Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2018/November
 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Any opinions on whether this is below c:COM:TOO#Canada? It looks simple enough, but the triangle imagery does seem to be intended to represent a mountain range which might just be enough to push above the TOO for both Canada and the US. Anyway, the license was converted to {{PD-logo}} by this edit, but the non-free rationales weren't changed to {{Information}}. This is causing a conflict and the file is still be tagged for WP:NFCC#9 violations. Although I could ping the editor who made the change, they've been indefinitely blocked per WP:SOCK and any response would likely be block evasion. If this is PD, then the cleanup is fairly easy. However, it might be necessary to check to see if similiar edits were made by the same editor which also need cleaning up. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- Just want to add that the a png version of the same logo can be found on Commons as File:VancouverWhitecapsFCLogo.png. If that licensing is correct, then the non-free svg should also is PD. If the only reason for the svg was licensed as non-free is because it's an svg file, then it would need to be deleted per WP:NFCC#1. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Pexels.com
I've run into a couple of files that have been sourced to pexels.com which is a free image site. The licensing is quite free, allowing for reuse, modification, and commercial usage with no attribution required. However, the license does have restrictions of which "Don't sell unaltered copies of a photo, e.g. don't sell it as a stock photo, poster, print or on a physical product without adding any value." seems to be the most problematic as it is a restriction on some commercial usage. The first file was sent to FFD and closed as delete with only one comment in the discussion. I have nominated another. Some other perspectives on this license would be appreciated. -- Whpq (talk) 00:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- It's not a no-derivatives license, it's an only-derivatives license. That's still unusable, because it specifies what can be done with the images. In my opinion, these files should be tagged WP:F3, but FFD would work just as well. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Newspaper articles in FA
File:A sun of our own newspaper headline.jpg The ZETA announcement in January 1958 was front page news around the world. I'd like to show that by using a newspaper headline like this one. Is there any reason this couldn't be used under FA in a FA? Maury Markowitz (talk)
- Single sentences are not copyrightable, generally. At least in the US there is a minimum amount of originality needed that simple sentences don't have, c.f Copyright Circular: "What is not protected by copyright". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- I think the question is not so much about the text part but showing the front page of the newspaper itself to show where the story fell, its predominance in the coverage, which means we're looking in nearly all cases a non-free image of one cover. Unfortunately, this is not the type of work that would be allowed under NFC unless there is sourced discussion about the selected cover itself. You have articles that explain the news grab headlines around the UK , which is sufficient for it. We're not talking something like Dewey Defeats Truman-type level of coverage. --Masem (t) 15:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Well, if that is the case we'd have to discuss WP:NFCC#1 anyway since a) a headline can just be quoted and b) that a front page is copyrightable does not mean that a crop showing only the headline text also is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Agree on point one, but on point, while cropped, and thus technically taking out copyrightable elements, would eliminate the placement concept which is the core factor that seems to be used here. The story was front page, 72pt headlines, but that factor can only be shown if the entire front page is shown. --Masem (t) 15:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- No, you can do both I believe. You can crop down to the headline (which is too simple for copyright), and include a marginal amount of the surrounding paper (which is incidental enough to be ignored). GMGtalk 16:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hey Maury Markowitz. Here you go. This should be fine with the combination of the simple headline and the minimal use of the surrounding copyrighted content, which would not on it's own likely be sufficient to even identify the larger works of which they are apart (i.e., the image of the woman and the full article, given only the information in the fragment of the image, and the first few words of the article in a vacuum.) GMGtalk 16:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Agree on point one, but on point, while cropped, and thus technically taking out copyrightable elements, would eliminate the placement concept which is the core factor that seems to be used here. The story was front page, 72pt headlines, but that factor can only be shown if the entire front page is shown. --Masem (t) 15:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Well, if that is the case we'd have to discuss WP:NFCC#1 anyway since a) a headline can just be quoted and b) that a front page is copyrightable does not mean that a crop showing only the headline text also is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- I think the question is not so much about the text part but showing the front page of the newspaper itself to show where the story fell, its predominance in the coverage, which means we're looking in nearly all cases a non-free image of one cover. Unfortunately, this is not the type of work that would be allowed under NFC unless there is sourced discussion about the selected cover itself. You have articles that explain the news grab headlines around the UK , which is sufficient for it. We're not talking something like Dewey Defeats Truman-type level of coverage. --Masem (t) 15:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Perfect, thanks! Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- I've removed it. The article contains plenty of free images, so nonfree can't be used in it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Seraphimblade, it's not a non-free image. Using TOO and DM doesn't make a photo non-free. It's a rational for why the image is free. GMGtalk 20:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- That's not a free image, it's a photo of a copyrighted work, that even includes part of a photo from it. If the photo were cropped out, that might work as free. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Not even that - as a UK source, the threshold of originality is much lower, and one can argue the placement of the various font sizes and exclamation point are copyright-able. (US would be a ineligible work, but it can't go to Commons). --Masem (t) 20:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- And looking again, the headline isn't a simple factual statement, it's a creative exclamation. That, in itself, is copyrightable. This is not a free or public domain image, it is creative enough to pass even the US TOO, let alone the UK one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- (9000 edit conflicts) Titles and short phrases are not copyright-able. See also the very first reply in this thread above. The typesetting is also comfortably below TOO for the United States. The part of the photo (for the third time) is incidental to the image, and does not even include enough of the photo to identify what it is a photo of. The image is not uploaded on Commons; it's uploaded here, where we regularly host photos that are free in the US but not elsewhere.
