Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2019/April

< Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Copyright of an Old Portrait

Hi, I would like to know if the portrait of Jane Polk that I found at the Tennessee Portrait Collection is copyrighted and if it can be uploaded to Wikipedia. The portrait was created between 1830 and 1845, according to the National Society of the Dames of America in Tennessee.

16:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC) User:G._Moore User Talk:G._Moore

Hi G._Moore. Age-wise I think the painting would be {{PD-Art}} per c:COM:PD-Art, but the frame complicates things per c:COM:PD-ART#When the photograph shows a 2D work of art within a 3D frame because photos of paintings with frames tend to be WP:Derivative works subject to a copyright separate of the painting itself. It would probaby be better if you can find another source which shows the photo without any frame; otherwise, the frame will likely have to be removed. If you don't think you can do a good job in removing the frame yourself, you can probably upload the file to Commons and then add c:Template:Non-free frame to the file's page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Looking for help with fair-use image tag

Hello, I uploaded File:The 35th Annual National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences Suncoast Chapter Emmy Award Winners.pdf to Wikipedia. This is a list of the NATAS Suncoast Chatper Emmy Award Winners in 2011. This list is so important. The Suncoast Chapter does not archive before 2013. They gave me this list via Facebook Messenger. I have reached a stopping point in the process of uploading the file. Would you please consider helping me with this file with a fair-use image tag? I need the help. Thank you,--Wyn.junior (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Wyn.junior. Why do you need to upload a non-free file of a 15-page pdf file of a list when the information contained in the list could simply be added to the article and supported by a citation(s) to a reliable source per WP:FREER? In general, Wikipedia doesn't really want WP:TEXTASIMAGES types of files, but it's particularly hard to justify non-free files like this per WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. Another problem is that non-free content needs to have been previously published per WP:NFCC#4 to verify original authorship and also authenticy. So, I don't see how this can be justified per WP:NFCCP. If the list is so important, perhaps you should ask the Suncoast Chapter to post the pdf file somewhere on their official website so that you can then at least try to cite that website as a source just like you would cite any reliable source. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Good advice. I asked them to post this on their website. They said they have no plans to do this. I volunteered to upload these to their website.--Wyn.junior (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Utilising non - free image for Ireland Baldwin Article

Hi,

I currently cannot find any free files for identification purposes for the aforementioned article. Is it possible that a non - free image could be utilised for this? currently there's two images on the article that are facing deletion.

Thanks, Bunnies959 (talk) 11:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)bunnies959

Pretty much a non-free image a still living person is never going to be allowed to be used for primary identification purposes per WP:NFCC#1 (WP:FREER) because it's deemed reasonable to expect that a free equivalent can either be found or created which can serve the same encyclopedic purpose as a non-free one. Baldwin comes from a well-known family of actors/actresses/models and is also a actress/model herself. There are free images being used in the articles of many of the members of the Baldwin family; so, it's not unreasonable to expect that someone someday may take a photo of her when she's at some event or even when she's out at about in public either on her own or with a member of her family, and then upload that photo to Wikimedia Commons under an acceptable free license. The current general consensus is not to allow a non-free file to be used by default until a free one can be found, so I don't see how an exception can be made in this particular case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I replied above to your earlier enquiry. Thincat (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Creative Commons (Attribution) Licensed media outside Wikimedia Commons

I am creating an article for a movie theater that was built in 1928 in my sandbox. How do I use media from outside the Wikimedia Commons? I found a photo of it from before opening day on the Cinema Treasures website. I am not familiar with how to use media from outside the Commons, and I would like to use that particular photo in the article.

The photo of the theater

http://cinematreasures.org/theaters/5859/photos/225028

The link to my sandbox article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MrManiac3/sandbox/State_Theatre_(Oroville,_California)

I would also like to ask for some feedback on the article, but that is unrelated to my question.

MrManiac3 (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Hey MrManiac3. The website indicates that the media is published under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license, although this is potentially incorrect and the image may be public domain in the case that it was published without a copyright notice (see c:Template:PD-US-no notice), or if it was published with a copyright notice but it was not renewed (see c:Template:PD-US-not renewed). Either way, the file would be compatible with Commons and could be uploaded. GMGtalk 19:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for responding GreenMeansGo. Where would I find information on how to upload the file? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrManiac3 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Hey MrManiac3. See instructions at c:Commons:First steps/Uploading files. GMGtalk 21:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Image for Ireland Baldwin's infobox in the aforementioned article

Hi, I was unsure whether I can use this image from Flickr. I did a reverse image search and found several images that feature broken links. I also couldn't find any free alternatives that featured her. Bunnies959 (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

No, it is tagged CC-BY-NC or free for only non commercial works, which is non free for WP. As she is still alice, we expect a free image can be found or made. --Masem (t) 13:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I've looked on various sources and haven't been able to find a free alternative, Where would I be able to find one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunnies959 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

https://vimeo.com/187882462 says it is {{CC BY 3.0}} which is OK but I notice at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ireland Baldwin for True Religion.png it was speculated that the director of photography was unlikely to hold the copyright and so would be unable to license it. This is arguably the reverse of our usual speculation. It was also claimed the licence itself was unsatisfactory but (if this is the same photo) that does not seem to be the case. Thincat (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Thincat the file was also confirmed by Ronhjones. I think that’s the closest thing we have to a free alternative at this stage. Thanks for your help in the matter Bunnies959 (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)bunnies959

