the file's source, description, etc. The file name will remain the same, so you won't have to add/remove anything from the article about the university; you might just have to WP:PURGE the page to make the new logo appear in the infobox. In this case, you should add the template
{{subst:furd}}to the file's page after the new file has been uploaded since the older version is now considered an "orphan" and will need to be deleted per WP:F5. The one drawback of this approach is the the old version will eventually be deleted, which means that new version will replace the old one on every page where it is currently being used. - Another thing you can do would be to upload the new version as a completely separate file from the old. You can do this by clicking on "Upload file" in the navigation bar on the left side of your screen or by using WP:UPLOAD. This will not replace the old version with the new; so, once you've uploaded the file, you will need to go an manually replace the old wherever it's being used. The old file will most likely then become an orphan and will be eventually tagged for deletion by a bot or another editor per WP:F5. This latter approach is probably the best if you believe that the older logo should be kept and a new use for it can be found which complies with WP:NFCC. This also can be helpful when the old and new files are significantly different or you're not sure which should be used and you want to discuss which to use on the article's talk page. In this latter case, it might be a good idea to discuss first and then upload the new logo once there's a consensus established for it to be used.
- As for the Twitter logo, I would suggest using the one found on the university's official website over that. Twitter logos, etc. are sometimes tweaked for social media purposes, whereas the one of the official website is more likely the one best used to represent the university's choice of branding. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
"World copyright" for images in 1955 issue of The Illustrated London News
An issue of The Illustrated London News from 27 August 1955 contains two images (which appear to be retouched photographs) of the Emesa helmet. The images are credited as "Reproduced by courtesy of the General Directorate of Antiquities of Syria, world copyright reserved." Could someone please give an indication of what "world copyright" means, and the copyright status of these images? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- It doesn't appear to mean much of anything. UK copyright law would govern if this is the original publication, and doesn't require a copyright notice. It might have something to do with establishing the images as "scientific work", which may enjoy a higher level of protection than ordinary photographs under some copyright regimes, but unless it's established that this wasn't the original publication I don't see any relevance for out purposes. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I did not know we allowed cast photos as fair use.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- We do, actually, though there must be care taken, and if free media (like, nowadays, panels from San Diego Comic Con) exist that include the bulk of the principle cast, it must be replaced. The argument for their use is the same that we do allow for non-free images of television or film characters on articles about those characters where we could use a free image of the actor behind the character, but justify it because these publicity shots are said to define aspects of how the character is presented and poised by the actor. (I tend to think this is a weak reasoning but consensus had deemed it valid). --Masem (t) 05:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Use of Bank notes in Infobox of Bank notes article
I have added Indian Rupee notes in one of the article, Indian 10-rupee note. It seems the a user has removed the image files from the article Infobox. The image helps in identifying the bank notes and the features also the reason for adding the image has been described in file summary of File. Why the Image has been deleted? --Jinoy Tom Jacob (talk) 09:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Jinoytommanjaly: Indian government works which includes coins and banknotes are copyrighted for 60 years from first production, so if the image was off the new, 2018, issue it will be in copyright until 1 January 2069. Nthep (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- However you could easily make a case for fair use of this kind of image. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Book covers to identify the author
Do we allow the use of a non-free book cover as the primary identification (e.g. infobox image) for the author? Specific example: File:Bazin What Is Cinema.jpg for André Bazin. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- In this case, given he's been dead for 60 years, yes it's ok. For living people, no. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Either way, it's still not appropriate. The book cover is not the author, and the use does not meet our standards for non-free use. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Cropping just the photo of the author from the cover would be fine, if that's really the only photo you could find. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- To those against the book cover; keep in mind that without the photograph of him, the entirety of the cover fails threshold of originality. It's just text. Reducing the cover to just him doesn't reduce the burden of non-free content. If someone wants to locate another image of him, fine. There's no need to use the cover. But, if another image is similarly low quality, we'd only be replacing a poor quality non-free image with a poor quality non-free image. We would not be reducing, in any respect, our burden of non-free content. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Addendum; there are higher quality version of the image here. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
