Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2019/July

Copyright license question

What is the copyright license for this image? File:DSOQj1pW4AEFgf0.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neverbuffed (talk • contribs) 00:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Neverbuffed, how or where did you get the image? If you can specify that, it might be possible to check and find out. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Neverbuffed. That depends on who took the photo. If you took the photo, then you can release it under one of the free licenses listed at WP:ICT/FL. In this case, you might be asked to verify copyright ownership by sending a WP:CONSENT email to Wikimedia OTRS, but can release it under a free license if you're the photographer. If, on the other hand, you didn't take the photo (e.g. downloaded it from some website, a friend took it, bought it somewhere), then you wouldn't be the copyright holder unless you also obtained copyright ownership over the photo from wherever you got it. In that case, you would need the have copyright holder email their CONSENT to OTRS or somehow show that the file has already been released under a free license by the copyright holder. You can find out more about this at Wikipedia:Copyright#Guidelines for images and other media files, c:Commons:Licensing and c:Commons:OTRS.

There's one more possibility. You aren't the copyright holder and don't have the copyright holder's explicit consent to upload the file. In that case, you might be able to license it as non-free content. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is, however, quite restrictive and it seems just on the surface that it would be really quite hard to try and justify the non-free use of this type of file per that policy. I can't say any more without knowing more about where the image came from and how you intend to use it, but it does seem hard. In general, non-free photos of in-game play like this are almost never allowed unless the photo itself has really been the subject of quite a bit of sourced critical commentary. Simply wanting to show a professional athlete in action is almost never enough of a justification, even just to show the person's face/appearance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Best Georgians GPB ad December 2008.png

Could I get feedback on what people think about the non-free use rationale for File:Best Georgians GPB ad December 2008.png? This is a screen shot from a 2008–2009 TV series, used in the article on Freedom of religion in Georgia (country) to illustrate a controversy that arose regarding this series. In response to a challenge made to the non-free use rationale, I made minor revisions to the article and to the rationale on the image page, and I've asked the person who originally disputed the rationale (ViperSnake151) for feedback, but so far they have not responded. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The image's contents are unclear due to the low resolution. Hence it does not improve reader understanding. It's just an image for the sake of an image, when the controversy is well-explained by text alone (text also applies as a "replacement" under WP:NFCC#1). ViperSnake151  Talk  05:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have saved the original SCOLA broadcast with this advertisement, and I can substitute another screen shot from the ad which more clearly shows St. Abo of Tiflis in the centre of the image. It is inevitably going to be fairly low resolution, since the broadcast was at 480i ("standard definition"), converted from PAL to NTSC for North America, and the ad shows a moving scan down the web page, but I can also make the image larger than 300x175. Are you willing to look at that and possibly change your mind? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I have replaced the image in question with a new version, File:Best Georgians GPB ad December 2008 redo.png, which is larger (though, IMO, still of low enough quality to satisfy NFCC#3) and clearly shows a saint in the centre of the image. Comments on this? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The screenshot might be clearer, but I don't think it resolves the NFCC#1 (WP:FREER) issue raised above by Vipersnake151. Non-free use is generally considered OK to use as an exception, not really the rule and the textual content about the content seems sufficiently understandable without the screenshot. The controvesy doesn't seem to be that visual depictions of the saints were used by the show, but that the saints were being mixed in together with other "non-saints"; this (at least to me) means that any screenshot showing any one of the thirteen saints listed by the show would probably serve the same basic encyclopedic purposes as this particular one, which in turn weakens the justification to use any non-free screenshot showing any of the thirteen saints. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

In that case, I guess we could use this free (Commons) depiction of Saint Abo of Tiflis in place of either of the non-free images. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Since freely licnesed or public domain images are not subject to WP:NFCC, they can be easier to use than non-free ones and you basically just need to follow WP:IUP#Adding images to articles; you can be WP:BOLD and add the file, but you should discuss its use per WP:BRD if someone subsequently removes it just like you would a content dispute involving text. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

One problem, though — without an actual screen shot, there is no source showing that Abo of Tiflis was included in the show. I did a web search and can't find any other text source for this claim. And yes, the screen shot (at least, the second version which I substituted yesterday) does unambiguously name the saint in question, via the caption above his picture (აბო თბილელი, abo tbileli). Abo is, BTW, the patron saint of Tbilisi, the Georgian capital city, so IMO the fact that he was one of the candidates in the show is significant, and arguably noteworthy enough to justify the use of a non-free image. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 14:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

If there’s no supporting sources which discuss the screenshot or even how the saints were visually depicted in the show, then it seems you might be trying to apply your own analysis about the screenshot(s) to the article. It may be true, but is it verifiable. I don’t think the relevant policy allows screenshots (or non-free images in general) to be added to articles just to show them to the reader; there needs to be something more to the image which I don’t think has been really demonstrated. Anyway, the file’s non-free use rationale was disputed by ViperSnake151, but the speedy deletion template hasn’t been yet reviewed by an administrator. You’ve contested the deletion request on the file’s talk page so perhaps the administrator reviewing the file will suggest further discussion at WP:FFD. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Everyone please note that I've replaced the original image with a new screen shot (File:Best Georgians GPB ad December 2008 redo.png) that is somewhat larger and more clearly showcases the inclusion of Abo of Tiflis in the TV show. I've also edited the text of the article, and the caption of the image included there, to make the presence of this particular Georgian saint clearer. Right now, the new image is a separate file from the one which has been formally objected to. If ViperSnake151 wants to challenge the new image, he may of course do so — or, if people prefer, I could substitute the new image onto the original page — I'm not trying to game the system here by forcing a restart of the clock, I just want to avoid confusion because the new image is (IMO) sufficiently different from the earlier one that the arguments opposing the older image might not necessarily apply to the new screen shot. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 15:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Richwales, no nonfree image at all can be justified there. The text is perfectly adequate at describing the cause of the controversy. For that reason, the image fails NFCC #1 (it's replaceable by just using free text), and #8 (the image itself is essentially decorative; it is not crucial). So it's not a question of finding the "right" one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Joe Sestak campaign logo copyright question

Hi,

I want to upload a photo of Joe Sestak's official 2020 presidential campaign logo to the "2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries" page, and I cannot find, either through his website or the Wikipedia upload options, what license the image would be held under. Every other Democratic candidate has their logo uploaded on the same page, and I figured it's only fair for the newest candidate's logo to be included as well. Could you please let me know what the appropriate license is for this image? You can find the image on the main page of his website, https://www.joesestak.com/ Thank you for your time. 09s30r89d (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

09s30r89d, File:Joe Sestak 2020 Logo.svg already exists. It's tagged as non-free, so will get deleted as an orphan if it's not added to an article fairly soon. You'd need to adjust the existing rationale if you can justify inclusion in whatever article you want to add it to. I haven't checked for the existence of a free license. US WP:TOO is pretty forgiving, but I'm not confident enough that it would be {{pd-textlogo}} to make that change, and, since we're here anyway, the resident 'experts' can opine... -- Begoon 13:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Is this logo copyrightable?