The License Review on commons says "... who confirmed that it was available there under the stated license on that date" - at https://vimeo.com/187882462 the license links is to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ - I note that one of the comments in c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ireland Baldwin for True Religion.png by Lacrymocéphale was that "The creator doesn't seem to have released it under a licence compatible with Wikimedia Commons", that's because vimeo makes it very hard to find the license link, unless you know where to look - you need to click the "MORE" link to show a pop-up with some more information including the CC symbols. However it also appears that the uploader has a history of bad uploads. Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ronhjones that’s how I found the license as well, I think I’ll start an undeletion request Bunnies959 (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Philippine currency images

There's a discussion ongoing at c:COM:VPC#Category:Coins of the Philippines which might be of interest to those who frequent deal with file copyright issues. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Zee Keralam

Can't understand, why all the time Zee Keralam page had been rejected!!! Please allow this page here in Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Zee_Keralam — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWiki5678 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi WikiWiki5678. This noticeboard is for asking questions about image use and image copyright related matters; it's not for asking about why drafts are rejected. The best place for you to do that would be on the user talk pages of the AfC reviewers who have declined the draft (their names can be found at the top of the draft) or at WP:AFCHELP. Just a general observation though is that drafts only tend to be rejected by AfC reviewers when the subject is not deemed to be Wikipedia notable enough for a stand-alone article to be written. Simply existing is not enough for an article to be written. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Railway images

I'm writing articles on railways in Angola, and wanted to illustrate the articles about the stations with images of their former buildings, most of which have been pulled down. There are loads of pictures on the web, like this one or this one, but there is no way for me to find out who the photographer is. They appear on old blogs which aren't updated anymore. Does this classify as fair use? Trinaliv (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Mariam Aslamazian.jpg

This local non-free file is shadowing out the just uploaded freely licensed c:File:Mariam Aslamazian.jpg. I'm not sure about the Commons file's licensing (see c:COM:VPC#File:Mariam Aslamazian.jpg), but if it turns out to be OK, then the non-free file is no longer needed per WP:NFCC#1. Lysteriabot keeps trying to add the Commons file to Wikipedia:Inter WikiWomen Collaboration/Women from Armenia missing in itwiki, but because of the shadowing the non-free is being added; so, the file keeps getting flag for a WP:NFCC#9 violation. Is it worth {{Rename media}} to stop this from happening? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Tomica Dandy.jpg

This file and a number of other files has been uploaded as {{Non-free 3D art}} for use in Tomica. These photos are of toy cars, and Tomica is based out of Japan which means that c:COM:TOYS may apply here to the toys themselves. The packaging, however, might be a different matter per c:COM:PACKAGING, which means that pictures of toys in boxes may need to be deleted per WP:NFCC#1 if the packaging isn't considered to be incidental or otherwise c:COM:DM. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The U.S. (which law en-wiki follows) usually does consider toys non-utilitarian and copyrighted. They would be copyrighted in the U.S. regardless of copyright thresholds in other countries. I don't see much copyrightable on the packaging itself though on this photo, and that is probably incidental anyways. Per Ets-Hokin, a photo would have to be focusing on a copyrightable part of the packaging for the photo to be an issue -- which can get in a more difficult area when the packaging is entirely a graphic work or a photo itself, but I don't think it's an issue for packaging like this. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the input Carl. Do you think this file could be moved to Commons? Commons does have c:Category:Toy automobiles which seems to include quite a number of similar files, even though, as you point out, "toys" are not usually considered utilitarian in the U.S. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Scanned pamplet dated 1931 - advice please

I have a scanned school handbook, author unknown, but citing clearly the (closed) school to which it refers.

The scan contains factual and unique information relating to the subject of my article.

How should I respond to the license category please?

Gedgmoss (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)G.MossGedgmoss (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Is it a scan of the entire pamphlet and is there a copyright notice? c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States may help you. Also, when did it close? Mojoworker (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Its difficult to tell if its the entire booklet because I don't have the paper copy, and there is no visible copyright I can see on the scanned (part) I have. Does that help? The school closed in 2005.

Gedgmoss (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)G.MossGedgmoss (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I looked at the suggested regulations but this is not a US document and certainly not US Government one. Gedgmoss (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Is there no way to lay hands on the document which was supposedly scanned? Purported scans of documents, clippings, etc. are particularly iffy topics in this age of Photoshop. I see "documents" all the time in gaming and media-fandom circles which appear perfectly legit on the surface, until you start spotting in-universe references, whether they be Miskatonic University or Sunnydale, California or Arkham Asylum. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Gedgmoss, sorry for the US centric link above. Looking at your edit history, c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom may be more helpful. The good news is that it appears that if it truly is an anonymous work then the UK copyright expired in 2001, 70 years after publication. However, the bad news is that it is not yet in the public domain in the US, and so can't be uploaded to Wikipedia. It appears from WP:Non-U.S. copyrights that the restored US copyright of the UK work will last until the end of 2026, 95 years after publication. It seems the UK has an implicit copyright and doesn't need it to be explicitly declared with a copyright notice (see [1]). So it seems you'll need to wait 6+ years unless you can somehow find the author's estate and have the work explicitly released to the public domain. Mojoworker (talk) 06:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Music Albums