- That is is part of a larger copyrighted work is irrelevant. Book covers are also part of a larger copyrighted work, but if the cover itself is not sufficiently original to qualify under copyright on its own, then an image of the book cover does not conflict with the copyright of the book. GMGtalk 20:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- The key point I'm saying is that whether cropped more or not, while the image may be PD in the US, it is not PD in the UK, and as such, just needs to be treated as non-free. Which then begs the question of how necessary it is to show the image given that a statement "News about Zeta's activation made headlines throughout the UK." would seem to convey that facet sufficiently. --Masem (t) 20:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
may be PD in the US, it is not PD in the UK, and as such, just needs to be treated as non-free
What? We don't do that ever. We have probably dozens of thousands of local files that are free in the US and non-free in their source country. That is specifically condoned as free in our image use policy.- If it's non-free in the US then it should be deleted (not simply removed form an article). If it's free in the US, then it's free for the purposes of en.wiki. GMGtalk 21:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- The key point I'm saying is that whether cropped more or not, while the image may be PD in the US, it is not PD in the UK, and as such, just needs to be treated as non-free. Which then begs the question of how necessary it is to show the image given that a statement "News about Zeta's activation made headlines throughout the UK." would seem to convey that facet sufficiently. --Masem (t) 20:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- And looking again, the headline isn't a simple factual statement, it's a creative exclamation. That, in itself, is copyrightable. This is not a free or public domain image, it is creative enough to pass even the US TOO, let alone the UK one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Not even that - as a UK source, the threshold of originality is much lower, and one can argue the placement of the various font sizes and exclamation point are copyright-able. (US would be a ineligible work, but it can't go to Commons). --Masem (t) 20:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- That's not a free image, it's a photo of a copyrighted work, that even includes part of a photo from it. If the photo were cropped out, that might work as free. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Seraphimblade, it's not a non-free image. Using TOO and DM doesn't make a photo non-free. It's a rational for why the image is free. GMGtalk 20:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Having looked, my preliminary search term, "copyright in news headlines united states", leads me to think probably cvio in UK, probably not cvio in Australia, and uncertain in the US. So if someone has US law that has addressed this issue. Please post it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- See this already linked to above. Titles and phrases are specifically not eligible for copyright in the US. The article itself would be public domain in the UK 70 years from whenever Peter Stewart died, meaning 2029 at the earliest, assuming he died the same year it was published. Assuming the headline itself is above the threshold for originality in the UK (which for the purposes of Commons, it's best to just assume everything is), then it would also be public domain on the same date, unless the author of the headline wasn't Stewart, but was an anonymous editor (which may be likely) in which case it would be public domain in the UK on January 1, 2029.