I have recently uploaded File:GW Train Regio Logo.png, to illustrate GW Train Regio. I have filled in the copyright information, and free use justification info. However, is it subject to Copyright? Does {{PD-logo}} apply to this, or does this just apply to completely standard text? It's a Czech company if that makes any difference. Thanks, ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd say it is PD in the US, but I'm not sure about the Czech Republic. I've adjusted the licensing accordingly. If someone else can make the call about the Czech Republic, feel free to adjust further. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd tag it with the "Do not copy to Commons template" for now, just to avoid the pain of it being copied and then deleted as copyright. It can always be copied when the issue is clarified. - X201 (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd agree. Czech Republish is a civil law country like US, which *generally* do not have the same sweat-of-the-brow threshold as common law countries (UK), but Commons' page on this gives too little to go on. Safer to label it as a PD in the US and keep on en.wiki as recommended. --Masem (t) 21:51, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Joy Division Unknown Pleasures cover graphic

Prompted by an article in The Washington Post a couple of weeks ago, on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the release of Joy Division's Unknown Pleasures, about how the cover image, a 1969 graph of CP 1919 pulses by Harold Craft, then a graduate astronomy student at Cornell working at Arecibo Observatory, has slowly become an iconic image even for people who don't know where it came from.

Craft himself apparently has no problems with the extensive reuse of the image; he told Scientific American in 2015 that he only learned that the image had been used on the album cover when a colleague told him after seeing the plot on his office wall, and ... instead of suing, went out and bought himself a copy because he felt he should have one.

I began to wonder if it might be a free image. I found that I hadn't been alone in asking that question, as an LA Times article in 2013 had claimed in passing that the image was PD, without explaining why, and of course journalists aren't the most knowledgeable people in the area of IP law.

So, I opened up a new discussion on the talk page. My argument is that, since it was prior to 1978, a copyright notice was necessary and the Scientific American article shows pictures of three early uses, in Craft's dissertation and two other publications that don't credit him as the source, including the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Astronomy, where Peter Saville found the version he had reversed in color for use on the album cover. None of them show a copyright notice.

The consensus there was that the plot, at least, is PD. The album cover would be PD in the US but not the UK due to the lower threshold of originality there. I concluded by saying I would be taking it over here for a further discussion, and contacting Craft and/or the Cornell library to make sure that there's no copyright notice on the front page of his dissertation (something people usually did not do back then, since the only way it got widely read was if you turned it into a book, and that usually required substantial alteration and expansion anyway).

I haven't been able to do that yet; I hope to this month. In the meantime, does anyone here want to weigh in on this? Daniel Case (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

When a file is considered to be PD in the US per c:COM:TOO United States but likely not PD in the UK per c:COM:TOO United Kingdom, then {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} ({{PD-ineligible-USonly|United Kingdom}}) is often used for the licensing; the file shouldn't be moved to Commons, but rather is treated a sort of a "local" PD for use on English Wikipedia. The other option of {{PD-US-no notice}}, on the other hand, seems to assume it's both PD in the country of origin and the US, which means it should be OK for Commons, but i'm not sure whether that would really work here. In the former case, the file should be uploaded locally to Wikipedia, but it the latter case it seems better to uploaded it to Commons, which means it might be a good idea to ask at c:COM:VPC too. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

PD-status of File:Elsie Joy Davison (Bassano 1933).jpg

Hi there. I recently uploaded File:Elsie Joy Davison (Bassano 1933).jpg, a portrait from the Royal Portrait Gallery created in 1933 by an unknown photographer (just the studio is credited). I tagged it for Fair Use for now but I'd like some feedback on whether it might be public domain in the UK and/or the US since it was published more than 80 years ago without a copyright notice. I tagged it {{PD-UK-unknown}} but was unsure on which US tag to use, so I used {{Non-free historic image}} for now. Thoughts? Regards SoWhy 07:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

{{Non-free biog pic}} might be a better non-free license than one you chose. You can use {{Non-free use rationale biog}} for the non-free use rationale. Of course, you'll only need to do that if the file is not PD in the US. Looking at c:COM:HIRTLE, it might be acceptable to license this as {{PD-US-no notice}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the template. As for PD, if I understand HIRTLE correctly, the photograph has to have been in the PD in the UK in 1996 (URAA date) to be PD in the US but 1996 was only 61 years after publication, so UK copyright still existed. Regards SoWhy 12:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@SoWhy: On Commons, a photo of Commons:Category:Bassano Ltd from 1933 by an unknown photographer might be kept with Commons:Template:PD-UK-unknown and Commons:Template:Not-PD-US-URAA. (For an example of a discussion, you can see Commons:Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2019-02#Multiple images to be undeleted.) Also keep in mind that the NPG actively claims a copyright on its reproductions, so you can add Commons:Template:SourceNPGLondon which can serve both as a source template and as a useful warning to potential reusers. If you reside in or near the UK, you may be more easily within their reach, so you might want to be cautious. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Software screenshots and fair use

Hi there. I'm working on an article, Draft:White blood cell differential, and I'd like to include a screenshot of the "scattergram" plot described in the automated differential section. If I were to take a screenshot of the plot from a non-free program (AFAIK all programs that generate these types of plots are non-free), could the image be used under fair use criteria? I see that Template:Non-free software screenshot says ..."for identification of, and critical commentary on, the software in question" - so does that mean non-free screenshots can only be used for the purpose of illustrating that specific software and not to illustrate a generic feature? Thanks, SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

If you have sourceable raw data that feeds the scattergram (raw data cannot be copyrighted), then there are actually a number of free ways to generate graphs with that data, see Wikipedia:How to create charts for Wikipedia articles. That said, even output from commercial, non-free graphing programs may considered free. Most graphs, such as a scattergram, are too simple to be copyrighted, the only elements where copyright can be taken would be in descriptive language, coloring, unique symbols, etc. So if you were to make a graph in Excel for example, and just grab the graph image, you can license that freely that your choices of colors/symbols you're putting out as a free license. You can't take a screenshot of the Excel screen with the graph and use that - the UI features are what is covered by that software screenshot template, but the graph image itself is not. But I do encourage you use to the free tools to graph as the preferred method. --Masem (t) 14:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply! Unfortunately the type of graph I want to show is not really a simple scatter plot... the clustering of the data is determined by some pretty complex algorithms and I don't think it's possible to access the raw data as an end user. I had the idea of making an "artist's impression" of the graph but I'm not sure it would look very good and it might qualify as original research. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I would have to defer to people that are an expert in the field if you could mock up a histogram and not call it original research, but doing a google image search on what these look like, then my impression is that you'd definitely be going into OR with that.

So let's assume you're talking the software that has those algorithms and creates the scattergram. Judging by the graphs, this is an essential element so probably the best way to do this is to call the graph output non-free, using the tag above, and that would be an acceptable image. Just try to limit the shot to just the graph and not the user interface elements around it. --Masem (t) 15:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Great - thanks for the info. :) SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

One additional option to try: If you can find a published paper that meets WP:MEDRS that is published with an open license like CC-BY or CC-SA-BY, and this paper contains such a graph, you can use that graph freely (just, double check , I've seen weird cases of the text being CC-BY but graphs copyrighted), and that would be the preferred option per WP:NFC. Finding such a graph is not a trivial tasks, but this is also an option and gets around the non-free problems. --Masem (t) 16:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like I found one on Google -[1]. I think I'll use this... thanks for all your help. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Files deleted after rationale update

Hi! The non-free use rationale was given quite clearly in each of the following images, and was clarified additionally after the bot flagged the images. The files seem to have been deleted nonetheless.

File:Banting Institute 1930.jpg
File:Building 1923.jpg
File:Connaught Insulin 1925.jpg
File:Connaught insulin stills 1923.jpg
File:Connaught Interior 1923.jpg
File:Iletin 1922.jpg

The images are historically significant and serve a contextual and educational purpose in the article. They are also too small for any sort of meaningful reproduction.