I've been reading up on how to properly place album images in an infobox but I'm still a bit confused. I have this image from the band's site: Picture. Am I to use the form here to upload the album cover first before placing it on its appropriate Wiki page? Or am I to simply place it on the Wiki page since its considered "fair use"? Thanks. Bahiagrass (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The second option on that page is what you should use to upload the image because it is a copyright image. The image can only be used to identify that specific album in that album's article in order to comply with on strict non-free policy (see WP:NFCC. Is there such an article? If so fine as it is normally not permitted to use album covers in the band's onw articles. If you don't do it properly it will most likely be deleted for lack of a rationale. Then insert the image in the infobox. ww2censor (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

London Languages Map

Would any version of this map (about) be usable here or on Commons? The geographic data, including the tube lines, is available from OpenStreetMap (which I know we use elsewhere) under the Open Database Licence and the census data is available under the Open Government Licence. I don't do much image stuff so I was just going to take a screenshot unless someone has a better idea. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 16:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I Believe This Logo falls Beneath the Threshold of Originality - Is it Okay to Transfer to Wikimedia?

I uploaded a logo for a development in south Florida under a fair-use rationale, because I initially believed it to be copyrightable. However, looking into the matter further has made me doubt this is the case, as:

a) The Virgin Group logo appears on the Wikimedia commons and therefore appears to fall beneath the threshold of originality b) The only addition to said logo in the variant I uploaded is a simple gray line of text reading, "MiamiCentral"

Thus, I now believe it is merely a trademarked symbol, and not a copyrighted one. Would it be okay to transfer it over to Wikimedia, then? If so, how would I go about doing so? Jadebenn (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I've transferred it to Commons as c:File:Virgin MiamiCentral logo.png. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Basquiat.jpg

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T212687

This is a bit strange because the file is from Commons (c:File:Basquiat.jpg) and is clearly marked as such, but there's also a non-free use rationale and non-free license added to the file's local English Wikipedia page. This seems a bit different from the "shadowing" that happens when a non-free has the same name as a Commons file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I think that this cannot be claimed with PD or CC. The image is not PDtextonly (its not typeface), and text is long enough to be copyrightable. There is no clear connection between the uploader there at Commons and the people noted to be authors. Thus we need to treat this as NFC. --Masem (t) 05:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
@Masem: I was wondering about the Commons license. You might be right about c:COM:PCP, but that needs to be sorted via c:COM:DR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
There is a bug when a Commons redirect shadows a local file. I've moved the local file to File:Jean-Michel Basquiat 1986 by William Coupon.jpg. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
@JJMC89:. Thanks for that. I've come across this bug before with a different non-free file; so, my guess is that there are probably more as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

French logo for Veterans group page

Assistance requested regarding reuse of fr:File:Onac-logo_copier.jpg on en-wiki. Please discuss at Talk:National Office for Veterans and Victims of War#Logo image. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I've responded there. ww2censor (talk) 10:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Deviantart

At the bottom on this page it says "License Some rights reserved. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 License." Does that mean that different Deviantart pages have different copyright statuses? And in this case is Some rights reserved one of the ones which is allowed to be uploaded to Commons?★Trekker (talk) 11:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Yew, uploaded a to Deviant art have to opportunity to set a lincense, the default usually is not CC. I know you set CC, but don't know if you set to CC BY or CC BY SA. CC BY ND does not work for commons --Masem (t) 11:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I clicked the Icon and it let to the page https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/ so it seems it's not Commons workable sadly.★Trekker (talk) 11:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Diviantart images are licensed differently according to their creators, so you can only use those that are specifically freely licensed with licenses we accept. Unfortunately this is a ND. ww2censor (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Is this logo eligible for copyright? I'm considering using it for a draft I'm working on. Qzekrom 💬 theythem 15:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. Safer to get the article published first, then upload as non-free. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for audio review - Phenomenauts

Hello, I would like to request review of an audio clip for use in The Phenomenauts. I have been working on the article to try and raise it to GA status.

I have posted on the Talk page here outlining a case for why I believe inclusion is appropriate. In particular, the song seems somewhat notable, and has received reviewer commentary. I have worked to include mention of the song in the article. I feel that including a single, short audio clip would add substantially to the reader's understanding of the musical style and quality of the article.

Would anyone be willing to take a look and comment on whether this is correct and the audio clip could be included?

For context:

The original administrator appears to be quite busy, and I don't want to bother them if they don't have time to discuss it. I would love some feedback on whether my edits are on the right track, and this is an appropriate case/argument for including a single audio clip. Could anyone take a look?

Thanks for your time. --Culix (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Digitized newspaper illustration

What is the status of drawings/illustrations taken from old digitised newspapers? I have found one from here https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/41706445?(paper dates from 1904) - can I upload the pic to commons? Is it ok because its from pre 1923, or is there something I'm missing? Curdle (talk) 11:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The copyright of the digitised form is basically the same as the original newspaper. This would be public domain in Australia where published (pre 1955), and also in the USA as pre 1923, though you should find out if it was published in the USA. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

A plain document from news source

Is this document has copyright per se? I'm confused beacuse it was captured from a news source. However, it may be in public domain as well. --Horus (talk) 13:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Being published in news does not make it public domain. Copyright is retained on publication. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Basically the text reaches threshold for copyright, correct? --Horus (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
There is enough text there to reach copyright, even if I have no idea what it is saying. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Re: File:Ashley Artus Wiki Profile pic.jpg

Hi there

Really hope you can help with this...