- But the UK doesn't matter for the purposes of the English Wikipedia, only for Commons. All we care about for local files is whether it's free in the US, and a ten-word title of a newspaper article is not eligible for copyright under US law. GMGtalk 22:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Except that is not specific to news headlines, which in some jurisdictions have the originality, and thus, at least from what I saw, you have US News orgs suing each other in the US over headlines [1] and settling cases [2]. So, I would prefer to see an actual court case or statute that says no copyright in any headlines (even a law journal). Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- No, that's specific to titles and short phrases, which is what news headlines are. If I had a nickle for every time we didn't have a court precedent to settle a specific copyright question I'd have a pocket full of nickels. GMGtalk 23:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Good luck, one lawsuit would take all your nickles and more. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- No, that's specific to titles and short phrases, which is what news headlines are. If I had a nickle for every time we didn't have a court precedent to settle a specific copyright question I'd have a pocket full of nickels. GMGtalk 23:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Except that is not specific to news headlines, which in some jurisdictions have the originality, and thus, at least from what I saw, you have US News orgs suing each other in the US over headlines [1] and settling cases [2]. So, I would prefer to see an actual court case or statute that says no copyright in any headlines (even a law journal). Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
So, what's the story then? Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Well, it looks a lot like I'm going to have to nominate my own file for deletion in order to have the discussion, because no one else seems bothered to. GMGtalk 00:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- So today's FA has a non-free image in it. How is my article different? Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- That is the official cover art of the main topic of the article, which is permitted under fair use according to local policy. The image I uploaded isn't actually under a claim of fair use, but a claim of free use under US law. I have no idea why Seraphim felt the need to remove the image from the article as a copyright violation, but not nominate it for deletion, but it's either free under US law or it ain't. It wouldn't be permitted under a claim of fair use because the newspaper article isn't the main subject, and because other free media exists. GMGtalk 00:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- This is rediculous. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oh yeah. It's a silly
ogreparfait of several sets of rules. GMGtalk 02:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)- Hey, at least it's not the Eiffel Tower. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Sure and sorry, copyright is ridiculous in many ways (byzantine, kind of like Wikipedia policy); which is one of the reasons why policy tries to be more conservative, still, a particular choice of seventeen words (with a "!", too) on a sun that Britain invented(!?!) in tabloid speak, may raise issues that people will want to be rather careful about. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- What is frustrating in discussions on en.wiki and those on Commons where en.wiki shows up en masse, is that we as often as not end up on tangents that have nothing to do with the core issues, like whether non-free in the UK means fair use for the purposes of en.wiki (it doesn't), whether a sliver of a copyrighted photo makes a larger photograph non-free (it doesn't), or whether being part of a larger copyrighted work makes otherwise uncopyrightable pieces covered under copyright (it doesn't). GMGtalk 15:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed, people are going to "tangent" and worse, but it is also kind of the purpose of discussion: separate the wheat from the chaff (to borrow an non-copyrightable aphorism), look at things in different ways, etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- A factor that often is forgotten that we have a desire to use fully-free (worldwide) images over any with any type of burden (which would include PD-USonly), because we want uses of WP to be able to reuse, redistribute, and modify our content, regardless where they are or what purpose (commercial or not). PD-USonly may be "free" and not require non-free rationales, but it is not as free as we'd like it. It does pose a problem and we should be asking if its use is essential or not (I don't believe it is as a method to demonstrate the front-page-newsworthiness of the activation) --Masem (t) 18:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- I mean, that's fine and all, but as far as I know, is just your opinion, and there is currently no basis in policy to treat local files that are free in the US any differently from files that are on Commons. GMGtalk 19:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed, people are going to "tangent" and worse, but it is also kind of the purpose of discussion: separate the wheat from the chaff (to borrow an non-copyrightable aphorism), look at things in different ways, etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- What is frustrating in discussions on en.wiki and those on Commons where en.wiki shows up en masse, is that we as often as not end up on tangents that have nothing to do with the core issues, like whether non-free in the UK means fair use for the purposes of en.wiki (it doesn't), whether a sliver of a copyrighted photo makes a larger photograph non-free (it doesn't), or whether being part of a larger copyrighted work makes otherwise uncopyrightable pieces covered under copyright (it doesn't). GMGtalk 15:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oh yeah. It's a silly
- This is rediculous. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- That is the official cover art of the main topic of the article, which is permitted under fair use according to local policy. The image I uploaded isn't actually under a claim of fair use, but a claim of free use under US law. I have no idea why Seraphim felt the need to remove the image from the article as a copyright violation, but not nominate it for deletion, but it's either free under US law or it ain't. It wouldn't be permitted under a claim of fair use because the newspaper article isn't the main subject, and because other free media exists. GMGtalk 00:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- So today's FA has a non-free image in it. How is my article different? Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Copyright status of File:ShrewsburySixthFormCollegeLogo.jpg