I'd appreciate clarification and ask that the images be restored. Utl jung (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy ping for @Explicit: - X201 (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi!, A rationale may have been given, but it may not have been convincing. Of course, everything, texts and images, in articles is expected to be significant and to serve an educational purpose in the articles. That's the idea of an encyclopedia. But the fact that something, text or image, would be relevant and useful in an article, is not a trump card that allows to ignore copyright and to use any copyrighted material any time we want. We might as well say that the notion of copyright has no effect. The exception of fair use implies a use in a context of a critical commentary about the work that is copyrighted. When considering the notion of fair use, the three basic questions to ask, before anything else, are: What work is copyrighted? Who is the creator of this work? Is the commentary either about that work or about that author?

For example, let's say we would like to have a photo of an insulin still in an article.

Insulin stills are not copyrighted artworks. But if they were copyrighted artworks, and if you could take a photo of one of them in a museum, you could take a photo and place the photographic component of your photo under a free license, and then you could use your free photographic work in fair use in a Wikipedia article in the context of a commentary about that insulin still or about the creative work of the artist who designed it. That would be a fair use because the commentary would be about the copyrighted artwork or about the work of the artist-designer.

But, as we said, insulin stills are not copyrighted. In a photo like Connaught insulin stills 1923.jpg, I guess that you are assuming that the creative work of the photographer is copyrighted. If the photographic work of the photographer is the copyrighted element, then you could use a copy of that photo in fair use in a Wikipedia article in the context of a commentary about the original photographic features expressed in that photo (e.g. a discussion of how the photographer made use of lights and shadows and angles, etc.) or about how this photo is an example of the photographic career of the photographer. It would be fair use because the commentary would be about the copyrighted work or about its author. Using it in an article about diabetes and insulin would not be fair use because the context is not about the copyrighted work, the work of the photographer.

But in the case of the photos listed at the beginning of the section: I can't look at them while they are deleted, but are they something like this and this? What is the rationale leading to your conclusion that they are not in the public domain? What is the difference of status between those files and, for example, some files in Commons:Category:Frederick Banting? -- Asclepias (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Utl jung. As somewhat pointed out above, there are ten non-free content use criteria which need to be met each time a non-free file is used. Providing a non-free use rationale is (as explained in WP:JUSTONE) one (actually one part of one) of these criteria; so, while providing a non-free use rationale can help others better understand why a non-free file is being used in a certain way, it doesn't automatically mean that the non-free use meets all ten non-free content use criteria. Explict is quite experienced when it comes to non-free content use, only deletes files which clearly violate Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. It's possible a mistake was made, but the best thing to do would probably be to post a message on Explcit's user talk page and ask for clarification. As for whether the images are historically significant, you might want to take a look at WP:ITSHISTORIC. Being an old image or an image of an historic event, etc. is not necessarily the same as being a historically significant image, and generally the image itself has to have been referred to as "historically significant" in reliable sources for it to be treated as such for Wikipedia's non-free content purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Utl_jung, I took a look at the deleted photos and their rationales. First, it appears all six nonfree images were intended for use in a single article. That is way beyond excessive for almost any article. Even more than one gets into questionable territory. Secondly, Marchjuly is absolutely right. Nonfree images can only be used when they are essential. In this case, the rationale does not make clear how the reader must see the image to understand something, and cannot gain adequate knowledge from reading the article text alone. Finally, these images may not even be nonfree. If they really were published that long ago with no copyright notices, they may be in the public domain. But if they are still indeed under copyright, the deletions were correct and the images may not be used. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Copyright of a painting

The family of Stephen J. Herben Jr. has an oil painting by an unknown artist, painted c. 1930–45 (apparently dated based on his appearance in the portrait). Assuming they have no issues with using it on Wikipedia, would there be any copyright issues in doing so? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Usernameunique, yes, there would be. If the date of the painting is unknown, it would also be unknown whether it's in the public domain or not. A work from between 1930 and 1945 certainly still could be under copyright, and without further knowledge of its provenance and the time it was created, it would be impossible to find out if it is. That aside, the painter (or their heirs), not the owner of a painting, generally holds the copyright to the painting, unless copyright was explicitly transferred, so the owners of the painting do not have the right to authorize others to copy the work (unless, again, they have an agreement from the painter explicitly transfering those rights, in which case they would know who the painter is to begin with). And all that aside—if the painter is unknown, what would be the proposed use for it anyway? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: Assuming the portrait is by a US artist or is located in the US then it's going to be in copyright for a long time yet - see c:Commons:Hirtle chart. The only glimmer of hope would be if it could be established that the portrait has been published in which case it might be a public domain item due to lack of compliance with the copyright processes then in force. Nthep (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Seraphimblade & Nthep, thanks for your responses. The point of using the painting would be to provide an image of its subject, Stephen J. Herben Jr. (who is currently only shown in a degraded newspaper photograph). Nthep, assuming I'm reading the chart correctly, it looks like 120 years from ~1930–45 if it's unpublished, so yikes. When would it have needed to be published, and how does one "publish" a painting? --Usernameunique (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

That's...complex, to say the least, as is often true with copyright law. If the painting were only ever privately owned and never exhibited to the public, put in a book of art, etc., it very likely is considered "unpublished". If it ever were exhibited, or especially if it were published in a book of artworks or the like (with the copyright holder's permission, a publication that is itself infringing doesn't generally trigger the "publication" rules), the publication date would generally be considered the date of that work. There's a good overview of the different wrinkles to it here ([2]), but the answer is that if it's post-1909, there's no simple answer. In your particular case, it sounds like the work might indeed be "unpublished" and subject to those rules. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and one more wrinkle: At that time, there were certain formalities that had to be followed in order for a work to obtain copyright; it wasn't automatic upon creation like today. If this was a privately commissioned portrait, it is entirely possible that the artist never bothered with those and the painting could be PD for that reason. If there were some way to find out who painted it, then it might be possible to see if the work was properly registered, but without knowing that, it's near impossible. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Seraphimblade. I'll follow up with the person who has it to see if she has any more information. I understand that she hasn't been able to find out who painted it. At a guess, it was a very informal commission (maybe by one of his students at Bryn Mawr?), but that's pure speculation. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Status of File:Nichelle Nichols, NASA Recruiter - GPN-2004-00017.jpg

Would someone please take a look at what I wrote at File talk:Nichelle Nichols, NASA Recruiter - GPN-2004-00017.jpg? I'm thinking this well-known and very useful image should nevertheless be struck as lacking a solid justification for its presence. Thanks. 73.92.193.211 (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi IP 73.92.193.211. That's a file uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, which is technically a separate Wikimedia Foundation project with it's only policies and guidelines. Commons is mainly concerned with whether the files it hosts are properly licensed; it's not really concerned with how or if the files are being used in Wikipedia articles. So, if you think the file has licensing problems, you're going to need to discuss them on Commons.