The above named photo was uploaded back on 29.12.18...however, I am not sure what I need to do next - being a "newbie"...

see: File:Ashley Artus Wiki Profile pic.jpg

From what I can gather from the "notice" on the page it looks like all that needs doing is adding the correct "licence" type & filling any blank fields in...

An email containing details of the permission for this file has been sent in accordance with WP:OTRS. Note to uploaders: Please copy the URL of this image or article in the email to assist OTRS volunteers to find it. If an email cannot be found in the OTRS system, the content may be deleted for lack of valid licensing information. Note to OTRS volunteers: If the email contains sufficient confirmation of the validity of the license, please replace this template with OTRS permission|id=Ticket number and consider moving to Commons. Otherwise, nominate the file for deletion or delete it. Please be aware that there is currently a 49-day backlog processing messages sent to the permissions-en queue.

Would I be correct in saying that ?

The photo has been sat in this state since end of Dec 2018 and Mr Artus would really like to get the photo up on the Ashley Artus page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Artus

Can someone take a look at this please & see if everything is there that needs to be there and if not please let me know ASAP so that I can either get the required info or add the appropriate tags & info etc ??

It says in the "notice" that there was a 49 day backlog - well...we are now the 12th April 2019 and that is now well over the 49 days !!

Would be really grateful if someone could look at this URGENTLY as all that needs to go up on the main page now is ONE photo !!

Many thanks,

Andy

AndycBtn (talk) 11:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Andy. A couple of things before answering your question.
  1. Wikpipedia doesn't really have any deadlines; so, you sometimes have to just be patient and wait for a process to run its course. There are lots of emails to verify but only so many people to do the verifying.
  2. Wikipedia articles aren't for promoting the subject of an article, which means that photos aren't automatically added to an article just because the subject wants them added. You try adding the file to the article, but if someone removes it, then you may need to establish a consensus to use it on the article's talk page.
  3. This is no "Ashley Artus" page, but rather an article written about him. This is a subtle but important difference because the subjects of articles don't have any claim of ownership over article content; in fact, the subjects of articles and anyone connected to them or editing on their behalf are going to be considered to have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest with respect to anything written about them on Wikipedia and thus should not be trying to directly add content or make changes to any concerned articles, except as explained in WP:COIADVICE.
Now about the image, whoever emailed Wikimedia OTRS should've gotten an automatic reply containing an OTRS ticket number. This ticket number will help an OTRS volunteer track down the email; so, if you were the one who sent the email it, you can then ask about the status of it at WP:OTRSN. OTRS volunteers can't go into details on Wikipedia, but they can send specific details to you via email (more specifically to the email address you originally used). Now, if you weren't the person who sent the email, you can still ask about the status of the email at OTRSN, but they won't discuss any details with you either on Wikipedia or via email. One thing about OTRS is that they typically don't accept forwarded emails; so, if Artus sent a consent email to you and you then forwarded that email to OTRS, then they can't accept that. It's better to have the copyright holder of the image send the email to OTRS. Finally, one last thing is that the copyright holder of a photo is considered to be the photographer who takes the photo, not the subject of the photo. So, if Artus is not the person who took the photo, he wouldn't be considered to be the copyright holder unless it was a work for hire or there was a copyright transfer agreement where the copyright of the photo was transferred to him. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
AndycBtn, As Marchjuly said there are no deadlines for this but upon review, all I can tell you that a ticket number has been attached to the file, however previous tickets exist that were never followed up on, so then, as now, its copyright status is unverified. OTRS will require a permission statement directly from the copyright holder, not the subject, sent with the ticket number as listed on the file as reference. ww2censor (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

District Council of Coonalpyn Downs

To whom it may concern,

The JJMC89 bot remove the following file from the above article presumably for valid reasons - Coonalpyn downs.jpg Can you please explain why the image is still on the article about the town and locality of Coonalpyn, South Australia? Please reply here as I am now watching this page.

Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cowdy001. You could ask JJMC89 on his user talk page, but basically the file was removed from the article about the district (as explained in the edit summary left by the bot) per WP:NFCCE. Each use of a non-free file is required to satisfy ten non-free content use criteria, and one of these criteria (WP:NFCC#10) states that a separate specific non-free use rationale needs to be provided for each use. File:Coonalpyn downs.jpg does have a non-free use rationale, but it's only for the use in the article about the town. Now, if you think the file's non-free use can also be justified in the article about the district, add a non-free use rationale for that particular use to the file's page and then re-add the file to the article. Be advised, however, that adding a non-free use rationale is just one of the aforementioned ten criteria, and another editor might still feel the other remaining criteria are not met and either tag the file with {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} or start a discussion about it at WP:FFD.
Now, my personal opinion is that it seems that the logo is more for identifying the district council than the town itself; so, the file's non-free use seems more justifiable for an article about the district than an article about the town, and should probably be removed from the latter. Also, I don't think the way the 1957 map has been added to the article about the district is really in accordance with WP:SANDWICH, or WP:IMAGESIZE, etc. That, however, is not really related to file copyright and probably should be discussed on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