I do not know if this has been asked before but I am curious to whether the logo of Shrewsbury Sixth Form College (File:ShrewsburySixthFormCollegeLogo.jpg) in the United Kingdom meets the threhold of originality in the United States so I can tag it as being public domain in the US only if it does not. Tk420 (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- I have just edited the copyright tags for the image in question to attract attention to this debate according to Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle in the absence of earlier contributions. Tk420 (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Multiple non-free logos are being used in an image gallery which is a problem per WP:NFC#cite_note-4 and WP:NFG. The question is whether they need to be licensed as non-free content, but rather as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} instead. The files are File:Tv3ireland 1998.jpg, File:Tv3IREALND2006.jpg and File:TV3 Ireland 2017.png. These all appear to have been originally intended for use in TV3 (Ireland), and were just moved (without any updating/reassessing of their respective non-free use rationales) to "Virgin Media One" as part of redirect or mreger. I'm pretty sure the 2017 logo is below c:COM:TOO#United States, but not sure about the other two. The remaining file used in the gallery is File:TV3 Ireland.svg from Commons; that too is probably below c:COM:TOO#United States though I'm not so sure about c:COM:TOO#United Kingdom. If the Commons file is OK as {{PD-logo}} than the 2017 logo should also be "PD-logo". Would appreciate some other input on this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
This file is licensed as non-free, but it seems to be essentially the same as the public domain File:Mcgill CoA.jpg. I don't think the difference in coloring and the lack of the "McGill" name and ribbon are sufficient to establish the non-free version as a derivative work eligible for it's own copyright; however, even if it is, I don't think the non-free would satisfy WP:FREER. The licensing of File:McGill Wordmark.svg may also be affected by this because it's basically the same coat-of-arms with the university's name. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- You know, is that really a logo or a coat of arms? A coat of arms is not an image; it is a description of an image and it's up to an individual artist to generate the corresponding image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Coats of arms for families, a free recreation from the description makes sense, but for entities that have branding, using a user-created version of the CoA from the heraldry would very much cause a problem. Imaging replacing the Harvard University with a CoA made by a user. That would completely mis-represent the current logo (which is trademarked) and be a problem. --Masem (t) 20:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input Jo-Jo Eumerus and Masem. Do we need to keep this as non-free then? If so, then it seems to fail NFCC#1. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Coats of arms for families, a free recreation from the description makes sense, but for entities that have branding, using a user-created version of the CoA from the heraldry would very much cause a problem. Imaging replacing the Harvard University with a CoA made by a user. That would completely mis-represent the current logo (which is trademarked) and be a problem. --Masem (t) 20:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
This file is not really a good quality image and it's hard to make out (even looking at the source), but it appears to be a book cover that's nothing but text. It looks like there something handwritten the cover as well, but I cannot make it out. Does this really need to be licensed as {{Non-free book cover}}? If it does, then it doesn't seem to meet WP:NFC#cite_note-3. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- It's the title page of a library copy of the book with library markings: the library's stamp and the classification number. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the additional clarification StarryGrandma. It seems, therefore, that this is really too simple to be licensed as a non-free book cover. The question then is whether it should be kept due to its poor quality even if converted to PD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Chords
I've created an image of 2 musical chords using notation software that I have access to. However, the chords are taken from a published book, where they appear as examples of what the pianist Art Tatum could play. (The images of the chords in the book are very fuzzy, so I reproduced them to make them clearer.) I'd like to upload the image I created, to use in the Tatum article. Using Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, I have to choose a) free work; b) copyrighted, non-free, but fair use; or c) I don't know who made it or who owns it. Which is it? Or should it not be uploaded? EddieHugh (talk) 13:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Just update it as "own work" and {{PD-music-ineligible}}. You are not using any copyrighted material from your source, since what you have been using is the mere information about the chords, not any copyrightable visual expression. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Individual chords are...how to put this...mathematically extant. A C#9 is just the result of the math that forms the definition of what a C#9 is. Obviously complex arrangements of chords (read "songs") can be copyrighted, but so can arrangements of simple geometric shapes if sufficiently complex. So showing the chord itself is fine. Having said that, if you show any of the unique aspects of the software you are using, and the software is non-free, then the screen shot would be covered under the copyright of the software. But if you are showing something unoriginal, like presentation on sheet music or a representation of a keyboard, those wouldn't in any way be unique to the program, and so wouldn't be problematic. GMGtalk 13:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick replies. There's nothing special about what the software produces. To be clear, should I go through option 'a' (free work) at Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard (it's been a while since I did it)? EddieHugh (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, "free work" will do fine. You can then select "public domain" and just paste the template code {{PD-music-ineligible|chord}} into the box at "It is in the Public Domain for some other reason" (or select one of the not-quite-fitting standard templates first and then exchange it after uploading). Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I would disagree. May as well make it "own work" and license it as CC0 or public domain dedication. It avoids any potential complications in some backward country in some corner of the world that has stupid laws with regard to originality and copyright. No reason to ever not go with own-work-public-domain-dedication if possible because it's legally simpler. GMGtalk 13:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