On the other hand, if you think the file shouldn't be used in a certain Wikipedia article, then you can be WP:BOLD and remove the file; just make sure to leave a clear edit summary explaining why. If another editor re-adds the file, then you should follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and discuss your concerns on the relevant article's talk page and see if you can establish a consensus about the file's use. Once again though, removing the file from articles will not lead to its deletion from Commons; that's something you'll have to request on Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Although we don't know the specific reason upon which the NASA statement is based, we do know that NASA has been consistently distributing this photo for many decades, and still does, as a photo that does not have copyright restrictions. If that was not true, and if it infringed a copyright, one would think that it would have been corrected by now. There are some reasons why the photo can be in the public domain. Whoever took the original picture may have published it without a copyright notice in the first place. Or, if there ever was a copyright, they could have released it. The explicit statement from NASA is plausible and, in the absence of any indication to the contrary, why should it not be believed? The file has already survived a deletion discussion on Commons. Considering all that, I'm not sure that there would be any benefit for anyone to persist in wanting to delete this file. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The license status was satisfactorily resolved in a Commons discussion ten years ago: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nichelle-Nichols-GPN-2004-00017.jpg. Elizium23 (talk) 09:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Family Portrait of Jacob Eugene Duryee

Jacob Duryee was my great-grandfather and he was a Brigadier General in the Civil War. I created the original wiki page in 2007, but haven't touched it since, and that about sums up all of my experience editing on Wikipedia. I'm unsure about several things and would appreciate guidance. Since its creation, the wiki page had a portrait of Jacob I scanned from his funeral notice which appeared in the Los Angeles Times in 1918. Within the past couple of weeks, someone has replaced that image with an image of a monument to him and his troops at the site of the Battle of Antietam. While I certainly respect the image, it lacks some of the intimacy the portrait conveyed. In the ensuing years since I created the page and put in the scanned newspaper photo, I've come across a wonderful picture of Jacob, his mother, his son, and his grandson that I would like to insert above the current image of the memorial with a caption naming all of the people and their relationship to Jacob. The photo has been in the family since it was first taken. The name of the photographer is unavailable - but it dates from around 1897 or '98, so I'm not sure if copyright is even an issue. With all the warnings about copyright and all the different options for uploading, I would really appreciate any guidance in this matter. What method would be best for uploading the image? Should I upload it to the Commons, or just to Wikipedia? Is there some way of attributing the photo to family archives, or is attribution not an issue with images like this? Lastly, are there any concerns about family members editing wiki pages of well-known people? I seem to remember some communication from Wikipedia around that subject when I created the page. Any discussion around these points would be really valuable to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kutsavi (talk • contribs) 20:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

About the first point, you uploaded File:Jacobeduryee1.jpg on 25 August 2007 but, as far as I can tell from the list of your edits and from the history of the article, you never inserted the image in the article. So, this image still remains unused, and the article never had any image before 20 January 2018, when a contributor added the image of the monument. You can still insert your image in the article, if you still want. Better 12 years later than never, I guess. About the group photo, you can have a look at this chart to determine the copyright status. It is clearly a professional image, so the photographer was probably known and it can't be assumed to be an anonymous photo. I'm sure you already did some research but maybe you can do some more research, see what professional photographers were active in the area at the time, try to find clues, etc. If you upload the file without having found its origin, you should mention your family archives as your immediate source, but you can't attribute the authorship to your family archives, because obviously the family archives did not create the photograph. About your last question, you can look at WP:COI and see if and how it may apply. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

using a PGI logo on page for a PGI product?

Is it fair use of the EU PGI logo at File:PGI-Logo.svg on the page of an agricultural product that has that designation, in this case Sorana bean? It seems like it's an identifier useful to the reader, but I'm not seeing it used on other articles for any of the products and thought there might be a reason. --valereee (talk) 11:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee: no, because all the information you want to include can be conveyed by using your own words: e.g. "the product has been certified for protected geographical indication (PGI) in the EU". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Finnusertop, how do I convey "this is what it the certification looks like so you'll know what to look for on a label." :D --valereee (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Valereee, you convey it by stating that the product has been licensed by the PGI and wikilinking to the article on that body. Nonfree logos should generally be used only in the article about their owners and only there, not splattered everywhere they're mentioned. Readers wanting to know more about the certifying body can click on the wikilink, but use just to say "Look for this logo" violates Wikipedia is not an instruction manual and decorative use. Use there is not essential and is deliberately restricted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

In addition, seeing this kind of stuff: Production is limited to an extremely small microclimate area with conditions considered excellent for growing this type of bean, and the bean is so prized that it has commanded prices six to ten times that of other cannellini-type beans. makes my finger really itchy on the G11 trigger. Wikipedia does not permit advertising or promotion of anyone or anything, so please fix that to be actually neutral. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, totally open to a new phrasing on that. Prized is a problem, I agree...maybe 'the bean is in such high demand' ? --valereee (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Hrm. I don't know that that's the part that even so much caught my attention, but it's probably an issue too. It hasn't "commanded prices", it "is priced at". But it's not necessarily "prized", it's just relatively rare, so yes, that works too. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, I changed it to 'prices are six to ten etc...', feedback appreciated! --valereee (talk) valereee (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

photo tags

Adding a photograph taken specifically for use on Wikipedia (with permission for use, obviously), what is the correct tag or coding to be used so the threats of deletion will cease? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stpack (talk • contribs) 17:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

We need permission from the person who took the photo, who would be the copyright holder, not from anybody else. He or she needs to explicitly license the photo for use here and elsewhere--Orange Mike | Talk 18:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC) under one of the Creative Commons licenses we accept. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Diane Ellingson Smith Infobox Photo

I'd like to upload a photo to the English Wikipedia that fits all ten of the non-free use criteria, but I'm not sure how the Summary should look. Going off of all the applicable instructions I could find, here's what I've come up with, but I'm not sure what descriptions should go with the different categories, where the permission tags should go, etc.:

{{Information
|description={{en|1=[[:en:Diane Ellingson Smith at 2002 Winter Olympics Torch Relay]]}}
|date=2002
|source=http://www.slcdocs.com/utilities/newsevents/news2002/news2132002.htm
|author=Tom Smart
|permission={{Non-free biog-pic}}{{Non-free Olympics media}}
}}
{{Non-free use rationale 2
<!--Obligatory fields-->
| Description    = Diane Ellingson Smith at 2002 Winter Olympics Torch Relay
| Author         = Tom Smart
| Source         = http://www.slcdocs.com/utilities/newsevents/news2002/news2132002.htm
| Article        = Diane Ellingson Smith
| Purpose        = infobox
| Replaceability = What goes here?
| Minimality     = What goes here?
| Commercial     = What goes here?
<!--Optional/expert fields-->
| Date                =
| Publication         =
| Replaceability_text =
| Other information   =
}}

=== Fair use for image in [[Diane Ellingson Smith]] ===
This image fits all ten of Wikipedia's non-free criteria, because:
# There's no free equivalent.
# It won't replace the original market role and is only being used for informational purposes.
# It is a historically significant photo of a famous event (the Olympics) and individual (see draft for Diane Ellingson Smith article for more details) where both are discussed in the article.
# Its quality is not conducive to re-use elsewhere.
# It has been previously published elsewhere <ref>http://www.slcdocs.com/utilities/newsevents/news2002/news2132002.htm</ref>
# It will be in at least one article—the [[Diane Ellingson Smith]] article.

Michemily (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Michemily. Wikipedia does generally allow non-free images of deceased person to be used for primary identification in a stand-alone article about the person in question (as explained in item 10 of WP:NFCI), but only when there's no reasonable expectation of a freely licensed equivalent image being created or found which can serve the same basic encyclopedic purpose as a non-free one per WP:FREER. A free equivalent doesn't have to be a freely licensed version of non-free image; it can be a different image altogether but one which is sufficient enough to serve purpose of primary identification. Since Draft:Diane Ellingson Smith seem to have just died with in the past few days and since she was a Para-Olympic athlete, there might actually be a freely licensed image out there somewhere which can be found and uploaded to Wikimedia Commons or someone might be willing to release a copyright image under a free image that Wikipedia accepts per WP:COPYREQ. Although there's no set period of time that needs to pass before a person has died and when a non-free image is considered OK to use, it's generally going to be expected that the person wanting to upload and use a non-free image has made a reasonable effort to find a free equivalent first. In order words, the default is not necessarily assume that a non-free image is automatically OK to use as soon as person has died. The meaning of "reasonable effort" is a bit subjective, but I think it would likely be considered to doing something a little more that simply Googling "free images of Diane Ellingson Smith" and deciding to use a non-free one if your search comes up empty. At the same time, it also doesn't mean badgering the family and friends of persons who just died to try and get them to release an under a free license. So, perhaps you can clarify some of the ways you've tried to find a free equivalent.