French Government Logos

Okay, so I consulted our copyright page for France, and it seemed contradictory on the materials originating from the French Government and their website.
I want to upload the logo for Sécurité Civile, which is a part French Ministry of the Interior. I found the logo in this document, which I found here: Sécurité civile page over in the right sidebar. Is this a non-free logo or is there a free license I'm allowed to use with it.--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 02:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi The Navigators. For some reason the pdf file you linked to is downloading the file onto my computer, which just could be me, so I'm wondering if the logo you want to upload is the same one appearing at the upper left of the "Sécurité civile page". If it is, then I don't think that would be {{PD-logo}} per c:COM:TOO France and also probably (but it might be close) per c:COM:TOO United States. Mostly the logo would be fine as WP:NFC using {{Non-free logo}} and {{Non-free use rationale logo}} if you simply intend it to be used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in a main infobox for Sécurité Civile; other articles or purposes of use, however, might be a bit harder to justify per WP:NFCC. Whether the file is c:Template:Gouvernement.fr or some other type of PD because it comes from a government website, however, is not so clear per c:COM:FRANCE#Images from public web sites. Is there a separate license attached to the logo or the pdf file itself? Otherwise, it appears that someone (sorry I can't read French) is claiming copyright over the content hosted by that website, which might mean it's quite different from WP:PD#U.S. government works; so, once again it seems like non-free content might be the best way to go here.
There is a possibilty of using {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} if the logo is considered "PD-logo" in the US, but not France. The file, however, still cannot be uploaded to Commons in this case, and will be treated as sort of a "local PD file" for use on English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
marchjuly Okay, I've uploaded it as a NF-Logo, and placed it in the article. Here it is: File:Sécurité Civile - Logo.svg. I'm not great at determining where the line on 'too simple' with some of these logos. So, should we downgrade it to 'PD-Ineligable-USonly' or keep it as NFCC. The base of the logo uses the generic 'civil defense' logo specified by the UN, which is what's used on the page currently. I was a little baffled by the c:Template:Gouvernement.fr, since the template mentions a pretty narrow date range but our guidance page didn't mention anything about the date range, because our guidance warned against using any photographs, but it's a vector drawing of a logo, which isn't a photograph. *Shrugs*, I'm fine if we just want to leave it at one of the other licenses you suggested.--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 04:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
It seems I was looking at the wrong logo when I first posted. Anyway, see Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 March 28#File:Notre Dame College Crest.png for recent example of "PD-ineligible-USonly" being applied or Category:Public domain images ineligible for copyright in the United States but not in their source countries for some other examples. It's not really an exact science. The file is fine as non-free, but it's use is limited by WP:NFCC; as "PD-ineligible-USonly" it would be much easier to use in other Wikipedia articles and on other Wikipedia pages. I think the primary elements (the circle and triangle) are definitely "PD-logo" in the US, but the other elements might be borderline. Perhaps, others will comment one way or another. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I'll leave it for now and see if we get anymore input, either way on the matter. So, other editors, feel free to weight in on this file: File:Sécurité Civile - Logo.svg. Is it too simple to be copyrighted in the US and could be relicensed as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} or remain as {{Non-free logo}}.--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 05:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I'd like to add our company's logo on our page https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Souriau_(entreprise) but for some reason I am unable to (I get a message saying I can only upload photos that I took myself). Can anyone assist me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwelsouriau (talk • contribs) 12:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Hey Jwelsouriau. The French Wikipedia only allows non-free content under limited circumstances, although as far as I am aware, logos are one of these allowed categories. I know User:Racconish is a very experienced French editor. Maybe they can provide more details. GMGtalk 13:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Jwelsouriau, GreenMeansGo : the logo can be uploaded without authorization on the French project since the trademark is registered in its graphic form. On the other hand, you have uploaded the logo on Commons where the rules are slightly different: you need to clarify the licence and send to OTRS a permission of the trademark owner if you wish to keep it there. Please note the admissibility of the article on the French project is questionable in the absence of centered secondary sources. Cheers, — Racconish 💬 17:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Restoring deleted file