CC license
Are there any restrictions for usage of images licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 in Wikipedia? Can they be used for collages?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, you may adapt CC works, including forming a collage. Of course you must attribute every creator and apply a CC licence to your result. Here's someone's essay on commons: Commons:Collages. 20:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)Thincat (talk)
- Thanks. Did I understand correct that there is no limitation for usage of CC images in Wikipedia articles? I mean, they are not considered non-free images, right?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
This is simple book cover of black text on a plain background, so I don't think it needs to be licensed as non-free content (at least not per c:COM:TOO#United States and possibly not per c:COM:TOO#Norway. The book it's for was first published in 1917 according to Growth of the Soil, so it might also even be old enough to no longer be protected by copyright (assuming this is the cover used on the first edition). Can this be converted to WP:PD and if which license should be used? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- Since we are not certain what edition it is, the age issue is moot. {{pd-text}} for the license. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick response. It appears to be from 2007 per User talk:Nikolaiho#2007 book cover, so I guess it's "PD-text" for the license. Should {{Trademark}} be added as well? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I figure the kind of folks who weigh in here are the types of folks who can weigh in there. I've been doing a lot of the clearing there for a while, but I feel like I work on something else for a little while and turn around and there's two dozen requests pending. So anyone who wants to watchlist and answer a request here or there would be much appreciated. GMGtalk 00:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Any opinions on whether any or all of the files used in this image gallery need to be licensed as non-free? The Fleur-de-lis which is used in most scout logos is public domain; so I'm wondering if the four files using it might also be considered as such. The one not using it (File:Svenska Missionskyrkans Ungdom Scout.svg) appears to be simple enough to be PD at least in the United States. Anyway, if these need to be treated as non-free, they need to go per WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#8 since none of the individual organizations/chapters they represent appear to be notable enough for their own Wikipedia article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
These files are licensed as free works (taken by me), but they have both been marked as derivative works. Why exactly is that? Many similar pictures appear across Wikipedia related to these two subjects without any issues. What needs to be done to keep these images? ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 03:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Jedi94. You can find out more about derivative works at WP:Derivative work and c:COM:DW, but basically it has to do with using copyright-protected content created by someone else to create a new work which is also protected by copyright. If you create a derivative work using someone elses copyrighted work, you can claim copyright ownership over the derivative but not over the other person's work; this means you cannot release your creation under a free license without their permission. What I posted is a very general explanation, and things are often much more complicated depending upon the nature of the original work and where it's located. In some countries publicly displayed artwork/sculptures/architectural structures may be protected by copyright depending upon their age, installation location, and how the country interprets or applies the concept of freedom of panorama. Anyway, Ronhjones is the editor who tagged these files for review; so, maybe he can better explain exactly why he did so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- There is no c:Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States in the US for 3D artworks. In a lot of countries this would be fine as a permanent sculpture, but not the US. One might claim that the objects in File:Toy Story Land, WDW.jpg, are not that large - the test could one could one blur them all out and retain the subject c:COM:DM - since it's about Toy Story, I don't think that's valid - and how many articles does one need to blur - there is a lot of 3D items, which are directly related to Toy Story. The Valley of Mo'ara mountains in File:Valley of Mo'ara mountains.jpg have been created by people for the theme park based on a fictional story, since they are not natural, then they become sculptures. I found a similar file on commons - now up for deletion. Ronhjones (Talk) 16:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- Is there any way we could change the free license into one that states it as a copyrighted work so that we can retain the images for use? I think the Valley of Mo'ara mountains are crucial in providing supplemental scope and a visual aid for the Pandora – The World of Avatar article. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 18:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- There is no c:Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States in the US for 3D artworks. In a lot of countries this would be fine as a permanent sculpture, but not the US. One might claim that the objects in File:Toy Story Land, WDW.jpg, are not that large - the test could one could one blur them all out and retain the subject c:COM:DM - since it's about Toy Story, I don't think that's valid - and how many articles does one need to blur - there is a lot of 3D items, which are directly related to Toy Story. The Valley of Mo'ara mountains in File:Valley of Mo'ara mountains.jpg have been created by people for the theme park based on a fictional story, since they are not natural, then they become sculptures. I found a similar file on commons - now up for deletion. Ronhjones (Talk) 16:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- The currently ongoing c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Valley of Mo'ara in Pandora – The World of Avatar.jpeg might affect how at least File:Valley of Mo'ara mountains.jpg is to be considered since it's a similar file and someone is arguing that it's more of a "building" than "3D artwork". If Commons keeps that file, then I don't think Wikipedia should really delete the local one discussed here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Image Copy rights
How will I get a copy rights for the image I created and want to use in my article? Please let me know. Thanks in advance! ~vijay
- Hello, Vijaykumarreddyvoddi0322. If you have created an entirely original image, then you are automatically the copyright holder for that image. Upload the image to Wikimedia Commons and it can then be used freely in any language Wikipedia or anywhere else, with attribution. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Is anyone able to figure out what's going on here? It's possible {{Non-free fair use}} was added by mistake; however, if this needs to be non-free, it clearly would fail WP:FREER and needs to be deleted per WP:F7. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Discussion at WT:NFCC#File names of new versions of non-free files
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:NFCC#File names of new versions of non-free files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure this needs to be licensed as non-free content since Naval Medical Center San Diego appears to be a US Navy facility. Can this logo be converted to {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- It could be changed as you suggest. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
This seems to be {{PD-logo}} per both c:COM:TOO#United States and c:COM:TOO#United Kingdom, but it's not being used in any articles. It is being used in Draft:First Crown, but that's technically not allowed per WP:NFCC#9. So, converting it to PD eliminates any possibility that file will be deleted per WP:F5; on the other hand, converting it to PD might also mean that Wikipedia is left hosting a file which is not being used in any articles if the draft ends up being declined. Of course, the file could be moved to Commons in the latter case, where it can be hosted. Would it be better to wait to see whether the draft is approved before converting, or should it be done now? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- The copyright should be correctly labelled, as the fair use criteria do not permit use in drafts. So as it stands it would be deleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- I have changed the copyright statement. It matters not if it is moved to commons. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
A picture of Phil Elverum
Hi there. I'd like to use this photograph of Phil Elverum in the article for his recent album A Crow Looked at Me. It's not my picture, just a photo from his own website. The source webpage of the picture (scroll right down) says "PROMOTIONAL PORTRAITS: (for anyone to use for whatever)" - can this image be used on Wikipedia? Thanks. — sparklism hey! 11:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- We also need it to allow derivatives or modification. So the answer is no. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- OK, thanks! :) — sparklism hey! 07:12, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
The file is non-free and will be for quite some time (Orson Welles died in 1985, so PMA+70=2055, and I am not even sure that film copyright rests entirely with the director). It would probably be OK to use in Macbeth_(1948_film), but I am not sure it satisfies the "minimal use" requirement to use in the Macduff page. A search for "Macduff Macbeth" in Commons turns up several possible free replacements, such as File:John_Langford_Pritchard_as_Macduff_in_'Macbeth'.jpg. TigraanClick here to contact me 17:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oh well. Done. TigraanClick here to contact me 09:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Can a free image exist of Russell Crowe's jockstrap?
Russell Crowe's jockstrap is a prop from Cinderella Man that subsequently gained quite a bit of notoriety. I'm wondering: Can a free image for a movie prop like that possibly exist? Or does the copyright encompass the prop as well, meaning that all images have to be used under FUR? The prop was displayed in a store in Alaska for a few months, so it's safe to assume people made photos of it. Regards SoWhy 19:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- Potentially yes, if I understand its history. He wore it for the film but it was never shown, I think? As such, it served a utilitarian purpose (eg protecting Crowe during filming), and you cannot copyright the design of utilitarian objects. (eg this is why we can have free pictures of cars). As its current location is unknown, then while a free image cannot be created now, there's a good chance one was made while it was on display at that Blockbuster. --Masem (t) 20:08, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- I haven't seen the film, so I cannot rule out that the jockstrap was actually shown. Are you saying that if the jockstrap had been shown, it would be copyrighted? Regards SoWhy 20:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not even sure about that. I look at the pictures of the jockstrap online, there's certain little artistic about it. Commons has a whole category for theatrical props and film props, and there are things far more artistic in those than this jockstrap. So yes, if anyone took a photo of it while it was on public display, that should have the potential to be a free image if licensed correctly. --Masem (t) 20:22, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- I haven't seen the film, so I cannot rule out that the jockstrap was actually shown. Are you saying that if the jockstrap had been shown, it would be copyrighted? Regards SoWhy 20:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Electorate of Saxony article, ready for removal of plagiarism tag?