As for a non-free image, the first things is that non-free files need to be used in at least one article (WP:NFCC#7) and can only be used in article's (WP:NFCC#9); so, you cannot use the file in the draft you're working on and should wait until the draft has been approved (see WP:DRAFTS#Preparing drafts) before uploading the file. If you upload the file and there's no policy-compliant way to use it, it will only be deleted per WP:F5. For the file copyright license, I would suggest Template:Non-free biog pic and for the non-free use rationale I would suggest Template:Non-free use rationale biog. Make sure you provide as much about the file's source and copyright ownership as possible per WP:NFCC#10a and also make sure that you steer clear of anything from a photo agency like Getty Images per item 7 of WP:NFC#UUI since such images are almost never accepted and usually end up deleted per WP:F7. If you want to use the photo found here and there are no WP:FREER issues, then it would probably be better to find the original article where the photo first appeared and use that as the source instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit in response to User:Marchjuly: I have sent requests to four sources for permission to use an image and have not heard back from any of them despite follow-up. I still don't have the answer to how to fill in the missing categories and how to format them. Would very much appreciate any guidance there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michemily (talk • contribs) 15:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Michemily: First, please try to WP:SIGN your talk page posts. The easiest way to do this is explained in WP:TILDE.

Elligson-Smith died on Friday, July 12; so, if you sent out requests to use some photos shorty after she died, then only a few days have passed and two of those days were on the weekend which might mean that your emails haven’t been read yet. Even if you do eventually receive replies and these replies are “no”, non-free files cannot be used in drafts and your draft is currently awaiting WP:AFC review. It could take quite some time before your draft is reviewed, and then more time before it’s approved; so, you should wait until the draft has been approved before you upload a non-free file for use in the draft. If you do so before that time, the file will only likely end up deleted.

About the licensing and non-free use rationale for the file, you don't really need to do things the way you’ve done them above in your original post. Instead of using Template:Non-free use rationale 2, it would be easier to use Template:Non-free use rationale biog. If you use the latter template (specifically “the minimum required for a deceased person” given as one of the examples in the template’s documentation) and fill in the required primary parameters, the missing categories should be completed automatically. You also will not need to use Template:Information if you do this because the non-free use rationale can provide the same information as that template. For the copyright licenses, it can make things easier to add the to a separate section of the file’s page (many editors call this section “Licensing”) instead of adding them to the |permission= parameter of the non-free use rationale template.

You can practice how to format the non-free use rationale I’m suggesting in your user sandbox (User:Michemily/sandbox). Then, when the draft you’re working on has been approved and you’re ready to upload and the image to the article, you can post a request again here with a link to your sandbox and ask someone to check things once again. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

commissioned photos uploaded by company representative

Are product photos uploaded by a representative of the company that commissioned the photos considered to have been uploaded by the copyright holder? --valereee (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

So long as that individual is empowered to make legal decisions on behalf of the company, and so long as there is a contract in place transferring copyright to the company from the photographer. Whether they understand what that means or not is a different question all together. GMG^talk 15:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

If the company has already lawfully licensed the photo suitably then all the uploader has to do is assert this truthfully. Discussions tend to be about whether we have good reason to believe the licence claim. We often say the uploader needs to be granting the licence but this does not necessarily need to be the case. Thincat (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, both! --valereee (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Not sure of the status of historic railway timetables

Specifically this one published by the Montreux Oberland Bernois Railway for the Clarens–Chailly–Blonay Railway in 1911. https://www.flickr.com/photos/41347876@N00/2466212706/in/album-72157604887155321/ Would you have to identify the author and see when they died? Talltim (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Frederica von Stade Sings Brubeck Across Your Dreams

If I've understood Wikipedia's protocols correctly, it's orthodox for the official cover of an album to be allowed on the album's wikipage, and yet the cover that I added to this article has been deleted twice. I must confess to being bewildered.Niggle1892 (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The user who removed the image from the article explained it in their edit comments: the file description page does not include a NFU rationale for the article "Frederica von Stade Sings Brubeck: Across Your Dreams", where you were trying to include the image. You included a (disputable) NFU rationale for the article "Frederica von Stade", where the file is not used. -- Asclepias (talk)

Can I upload a photo I took of a statue of a dead person?

The individual who is the subject of the statue died about 15 years ago, so it would be difficult to obtain a free image. There is already a wiki page on the individual, but it does not have any pictures. I was wondering if I could upload the photo of the statue for the limited purpose of the individual's bio-page. I assume the sculptor holds copyright / moral rights to the statue itself, so the image would be non-free. Is this doable?Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Generally yes, this would be allowed as non-free. Do check Commons:Freedom of panorama for the country you are in, sometimes this type of photograph could be free. --Masem (t) 21:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Please do not be so secretive about the statue, its location and its sculptor. That might make a difference to evaluate if Commons or Wikipedia would allow you to upload the photo. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mr Serjeant Buzfuz. Just going to add that it makes no difference whether the subject of the statue is living or dead to upload a photograph of the statue. Moreover, regardless of the copyright license you upload such a photo under, I don't think that it would really encyclopedially helpful to upload a photo of a statue of the person so as to use it for primary identification purposes in the main infobox or at the top of the article about the person because a statue is going to represent how the scultpure "sees" the individual, not necessarily how the individual actually appeared. If individual in question is deceased, then it may be preferable to upload a non-free photograph (per item 10 of WP:NFCI) of the person (assuming the WP:FREER is not an issue) using the non-free copyright license {{Non-free biog pic}} and the non-free use rationale {{Non-free use rationale biog}} instead.

As for the photo of the statue, it might be possible to upload it under a non-free copyright license like {{Non-free 3D art}} using the non-free use rationale {{Non-free use rationale}} for use in the body of the article if there is some sourced commentary about the statue itself somewhere in the article. Whether the photo can be uploaded under a free license will largely depend on the degree of freedom of panorama allowed under the copyright law of where the statue is installed as Masem advised above. Different countries have different practices when it comes to the copyright status of pubically displayed 3D works of art, so it would be easier to help you if you can provide more information per Asclepias. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Wimbledon single-elimination bracket photo

I attended last week's Wimbledon tennis tournament and took photos of the large physical single-elimination brackets they had onsite. They are the nicest physical tournament bracket displays I have ever seen and I wanted to use a photo to illustrate, at least, the single-elimination tournament article.

Argument it's copyrighted by the Wimbledon tennis club: The choices of color and font, and the arrangement of some of the data presented, are creative choices that (the argument goes) meet the minimum threshold for copyrightability. Some photos include about half of the Wimbledon logo within the photo.

Argument against: Those creative choices are minimal; the board is primarily functional, presenting the tournament bracket information in a straightforward way.