I asked for the deleting administrator to restore a file which no longer had a justification for non-free use when a bank stopped using it. I received no response, but on the person's talk page I was told this could only be done if a source could be found for information about the logo. I believe I have done that.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: if that or no other admin responds to you, you can file a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
@Vchimpanzee: Explicit might just be busy and hasn't gotten around to responding to you at User talk:Explicit#File:Bank of North Carolina logo.png. At the same time, you just posted I think I found what is needed which is a bit vague and doesn't really give Explicit anything to assess. So, maybe creating a non-free use rationale in your user sandbox and a "draft" of the content relative to the logo that you want to add to the article would better help Explicit or another admin see how you're planning to justify the file's non-free use and thus make it easier for them to decide whether it should be restored.
Finally, you asked Explict about File:Bank of North Carolina logo.png, not about File:BNC Logo small.jpg. Were these different files or the same file with different names? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Seeing as Marchjuly made adequate responses to your messages before I could—all of your messages specifically were made between 23:43 and 02:59 KST—I felt no need to explain the exact same issues. Additionally, you only mentioned File:Bank of North Carolina logo.png in your messages, and not File:BNC Logo small.jpg, but I can guess that the issue is the same. WP:NFC#cite_note-4 clearly states that the use of historical logos in the body of the article if said logo itself isn't subject to sourced critical commentary is prohibited. ℯxplicit 03:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Whether you can call it "sourced critical commentary" is debatable but I did add sourced information about the logo to BNC Bank.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
And I don't know for certain whether both files are the same logo.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
The two logos are not the same. Do you have a reference that you think addresses the issue? If so, please provide it to at least assess your argument. It may be enough to at least have it restored and discussed at WP:FFD. ℯxplicit 23:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
This is the closest thing to a discussion of the change in logo that I can find. It seems to quote the bank's description of what the logo means, which may not be what you're looking for since it's not independent. And it doesn't address the change from the first logo to the second, but rather the change in logo for a bank that was taken over. I contacted the bank that took over BNC Bank but all they seem to care about is their own bank and not the one they took over. Any company that takes over another company ought to care about the history of the company they took over.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Hm, so I think something was muddled in communication here. File:BNC Logo small.jpg, which was not originally mentioned on my talk page, was the most recent logo used by the bank prior to becoming defunct. File:Bank of North Carolina logo.png was more or less a duplicate of the currently existing File:Bank of North Carolina logo, original design.jpg—the latter crops out some white space and the bird is a slightly different shade of red. If this is the case, it seems to me that File:BNC Logo small.jpg should be restored and added to the infobox of BNC Bank. Following that, File:Bank of North Carolina logo, original design.jpg, which is currently nominated for deletion, should be deleted under the aforementioned policy. @Vchimpanzee and Marchjuly: Am I getting this right? ℯxplicit 00:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
@Explicit: I can't see the deleted files or their respective non-free use rationales and my comments at your user talk were based upon the the deleted file being a non-free historical article being used in the body of the article. If the file was actually being used in the main infobox of an article for primary identification purposes, even if the actual bank no longer exists, then I think it's probably OK. As for the other "original design" file, I agree with JJMC89's tagging, but I said as much on your user talk page. Things are confusing because there are two files which were deleted by you for the same reason, but at different times. Only one was asked about on your user talk, and the other one was mentioned in subsequent discussions here and at REFUND. This file not the one which you were initially asked about, but it was made to seem as if you were in the original post which started this discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
The file I wanted restored and put back in the infobox was the one that was used in the infobox. After reverted some edits that were not constructive (but could probably be discussed), this was how the article looked before GreenMeansGo removed the red link to the file. I discovered the existence of a second file and didn't know what that was since I can't see deleted files. Why I used the name of that file on User talk:Explicit I don't know. — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
While it might make sense to add a red link for a non-existing Wikipedia article to an existing Wikipedia article, there's really no value in adding a red link for a non-existing file to any articles. All that is going to happen is that the article is likely going to be tagged with and end up at Category:Articles with missing files. It's better to get the file restored first and then re-add it to the article, or hide the syntax until the file is has been restored. Anyway, at least now it's clear which file you want restored. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • On a mostly unrelated tangent, does en.wiki not have a delinker that cleans up after file deletions like Commons does? I'd honestly never bothered to think about it before now. GMGtalk 15:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    • @GreenMeansGo: There is at least one bot (ImageRemovalBot) which I believe does that, but I'm not sure how if finds these files. It might look for templates like {{deletable image-caption}} or {{ffdc}} to keep an internal list of files which might end up deleted, but I'm not sure. Anyway, the file was removed once here, but re-added here even though had yet to have been restored. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Fair use image on Shepard elephant is essential to article and not equivalent to related PD image

thumb|Roger Shepard (2019) standing partly in front of poster showing Shepard elephant The Shepard elephant article describes two forms of this optical illusion. The original version (4 legs, 4 feet) is copyright by Shepard since the 1990s. The derivative version (4 legs, 5 feet) is widely-claimed to be public domain. @Stephen: has twice removed the fair-use image (Shepard elephant poster.jpg) of a poster showing the original version from the article, because he says it is equivalent to the PD image of Shepard with the poster. Unfortunately, in the PD version of the image, Shepard is in front of the part of the image that differs between the two versions. Therefore, the PD image alone is not sufficient to show the difference between the two versions. At Stephen's suggestion, I am hoping for an outside opinion on this question. Thank you. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I have trouble comprehending why File:Roger Shepard with Shepard elephant illusion March 2019 ASU SciAPP conference.jpg is CC-BY-SA (and not PD, by the way), because the non-free work is clearly a prominent and central part of it (so not de minimis) and there is no freedom of panorama for 2D artwork in the United States where it was taken. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, was about to say that. Even if there's a "5 feet" version out there, its also clearly a derivative work of the original 4 feet one, so that's going to be non-free too. There is an allowance to use 1 non-free image of the illusion on this page as the topic is about that image, but that's all that's allowed. --Masem (t) 18:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I have marked those images on common for deletion. We can have a cropped version of Sheppard himself with just the edges of the art in view, that would be free as no copyrighted elements (the tiny badge on his shirt does qualify for de minimus). --Masem (t) 18:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with your interpretation of de minimis but at the suggestion of @Stephen: I uploaded a cropped photo of Shepard to Wikimedia and used it to replace the images you nominated for deletion. This also removes the objection to a fair-use image of the elephant itself, so I have restored it to the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

US coin images

File:100th anniversary 2016-W Mercury dime gold.jpg, File:100th anniversary 2016-W Standing Liberty quarter gold.jpg and File:100th anniversary 2016-W Walking Liberty half dollar gold.jpg were recently uploaded as non-free content, but I'm wondering if they should be licensed as c:Template:PD-USGov-money per c:COM:CUR United States instead. They appear to have been created by the U.S. Mint, but I'm not sure if they were also designed by the Mint. If these can be converted to PD, then they can be moved to Commons; on the other hand, if these need to be non-free, then I doubt their non-free use in Modern United States commemorative coins can be justified per WP:NFLISTS, WP:NFTABLES, etc. since the justificatoin for using them in that article simply seems to be "needed to complete the list" which is not really a valid justification for non-free use per se. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, the uploader of these non-free ones has uploaded them to Commons as "PD-USGov-money", which means the non-free versions are going to end up deleted per WP:F5 if they are left as is. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Come to Daddy Cover...