"List of Adventure Time characters" image
Many years ago, someone uploaded image to illustrate the characters of the animated show Adventure Time. The image, in part, helps a reader visualize a stylistically-unique show, and is low-enough in quality so as to not really infringe upon the rights of Cartoon Network. However, the other day, user JJMC89 removed it from the page, writing that it did not have a "valid WP:NFUR for [the] page" I politely reverted, asking the user to discuss the topic on the talk page before removing it, since I made sure that the image does indeed have a fair-use rationale attached, only for it to be reverted a few days later. Any insight? Since this is being used on a featured list, I'd like to clear it up as soon as we can. Thanks!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Gen. Quon: File:Adventure Time cast.jpg does have a non-free use rationale attached, but if you take a closer look that rationale is for Adventure Time not List of Adventure Time characters; so, this is most likely why JJMC89 removed the file from the list article. What might have happened is that many years ago there was only one article "Adventure Time" and the file was being used there; then, someone created the list article and the file was moved to it. Maybe whomever moved the file either wasn't aware that it was non-free and needed a "new" rationale or just assumed that the old rationale automatically applied to the new use. What you need to do is provide a rationale which specifically addresses the particular way you want to use the file, and then re-add the file to the article. For reference, you might want to look at WP:NFLISTS, WP:JUSTONE and WP:ITSFA. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Briefly since Marchjuly addressed this: The NFUR was not for the article it was being used in. Per WP:NFCC#10c each use must have a separate rationale that contains the name of or link to the article. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
File in Commons
How do I go about suggesting that this file c:File:Heroesjourney.svg should be deleted? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- On that image page on the commons, just click on the "Nominate for deletion" button on the left side panel and fill in the reason why it should be deleted. BTW, there is a also a jpg version: c:File:Heroesjourney.jpg. If there is a good reason one should be deleted that probably applies to both images. ww2censor (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Image usage in Bet9ja
Is the usage of a non-free logo and a non-free screenshot in the infobox (both for "identification") in this article valid? It seems to violate Wikipedia's "minimal usage" requirement for non-free media, but I am not entirely sure. If two images for the same purpose are prohibited, which one should be used for identification of a web company? GermanJoe (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- It is actually debatable that the logo is non-free, GermanJoe. It is certainly borderline at best. In this instance I would say it is ok. I've seen websites that have fully copyrightable logos and screenshots and there seems to be a status quo that that is acceptable. Provided that it stops there. --Majora (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Uploading an image that has been used in print/online
A friend of mine asked if I could help them put an image up on their wikipedia site. They own the copyright on the image they wanted to use, but it has been used in a few magazines, online, etc. They had the photo done professionally and own 100% of the copyright, but when I tried to use it, it was taken down for copyright violations. What would be the best route to get this image "usable"? I have been reading about Wikipredia Commons and the various licence types, but I'm a bit confused what route to take. But I want to do this right. I thought you all would be the best resources to help. Ddutkowski (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Ddutkowski: Have them fill out the form located at c:Commons:Email templates#E-mail template for release of rights to a file and send it into our copyright response team at photosubmission
wikimedia.org. Have them attach the photo they want to use, and have them detail where they want it. The copyright team will deal take it from there. Please note. They must send this directly from their email address. Preferably one that is verifiable to them so that we can ensure it is coming from the right person. They will probably be asked how they acquired the copyright so if they want to head that off beforehand make sure they include their reasoning in the original email. The copyright team will upload it and place it on the article for them once everything is verified. --Majora (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC) - @Ddutkowski: To be clear, in most cases putting the image on Wikipedia will require waiving much of their copyright protections, and require the creator to release it under something like a Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license, which would allow others to use the work for commercial purposes. Under a very limited set of circumstances (usually where the image is essential and irreplaceable), Wikipedia will host an image where the author retains the full rights to their work. Your material is probably being speedily deleted because you are claiming the full copyright, but Wikipedia generally only uses free content. Put another way, Wikipedia doesn't accept work that's only released for use on Wikipedia, it must be freely usable everywhere. MarginalCost (talk) 01:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 May 29#List of mayors of Ventura, California. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)