I'm happy to upload the photo or a part of it if someone can tell me where to upload a potentially infringing image. Thanks - I went to Wimbledon (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey User:I went to Wimbledon. Unfortunately, the threshold for originality in the UK is very low compared to other places such as the US. I don't personally recommend uploading any UK pictures on the basis of TOO. GMG^talk 15:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree here with GMG. There might be a call for the board not to pass the TOO in the US or the like, but in the UK, it's "sweat of the brow" and decisions likes color and font can enter into copyright there. --Masem (t) 15:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

From what I understand, images (such as logos) of foreign origin that are above the TOO in their source country but which are below the US TOO can be accepted on the English Wikipedia under {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. There is the question as to whether freely-licensed photos of non-US works could be treated in the same way. --Elegie (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, GreenMeansGo and Masem. Last ditch try: What if the photo were taken by an American on a visit, who then uploaded the photo from home in America? I went to Wimbledon (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately no. I know there's some issued on freedom of panorama related to building arch that makes that an interesting case, but I would say the board should be treated as fixed art, which makes it a bit different. The only way I could see it getting as free is if the board were way small and to the side in a more wide-view of Wimbledon, as to meet the de minimus concept.   Or yet another alternative but will take more work is to find sourced discussed about the quality of these bracket boards, as then there's a logical reason to use a photo under NFCC. --Masem (t) 16:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the law goes by location of creation rather than citizenship of creator? GMG^talk 16:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Citizenship doesn't matter, surely, but I was hoping the country of publication would. I went to Wimbledon (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Not in the instance of freedom of panorama. Your photo would be a derivative work of the bracket, and the bracket was published in the UK. GMG^talk 19:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The FOP in the UK is different from the the one in the US in that the former does allow publicly displayed 3D artwork to be photographed without worrying about infringing on the copyright of the artist who created the work. I’m not sure whether that makes a difference here. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Admittedly, I presume that this would be a two dimensional work. But I also don't sport. GMG^talk 20:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I meant to go back and tweak my post. Upon further reading on the Commons section about the UK’s FOP, it appears to even some publicly displayed 2D artwork is even OK to photograph. There does seem to be a different application towards 2D graphic art, but again on not sure if any of this matters here. What’s interesting (at least to me) is that even though the UK’s TOO is more restrictive than the US’s, it’s FOP is more liberal. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@I went to Wimbledon: You are correct that the law that applies is the law of the country of publication, the country where the image is used. However, in addition to the applicable law, Wikimedia Commons has a self-imposed internal policy. And according to one restrictive interpretation of that self-imposed policy, to be hosted on Commons, an image should be freely usable also under the laws of each country from which originates an object visible on the image. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Vintage cigarette commercials

UCSF Tobacco Industry Videos has a lot of cigarette commercials at archive.org. Many may be in the public domain.

https://archive.org/details/WinstonCigaretteCommecial-TheFlintstones It says it is in the "Public Domain".

https://archive.org/details/1956CommercialForKentCigarettes It says "Public Domain Mark 1.0".

I would like to check if these two videos are actually in the public domain. If they are I would like them both uploaded. QuackGuru (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I think both can be uploaded. See {{PD-US-no-notice}}. QuackGuru (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

•  Done - File:Vintage60sTvCommercials-Flintstones-WinstonCig.webm, File:Kent1956 mpg.webm -- Begoon 11:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Labeled as reuse, but may be copyrighted?

Hello, I'm a semi-experienced editor here on Wikipedia, but I am a complete beginner when it pertains to managing files. I was attempting to upload an image to accompany an article; I wanted to make sure that all of the copyright rules were obeyed, so I only searched through the images labeled for reuse on Google. Once I found an appropriate image, I downloaded, but I became aware of something. Just below the image was the line "Images may be subject to copyright". This copyright notice is located beneath every image on Google; however, is it fine if the image is labeled for reuse? Thanks for getting back to this, Utopes (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Find the original source of the image and see what information is there about the copyright. We can't help you more if you keep secret what image it is. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

(Hey, I wasn't trying to keep it a secret, the question just never came up if it mattered).Utopes (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey Utopes. As indicated above, we can probably be more helpful if you link us to the specific image. Copyright and licensing can be extremely complicated, and small details can often make a large difference. But in general, as far as I am aware, Google adds this disclaimer to everything regardless of the license, probably to protect themselves from litigation if someone takes a copyrighted image off of images.google.com and then gets sued over it. GMG^talk 18:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks GMG, it is right here: https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Flive.staticflickr.com%2F1439%2F585268380_1cbb1315fe_z.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fesparta%2F585268380&docid=View7rgs7Z-yeM&tbnid=HD9Pp4HcxcEWhM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwi5ofjwy8HjAhXMX80KHZryDX0QMwg-KAAwAA..i&w=640&h=427&safe=active&bih=524&biw=1215&q=yoli%20soda&ved=0ahUKEwi5ofjwy8HjAhXMX80KHZryDX0QMwg-KAAwAA&iact=mrc&uact=8

I was trying to save the Yoli article from AfD, and was hoping that an accompanying image would help it stay in line with the other articles about soft drinks. I did find reliable sources, but wanted to polish it off with this and an infobox. Utopes (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey Utopes. Well, the image on Flickr may be freely licensed, but you still might run into problem with the design of the packing being covered under copyright. But I really don't now very much about the threshold for originality in Mexico, and c:COM:TOO isn't very helpful on the matter. GMG^talk 18:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, I see... how are packaging/logo images usually covered? What should be my next course of action? Utopes (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes in cases like this two file copyright licenses are needed: one for the photo and one for the packaging. If you took the photo yourself, you can (and most likely should) release the file under one of the free licenses found at WP:ICT/FL; you should then add a Template:Information for the photo. If you didn't take the photo yourself, then you're going to need to show WP:CONSENT from the copyright holder to upload the file under a free license. So, if you use the Flickr photo referenced above, you should probably use Template:Cc-by-2.0 for the photo's licensing. It's highly unlikely that a non-free licensed photo taken by a third-party is going to be allowed per WP:FREER, unless it's something from one of the product's official websites.

The product labeling (if subject to copyright protection) can be licensed using a non-free license like one of those listed in Category:Wikipedia non-free file copyright templates (perhaps Template:Non-free product cover would work; you then will need to add a non-free use rationale for the labeling (perhaps Template:Cover rationale). Since part of the file is considered to be non-free, the whole files is going to be treated as such for use on Wikipedia; this means that each use of the file is going to need to meet WP:NFCC. So, if you upload the file and it cannot be used in a policy compliant way in any articles, it will likely be deleted; if some uses are OK but others aren't, it will likely be removed from wherever it's not OK to use. If you want to use the file multiple times, you will need to satisfy WP:NFCCP for each use.

There's one more possibility but it's a bit tricky. Sometimes the license Template:PD-ineligible-USonly is used when something is considered to be too simple for copyright eligibility per U.S. copyright law, but perhaps too complex to be public domain in the country of origin. This is sort of a local English Wikipedia version of Template:PD-logo and enables the file to be treated by English Wikipedia the same way as a public domain file. These files cannot be moved to Commons, but they are typically easier to use than a non-free file since they are not subject to WP:NFCC. You still would need a separate copyright license for the photo.