The thing is, what I'm not exactly getting here is how it's apparently perfectly fine to use official album artwork on this page, but not use the exact same image on this one, especially considering that the EP covered in the latter page is the only thing that actually has that cover to even begin with.--Neateditor123 (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Neateditor123

Hi Neateditor123. Did you see the edit summary that JJMC89 bot left here and take a look at WP:NFC#Implementation. A non-free file is required to have two things: a file copyright license and a non-free use rationale. While only one copyright license is generally needed, a separate specific non-free use rationale is required for each use of the file per WP:NFCC#10c; so, if a file is being used in multiple articles or multiple times in the same article, then a non-free use rationale is needed for each use. The file currently only has a non-free use rationale for the article about the song; it doesn't have one for the EP so it was removed per WP:NFCCE. If you feel the non-free use of the file in the article about the EP can be justified per WP:NFCCP, then please add a non-free use rationale for said use to the file's page and then re-add the file to the article. Be advised though that adding a rationale is just one of the criteria which needs to be met; so, it's possible that someone may challenge the rationale by starting a discussion about the file's non-free use(s) at WP:FFD. Generally, non-free album cover art is allowed when used for primary identification at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the album in question, but other uses are much harder to justify. For singles, the cover art specifically associated with the single can be used, but the cover art of the album on which the single appears is not used by default when no cover art for the single exists. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I just added another non-free use rationale to the image's summary and uploaded it back to the EP's page as you just said. If there's anything more I need to do, or else something I happened to do wrong, please let me know.Neateditor123 (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Neateditor123
@Neateditor123: What you did was to just tweak to purpose of the rationale for the use in the article about the song to try and make it also apply to a use of the file in the article about the EP. That's not really the same thing as adding another rationale. WP:NFCC#10c requires a separate specific non-free use rationale for each use; so, it would be much better for you to add a separate rationale for the use in the EP article if you think the file shold be used there. Now, sometimes it might be possible to write out a non-free use rationale by hand (i.e. without using a template) as explained in WP:FUR#Non-template to cover multiple uses in different articles when the rationale for non-free use is the same; templates like {{non-free album cover}}, however, are really only set up for use with one use in one article and trying to add multiple uses or articles to rationale will not really work because the |article= parameter and the |type= are not set up to work that way. The bots reviewing files for NFCC#10c violations are going to be looking for a rationale for each use and they will not pick up on the way you tried to tweak the rationale; so, the file is likely going to be continued to be removed like was done here as long as there is really only one rationale. So, you can either remove the template currently being used for the single and write out a non-free use rationale that covers the respective uses in both articles, or add another "non-free album cover" template or handwritten rationale separately for the use in the EP.
Finally, there is no source provided for the cover other than the boilerplate text automatically added by the template when the |source= parameter is left blank. It would be really a good idea and help the file's non-free use in both the single and both the EP from being challenged if you're able to provide some link showing that the cover was used for both. Just add the relevant link(s) to the |source= parameter of each template. I think a source for the single can be found here, but I'm not so sure. Sometimes sites like Discogs might use images that are actually PR photos and not the actual cover art of the album/single; they might also use the cover art of the album/EP for singles too by default. If you are sure this is the actual cover art used by both the EP and single, then try to find a source which verifies this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: To be honest, I'm a bit new to all of this, so I'm sorry that I misunderstood what you said beforehand. However, while I'm still not exactly sure if this is really the right way to do this, hopefully, this revision will allow me to use the image on both pages. On that note, considering that this literally comes from the official Aphex Twin website, I think that's good enough proof that the same artwork is used both for the single and EP.Neateditor123 (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Neateditor123
@Neateditor123: The additional rationale you added seems fine. The link you provided above can be added to the rationale for the EP, but it's not clear from the link if the same cover imagery was also used for the single release. If that's the case, the the link can also be added to the rationale for the single; however, if the single used different cover imagery or had no specific cover image at all, then the file should be being used in the article about the single just because the single is from the EP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Is this a good enough source to prove my argument that the same artwork is used for both releases? In any case, though, I'm really glad that the additional rationale that I put on the image looks good. Hopefully, it will prevent it from being removed from the EP's page yet again.Neateditor123 (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Neateditor123
I'm not sure how reliable Discogs is when it comes to cover art. Do they always use the official cover art? Do they sometimes use the cover art of albums for singles? Do they sometimes use PR photos in lieu of official cover art just to use an image? I mentioned a similar link above, but wasn't sure about it. If you feel it's good to go, add it as the source. If someone feels differently and challenges it, then try and resolve things through discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
@Neateditor123: I asked about Discog's reliability at WT:ALBUM#Discogs and cover art and the only comment received so far is that it's considered a WP:UGC which means "not reliable" for Wikiepdia's purposes. How this extends to the reliability of the images it hosts in unclear, but it would really be much better if you could find some kind of official source which shows that the EP and the single used the same cover art/imagery. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: As I can't really find a better source to back up my argument, I guess I'll just have to remove the image from the song's page for now. To be honest, I wasn't really as concerned about that as I was about getting the image on the EP's page (where it is official album artwork). In fact, that was literally the entire reason I even began this discussion in the first place. The only question I have left for you at this point is whether it's OK to remove the rationale for using the image on the song's page or not since there currently isn't really any evidence that it was ever used for that.Neateditor123 (talk) 01:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)Neateditor123