Fellow Wikipedians, I have had a good go at cleaning up the Electorate of Saxony entry which is currently tagged with Plagiarism. The source text is by Hermann Sacher (1913) edition, which I have consulted and have now accordingly referenced in the wiki article. I believe that although the Wiki article is largely drawn from this public domain source, it is not a verbatim copy, rather a condensation. The language in the source article is by now archaic and I have attempted to modernise the wiki article throughout and also edited the occasional clunky and in places, German sentence structure. I have added a bibliography from the German language wiki article on the subject. (I have an "intermediate" knowledge of German). Could you please take a look and see if it is now ready for the plagiarism tag to be removed? Many thanks, --Po Mieczu (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Anyone know the reason for this file to be labelled {{Non-free logo}} and not {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}? Skjoldbro (talk) 10:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- It is not "PD-PhilippinesGov" because no evidence has been provided that this .svg rendering was created by an employee of the Philippines government acting in the course of his regular employment. The description page is very poorly documented. It provides no information at all about the author, the date of creation and the publication history, and the source statement is bogus, as it says that this image can be obtained from an organization that already did not exist. This image must be considered not free unless proven otherwise and sufficiently documented. The reason why it is tagged "Non-free logo" should be asked from the uploader. This tag does not seem acceptable either for this image, unless its source is correctly provided, its author credited, and it can be reasonably considered that the original design is not free and that a free rendering does not exist and cannot be created. Assuming that the design of origin is in the public domain, it seems likely that a free rendering exists, for example in a public domain publication, or that a free rendering can be created by a wikigraphist or anyone. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 November 23#File:Dril.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Not sure about the licensing of this file. The uploader claims it as "GFDL-self", but there's no EXIF data or source, etc. provided to verify that. The file can be seen online used here after being uploaded to Wikipedia, but that image links to here which is licensed as "All right reserved". Simply just going by the dates, the Flickr upload is probably a case of Flickr washing. The editor who uploaded the file no longer seems to be active, so I'm wondering if tagging this with {{npd}} or {{nsd}} would serve any real purpose. The file looks more like a scan of something than an actual photo, but that's just a guess. Can this be kept as is or should it go? Currently, it's tagged with {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}, but I'm not sure it would surve a c:COM:DR per c:COM:PCP if it is eventually moved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see what the value is in retaining the image. We have File:SuYinEwaldNotter.jpg, which does have metadata, does not appear to be a copyvio, and is far higher quality. Given this image's questionable licensing, I'd put it at FFD. Can't tag it WP:F9 as the page you found it on is dated after the upload here, but I doubt it will be retained through an FFD. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Jane Doe from The Times
I know we can't use non-free images from, say, AP. But can we use one, for example, from the Guardian with the caption "Photograph: Sarah Lee for the Guardian"? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- No. There's no indication the image is available under a free license. We have to presume it's copyrighted, non-free. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Hammersoft. I'm so sorry. I'm an idiot and wasn't clear. I meant, can I upload that and use it with a non-free license? I just woke up and am probably being unclear again. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- That depends. Where and how do you want to use it? --Hammersoft (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Hammersoft. I'm so sorry. I'm an idiot and wasn't clear. I meant, can I upload that and use it with a non-free license? I just woke up and am probably being unclear again. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Hammersoft. Infobox at Harry Leslie Smith, reduced non-free use rationale 2, Replaceability = Subject is dead and there is no free substitute., Minimality = This is the only image of the subject at Wikipedia used to identify the subject, ...portion of the entire image and is of low resolution.
- Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Anna Frodesiak. Non-free images of deceased individuals are generally allowed per item 10 of WP:NFCI and one might possibly be OK is this partiular case; however, Smith just died the other day, so even if a new photo of him can no longer be taken of him for obvious reasons, that doesn't necessarily mean that free equivalent image cannot still be found or created. I could post a wall of text here, but I think you find some pertinent information about this if you look at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 69#Images of deceased persons and Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 68#Non-free images of the recently deceased. These are only a few recent discussions on this type of non-free use and there are many more buried in the WT:NFCC archives, but basically non-free images of people uploaded immediately following their death tend to be scrutinzed quite heavily because of WP:FREER. If you've been making some reasonable attempts to find a free equivalent for awhile and have simply come up blank, then it might be considered OK. If, however, you assume that a non-free is automatically OK just because Smith is now dead, then you might find others who don't feel agree that it's appropriate. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Marchjuly. Holy moly. I've been uploading people pics for years right after they die. A number of those may be in this list. I hope they are all allowed:
- Anyhow, the thing I'm after in my question is, provided that all else is okay, can I upload an image that is property of a person who works for a paper. I know if it is a person's then fine. I know if it's AP or something, then not fine. What I need to know is about the pic that is owned by a person who works for a paper. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- If nobody has said anything about the images up until now, then they're probably OK. However, now that the cat is out of the bag, then perhaps someone will point out WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED. My understanding has always been that WP:NFCC ecnourages us to use freely licensed images, etc. as much as possible, but in some cases non-free content is allowed as long as it complies with relevant policy. Since non-free content is pretty much never allowed for people who are still living, many BLP articles (particularly ones written about persons who might not be very well-known to the general public) tend to be without images; so, when one of these people die, it's often seen as a green light to upload and use something non-free. The thing to remember is that the use of a non-free is not automatically considered OK by default and policy still requires use to make a reasonable effort to find a free equivalent. What's reasonable tends to be where disagreements arise; some people think just googling "Free images of John Doe" the day of his death is more than enough, whereas others feel a more thorough effort should be made.I think it's OK to upload a photo you find in a paper, but you have to be sure of WP:NFCC#4 (WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion), WP:NFCC#2 (items 7 and 12 of WP:NFC#UUI), and WP:NFCC#10a. Newspapers might use photos under the concept of fair use or fair dealing and might not be the original source of the photo. You should try to provide as much information about the original source (if known) as explained in WP:NFC#Sourcing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- Understood. Thank you very much.
- If nobody has said anything about the images up until now, then they're probably OK. However, now that the cat is out of the bag, then perhaps someone will point out WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED. My understanding has always been that WP:NFCC ecnourages us to use freely licensed images, etc. as much as possible, but in some cases non-free content is allowed as long as it complies with relevant policy. Since non-free content is pretty much never allowed for people who are still living, many BLP articles (particularly ones written about persons who might not be very well-known to the general public) tend to be without images; so, when one of these people die, it's often seen as a green light to upload and use something non-free. The thing to remember is that the use of a non-free is not automatically considered OK by default and policy still requires use to make a reasonable effort to find a free equivalent. What's reasonable tends to be where disagreements arise; some people think just googling "Free images of John Doe" the day of his death is more than enough, whereas others feel a more thorough effort should be made.I think it's OK to upload a photo you find in a paper, but you have to be sure of WP:NFCC#4 (WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion), WP:NFCC#2 (items 7 and 12 of WP:NFC#UUI), and WP:NFCC#10a. Newspapers might use photos under the concept of fair use or fair dealing and might not be the original source of the photo. You should try to provide as much information about the original source (if known) as explained in WP:NFC#Sourcing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- Anyhow, the thing I'm after in my question is, provided that all else is okay, can I upload an image that is property of a person who works for a paper. I know if it is a person's then fine. I know if it's AP or something, then not fine. What I need to know is about the pic that is owned by a person who works for a paper. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- Do you have any answer about the specific question, though?
- Many thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- At first glance it seems like it might be OK per item b of WP:F7 and WP:F9, but others might be better able to clarify that. However, there are lots of pictures of him online and some look like they might be quite old official military photos dating back to WWII or earlier which means they could possibly be c:COM:PD-UKGOV like File:Bernard Law Montgomery.jpg or any of the images in c:Category:UK Government artistic works. If that's the case, then a free equivalent might exist and this would preclude the use of any non-free image per WP:FREER. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, Marchjuly. Sorry to get you to type so much. I'll definitely look into the military pics before doing anything. You are very kind. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- At first glance it seems like it might be OK per item b of WP:F7 and WP:F9, but others might be better able to clarify that. However, there are lots of pictures of him online and some look like they might be quite old official military photos dating back to WWII or earlier which means they could possibly be c:COM:PD-UKGOV like File:Bernard Law Montgomery.jpg or any of the images in c:Category:UK Government artistic works. If that's the case, then a free equivalent might exist and this would preclude the use of any non-free image per WP:FREER. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- Many thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi,
I made changes to the File of Zenkit after I got a hint of missing copyrights. I added some information but I'm not sure if it's the right information.
I work at Zenkit (I added a note on my talk page) and have the permission to upload this Screenshot to Wikipedia. Please help me to set up the license and copyright and declare it as approved afterwards. --Jessica Lu. (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- You have tagged the image as your own work. Unfortunately, this is incorrect. The image is the property of the producers of Zenkit. Working for Zenkit does not mean you own the property. In order to release this image under the license you indicate, we would need confirmation from the company that the image is available under that license. Instructions on how to go about doing this are located at WP:DONATEIMAGE. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)