Just for reference, articles are not really deleted because how many images are being used in them; so, adding an infobox image is unlikely going to have any effect on AfD about the article. You'd be much better of trying to show how WP:NPRODUCT or WP:GNG are met. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Utopes: There's no perfect solution, but if you have access to bottles of the product, one possible solution is that you can yourself take a photo of a whole bottle. Like examples in Commons:Category:Soft drink bottles. Make sure it'a a photo of a whole bottle. Commons usually keeps them by analogy with a case about which a short summary is in this recent discussion. Photos of cans are subject to stricter scrutiny and may require that the packaging works be below the threshold. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Copyrightability of Hill Climb Racing logo

I have been busy lately, working on articles such as Hill Climb Racing, and while I can do major cleanups for those articles while doing investigative research, there is one situation that has me stumped.

On that Hill Climb Racing article, I am considering replacing the icon in the infobox with the logo of the game for three reasons: 1. A trademarked logo is generally more identifiable than an application icon containing copyrighted material from the application. 2. There is a chance that the logo is free (the reason I am here). 3. If so, it could be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and thus be used across other Wikipedias and Wikimedia projects. For your reference, here is the logo in question, on the left side at the top of the page. Since the application and its logo were designed in Finland, I checked this Commons guideline to be on the safe side, but ultimately I cannot decide whether the logo is below the country's threshold of originality. I know that a simple solid-colored checkered flag is considered common property in the US, and so is impact text, but I am not sure whether a checkered flag in this context is considered free in Finland. My best guess is that it is, because a simple checkered flag alone is not particularly artistic, let alone the ubiquity of the pattern.

I am vectorizing the logo for the sake of accessibility, and it would be embarrassing to upload it to Commons only to see it taken down on the grounds of infringing copyrights (and this would not be the first time something like that has happened to me). I do think that the logo is better than an app icon for the purpose of identification, but it would be great if I could get an answer on whether it is in the public domain in Finland in order to be uploaded to Commons. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 03:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

You could upload the logo as non-free without any concerns about the TOO in either the US or Finland, but in that case you probably should only use an official svg released by the copyright holder for the reasons explained in WP:FREER. Another possibility might be to upload the file as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} for local use only on English Wikipedia; this is sometimes done when a logo is likely too simple to be copyrightable in the US, but perhaps is eligible for copyright protection in its country or origin. If, however, you really want to upload the file to Commons, then you can ask for opinions at c:COM:VPC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:NFCC#Request for comment: Clarification of WP:NFC#UUI #17 with regards to football.

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:NFCC#Request for comment: Clarification of WP:NFC#UUI #17 with regards to football. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

File:McKay with the Durham Bulls.jpeg

Is GFDL (v. 1.2+) acceptable as the only license to use for self-made files in English Wikipedia? Wikimedia Commons no longer accepts GFDL for newer photos licensed on or after 15 October 2018, especially if files are to be transferred there. George Ho (talk) 05:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems like any of the Creative Commons licenses that Wikipedia (or Commons) accepts should be OK to use, but I'm not sure anyone but the copyright holder can just change the license. It also seems like this file should've been uploaded to Commons instead of Wikipedia. The file's uploader UNC2 appears to be a fairly new editor and might've just chosen the GFDL license at random after receiving this notification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, GFDL-only is still acceptable for new files on English Wikipedia. Chosing a license at random is just as legally effective as putting lots of thought to it. If the uploader doesn't want to reconsider, the file will stay with us and not Commons. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

File:USPS Pluto Stamp - October 1991.jpg in the New Horizons article

The non-free image of a 1991 US postage stamp is accompanied by a statement claiming that the stamp provided a reason for carrying out the New Horizons mission. This statement does not appear to have any references. In the "Mission profile" section of the article, there is a statement about an instance of the stamp being included among some other items onboard the spacecraft, and that statement does have two references.

If the postage stamp was a significant factor in the decision to carry out the New Horizons mission, then it might be more likely that an image of the stamp would be justifiable in the article as non-free content. In such a case, it could be useful to for the article text about the stamp's role to have proper references. (Though I am not sure, if an article makes a point such as "This postage stamp was a significant reason for carrying out this space mission" and a non-free image is used to help article readers understand that point, then references for the point that the article text is making may be important for justifying the inclusion of the non-free image.) To be sure, there is the question as to whether the image of the stamp could be replaced by a textual description of the stamp (particularly its reference to Pluto and the "Not Yet Explored" message.)

Assuming that the inclusion of the stamp image in the article is justified, there is the question of the image's non-free use rationale. In particular, the "Respect for commercial opportunities" section seems to state that the stamp's commercial market will not be affected by the inclusion of the image in the article because the image itself is not usable as a postage stamp. It might be better to say (or to say in addition) that the article mentions how the stamp was a significant factor in the decision to carry out the New Horizons mission and that the stamp image is included in the article to help readers understand that statement. In addition, it would be useful to state that the usage of the stamp image in that context is different from its original market roles such as decoration, marketing the actual stamp, or illustrating the stamp's subject. --Elegie (talk) 08:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I've been dealing with stamp copyright here and on the commons, for years. This clearly fails WP:NFCC#8 as there is no commentary about the stamp itself justifying reason for including the image and the reader's understanding of the topic is not detrimental to their understanding that could be made in prose but is not even mentioned. There are no sources for the justification within the rationale and I personally doubt there are any such sources. However, if the image is a NASA image in the public domain, then maybe the stamp could be considered too simple to be copyrighted. Where did the Pluto image come from? None of the freely licensed commons images look even close to the one on the stamp. ww2censor (talk) 10:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

If it is not free, the inclusion of this image is not really justified in the article New Horizons. There is no significant commentary about this artwork or about its author. Addition of such commentary in this article would likely be off topic. The inclusion of this image would be more justified in the article Ron Miller (artist and author), as an example of his works as a designer of stamps. As a bonus, three references are already there about a connection with the New Horizons mission. Where the connection is mentioned in the New Horizons article, you can place a link to the article about Ron Miller. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Asclepias, of the 3 sources in the Ron Miller (artist and author) article, one is dead and neither of the other two mention the stamp being the inspiration for the mission, so they are of no use for this use. This stamp is hardly representative of his work, being a planet image with some very simple text. I'm sure there must be better examples of the work he has done as mentioned in the article. The stamp does not even appear in an image search for "Ron Miller space art" in pages of examples. But, I'm sorry, I digress from the main point of this posting. ww2censor (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the stamp image is appropriate for New Horizons until and unless there is some sourced discussion in the article about stamp provided a reason for carrying out the New Horizons mission. So, yank. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Asclepias, Elegie, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and Ww2censor: Hey guys. I'm the person that originally uploaded and introduced the stamp into the New Horizons article years ago. It was originally used to illustrate an expanded "Background" section I had written back in July 2015, a sub-section of which discusses how the stamp inspired the Pluto Fast Flyby concept, the first form of what would eventually become the New Horizons mission. The vast majority of this section now forms part of the Exploration of Pluto article at the will of BatteryIncluded, following a move they made a few months afterward. The stamp was later reintroduced as part of an attempt by Tdadamemd sioz in June 2016 to bring back some of the pre-New Frontiers background of the mission – an attempt questionably denied by Jim.henderson the day after, however Jim had left the stamp in. This is as far as I know the complete relevant story of how the stamp got into the article you see today. Because the content I had written about the stamp itself and the inspiration of Pluto Fast Flyby now exists in Exploration of Pluto, that is where the stamp should be in order to illustrate to the reader the catalyst for what would eventually become New Horizons. I've gone ahead and done this, and updated {{Non-free use rationale 2}} on the file page. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 04:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