Fair use image - reasonable or not

Could people please weigh in as to whether the main image in Caroline Brady (philologist) is, or is not, supported by a reasonable fair use rationale? There is a bit of a discussion at the good article review about it; although there are two (low resolution) images from her college yearbook that are now out of copyright, the main image is the only one of her that is known from her professional life. The photo was found in the files of the American Association of University Women (it awarded Brady a fellowship in 1952–53), which was happy to have the photograph used on Wikipedia. The copyright holder of the photograph, if not the Association, is very unclear; Brady died in 1980, and when her only sibling died in 1993, only cousins were mentioned as survivors. It can therefore be extrapolated that Brady's closest living relatives were also cousins. My opinion is that the photograph, much more so that the two from college, is indicative of who Brady was as a scholar—after all, her Beta Phi Alpha days are hardly relevant. Information about Brady is also quite scarce—whatever she did between 1952 and 1980, for example, is pretty much unknown—and I believe that having a good image of her helps give color to an otherwise enigmatic life. This is only one perspective of course, and J Milburn and Nikkimaria have thoughtfully disagreed. If anyone else has thoughts, the input would be appreciated. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

An issue is basically that while the newer photo is more visually appealing to use, Brady does not appear to be a person that was a public personality (like a politician, actor, or athlete), though she was a professor so maybe that can count. But further, given the quality of the free images, which are not great, and definitely should a young woman, I think there is justification to use the image, as long as it is clear that currently available free imagery are not equivalent replacements for the non-free. --Masem (t) 19:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to diasgree with Masem here. I don't think Brady is particularly Wikipedia notable for her appearance which makes it hard to overcome the issues with WP:FREER. An image of her how she appeared in her prime is nice, and if a freely licensed one can be found then that's would be great. However, I don't think NFCC#1 has been applied to allow such an image just because it shows somebody in their prime (except in some cases as explained in item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI where the person's physical appearance is particularly Wikipedia notable or supported by sourced critical commentary). If this kind of allowance was made, then there would be pretty much no biographies (including BLPs) because it could always be argued that a non-free image showing someone in their "prime years" of whatever they did to have a Wikipedia article written about them could be used. The yearbook photos might not be ideal, but they can be properly captioned and in the main infobox in lieu of any non-free. Perhaps this is a broad interpretation of "free equivalent", but I think the community has been interpreting it rather broadly over the years in favor of not allowing this kind of non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I have expressed my concerns at the GAC page; when Usernameunique disagreed, I requested a third opinion (through the GAC process), and Usernameunique specifically called on Nikkimaria to offer it, to which I had/have no objection given her experience reviewing media at FAC. One relevant point that may be missed in this discussion is not only that there are concerns about non-free content criteria 1 (replaceability) and 8 (contextual significance), but that this image has not been previously published, so it fails criterion 4. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I've CSD'd it for this reason and it will be deleted after 7 days if no published source can be presented. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Copyright

Can an image be used in a paid for safe boating public education course?12:21, 28 April 2019 (UTC)108.54.214.197 (talk)

If you mean images on Wikipedia, the answer is most of them can. Just follow the license terms, which sometimes require for you to attribute the image to who created it. Click on the image to see the terms. But do note that some images on Wikipedia are not like this, and are instead used here on a fair use basis that might not extend to you. Again, clicking on the image will tell you if you can use it and how. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello anon. As the above indicates, the answer to your question can be complicated. It would be easier if you linked to the image you would like to use, and we can probably provide more actionable information. GMGtalk 12:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

What tag would I use for something possibly copyrighted but possibly not?

In question is File:Snapcode.png. I do not know about copyright status because it is free for personal use (i.e. sharing on social media), however the Snapchat logo in the center may be copyrighted. --𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 23:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Considering that this image File:Snapchat logo.svg is non-free, this image File:Snapcode.png is non-free too. However it's use in Barcode will likely not be allowed per WP:NFTABLE. ww2censor (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Emma Husar

Copyright info for the current image can be seen at [2], "Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia". Is that good enough, or does it fall on the "NonCommercial"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Non-commercial and non-derivative restrictions are not accepted by either Wikipedia (per WP:FCT#Guidelines) or Commoms (per C:COM:L). Moreover, since Husar is still living, there's no way for the infobox image (assuming that's the image you referring to) to be converted to non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
That's the one, yes. Sampajanna, FYI. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång : Thanks for the heads up Sampajanna (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Is it possible to use a character's image for their actor?

For example there is picture of Villanelle on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villanelle_(character). However there is no picture of Jodie Comer, the actress who plays Villanelle, on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jodie_Comer. My question is can I crop the image of Villanelle and add it to Jodie Comer's Wikipedia page? Emma Stones (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

In general no, you may not. If the actor is still living, then any nonfree image (like a character they portray) will be inappropriate as a free image could be created. There might be extremely rare cases where one could be argued but basically, no, this is not allowed. --Masem (t) 04:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2019/April&oldid=896224178"