PhilipTerryGraham it's unacceptable of you to remove the template from the image without following the instructions in that template which specifically say NOT to remove it. I've reinstated it because the reasoning for this image failing WP:NFCC remain the same even though you have refactored the information. ww2censor (talk) 08:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: I apologise for that. I will note that the issue addressed in this nomination was resolved and the image no longer fails the non-free content criteria. I’m not sure how one closes this discussion though, which was what I attempted to do when I removed the template. I wouldn’t mind some instructions on that! Haha! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 13:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

PhilipTerryGraham Despite saying that the issue has been addressed, I disagree with you. Because you have moved the image to a different article, I have revised the disputed rational concern. There is really no need for the stamp to convey what is already stated in prose, so adding it is essentially just decorative. ww2censor (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: ...even though it is not decorative, and illustrates an item of significance in the history of the Exploration of Pluto. Your updated argument states "Besides which there is no sourced commentary about the stamp image itself, just about what it is alleged to have inspired." I understand what you're saying here, but you're arguing against a mountain of reliable sources to the contrary. [1][2][3] This includes a November 1994 article by Pluto Fast Flyby project member Robert Staehle, and Chasing New Horizons co-authored by New Horizons Principal Investigator Alan Stern. [4][5] It's obviously an important and well known part of the Pluto story, including among planetary scientists themselves. It should undoubtedly be illustrated for the reader. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 13:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: have you read and do you understand what WP:NFCC#8 actually says? There is no need for a non-free image if the prose alone and the lack of the image is not detrimental to the reader's understanding of the topic. What do you think? do they NEED to see the stamp? Sorry but not in my opinion and this has been argued several times previously over the years for similar situations. ww2censor (talk) 13:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: My previous reply to you was a resounding "yes" to your question, obviously. If we present to the reader what planetary scientists got revved up about in the early 90s, it would allow them to at least better understand the motivations behind Pluto Fast Flyby and its successor projects. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 14:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I would argue, based on the history of the article form PTG above, that I think the New Horizons is just a bit too many steps removed from how the stamp influenced NASA to make it allowable at the New Horizons article under NFC - but 100% okay at Exploration of Pluto. New Horizons does not appear to be lacking (free) imagery so the stamp picture is really unneeded. I would have a more compelled case if the article was wholly devoid of images , no free ones possible, but that's not the case here. --Masem (t) 20:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Aamir khan signature.jpg

Does this non-free image of Aamir Khan's signature really need to be licensed as non-free? c:COM:SIG seems to indicate that it might be OK to covert this to {{PD-signature}}. It seems unlikely this would be eligible for copyright protection in the US, but I'm not sure about India (where Kahn is from). If this does need to be non-free, then the reason for using it given in the file's non-free use rationale is not accurate at all since it's not needed at all for primary identification and "This is just to show real signature" sounds totally decorative as ooposed to contextual. Is there typically a bit of leeway given for non-free signature files used in main infoboxes? Otherwise, I don't see how this can be kept per WP:NFCCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Marchjuly, the Commons copyright page on Indian law doesn't specifically cover signatures, but it does state that Indian law is modelled on UK law, and in the absence of any specific case law to the contrary it is reasonable to assume that the rules will be similar. The page you cited on signatures specifically does indicate that signatures are likely subject to copyright under UK law. Given that, I think in the absence of specific evidence to the contrary, it would have to be presumed that signatures could be copyrightable under Indian law. Since we cannot show it to be free and the article already has a free photo of the individual himself as identification, the signature fails NFCC #1 and #8 and I've removed it. If someone who knows more about Indian law specifically could show evidence that signatures cannot be copyrighted in India, we could use it as PD-signature. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this Seraphimblade. —- Marchjuly (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

How to access the online library of congress photographs for boxers, or other individuals

Can anyone help with this question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcw2003 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

You can go to any page on their website and enter your keywords in the searchbox. E.g. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/ Use keywords that are specific enough. If you type the name of an individual, it should get you results, if they have photographs of this person. If you type boxers, the results will probably not be very useful. They have search tips there: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/help/ Was that your question? -- Asclepias (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Auctioned documents and testimony re Buzz Aldrin's historic activities on Apollo 11

I want to put photographs of a historical document relevant to the material re the Apollo 11 flight in the Buzz Aldrin article. This consists of the front and verso of a 3" x 5" card that Aldrin prepared and used on the flight when giving publicly broadcast messages to the Earth. As the original document of these historic public activities, it provides valuable evidence to assist in understanding Aldrin's mind and actions. It is also in itself a unique document in human history, being the only religious liturgy used in the only religious service on the Moon (Aldrin is a Presbyterian elder). This document was sold at auction in 2007, but photographs of it, Aldrin's letter of authenticity, and a personal testimony regarding the historic events are present on the auctioneer's website.[3] Can I upload images of these materials under Fair Use or some such policy without receiving prior approval? If necessary, how would I receive approval for use of their images of the historic documents? Olorin3k (talk) 12:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Olorin3k, as nonfree they would almost certainly be unacceptable, failing both NFCC #1 and #8. There is tons of free media available for the Apollo program since material produced by NASA is generally in the public domain. If images of it were previously published, they might be in the public domain depending when published and whether they had a copyright notice (and if published by NASA, that again very much changes things), and you might find this guide to be helpful in determining that, but if the nonfree photos are the only ones available definitely not. We have more than enough free media to use for those articles, and if there are sources about Aldrin's liturgy, could describe it in text rather than using photos. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Protest poster

I have a photo (my own) of a protest poster used in the early 90s in a squat defence campaign in Germany. The poster itself has no indication of the publisher, printer or any other information. I believe that it was produced by the squatters themselves, and used widely as part of their campaign. Can this be used in the article about the squat? What information would I need to provide in order to upload this? RolandR (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

RolandR, you might find this page helpful to determining if the poster would be copyrightable under German law. If so, you may need the permission of the person who made it to release the content of the poster under a free license, before you could release the photo under one. If the poster is not something copyrightable under German law, or would under that law count as a de minimis part of the shot, that would be different, but if the poster was a main focus of the photo, the copyright status of that poster matters a great deal. It looks like German freedom of panorama law only covers photographing works found permanently in a public place, but since a poster is only temporarily found there, that wouldn't apply in this case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't really help. There is nothing on the poster to identify its creator - probably a German anarchist activist nearly thirty years ago. In fact, it is very unlikely that the creator would be able to establish their rights to this image, even if they cared to do so. RolandR (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Then I'm afraid it sounds like the answer is likely to be no, it would not be usable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Alternately: if you have a photo of the poster as used by a crowd of protestors, in the manner that the poster is clearly not the focus of the photo and only "happened" to be there (de minimus) and otherwise it is your photo of the protestors, then you could use that as a free image to show what the poster looked like. --Masem (t) 13:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

File:JMF Emblem.svg

Not sure about the licensing of this file. The svg part may be 100% WP:OWN WORK, but not sure whether the badge imagery itself is since there’s no mention of it in the file’s description. There was another file (File:Johor Military Force.jpg) that the svg replaced in Royal Johor Military Force; so, that might help sort things out. If, however, the badge imagery is eligible for copyright protection, I think that might make the svg a derivative work and two copyrights (badge and svg) need to be taken into account. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 July 29#File:Old Town Road Diplo and RM remix.png

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 July 29#File:Old Town Road Diplo and RM remix.png. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Public domain

The wizard says unpublished public domain starts life of author plus 100 years. Everywhere else it says 70 years. What's up?Roryjohnston (talk) 03:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Should be life + 70, per [4]. --Masem (t) 03:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Roryjohnston. Post mortem auctoris or "p.m.a." seems to vary depending on different things. Have you tried looking at c:COM:HIRTLE? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)