Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2019/March
 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Photo is PD-self, but I fail to see how a slide rule, which is a 'scientific' instrument could have copyright given that the scales are a precise mathematicaly generated diagram, that does not have a creative element, and thus would be ineligible as I see it. ShakespeareFan00 (talk)
- ShakespeareFan00, a slide rule is a utilitarian object, and thus is not covered under copyright. GMGtalk 13:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Mislicense? File:HornRapidsOffroadVehicleParkRichland.JPG
This is a PD-self isn't it? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Question(s) regarding US copyright notice requirements
US publishers were often not terribly careful with regard to copyright notices, especially in the 1950s and 1960s. I have been wondering whether the cover images for paperback books reprinting previously published texts would be free of copyright / public domain in these situations (assuming publication in the US during the time when a notice was required, and assuming that the reprint does not carry the original cover, which may be covered under the original publication copyrights.):
- The text is public domain, and there is no copyright notice. I assume this is an easy case, and that lack of notice places the cover in the public domain.
- The text is public domain, and while there is a copyright notice for other content (eg, Introduction Copyright 195x by Arthur Academic), there is no copyright notice for the cover.
- The text is not public domain, and the book includes only a copyright notice for the original author, carrying the original publication date.
- The text is not public domain; the book includes a copyright notice for the original author, carrying the original publication date; and while there is a copyright notice for other content (eg, Introduction Copyright 195x by Arthur Academic), there is no copyright notice for the cover.
My thoughts are that in all four of these cases, the publisher's failure to attach a proper copyright notice means that the cover is irrevocably in the public domain. I understand that it's necessary to inspect the book itself carefully, to assure that there is no notice on the cover itself, as opposed to an internal page. What thoughts do others have? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
File:Singer Porsche DLS.jpg
This is under non-free criteria, which isn't disputed... The query is to the replaceability given the image is of a custom model, that isn't generally seen outside of specialist events. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
License says it a Californian Govt image, but the source is given as a personal image. So what's the actual license? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
So about that truly terrible picture?
So twice recently NFCC fair use images of well known dead women in their bios have been removed and replaced with free images so terrible they not only make the women look bad but make Wikipedia look like a disaster. (I and others have removed the terrible images because they are no improvement, they are rather ruination). Nor are the 'free' nearly as educational, the 'non-free' images being at the height of each person's historical importance. At any rate, I am just confirming that now that these 'free' images that are terrible are known to exist, we can't use the excellent non-free images, correct? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- If the person's historical importance or Wikipedia notability is mainly for their physical appearance, and this is something covered in reliable sources and mentioned in the article, then perhaps a non-free image could be justified as the type of exception mentioned for living persons in item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI; moreover, if there's a particular image of a person itself which was significantly discussed in reliable sources and there's content about this coverage in the article, then perhaps this could be used per item 9 of WP:NFC#UUI. Otherwise, I'm not sure non-free use would be justifiable even in cases where an existing "free" image might be not be as good as a "non-free" one as long as the free is generally considered to be sufficient for primary identification purposes per WP:FREER. If the threshold was simply that a non-free only needs to "better" (i.e. quality-wise or showing the individual as they appeared in their prime) than a free equivalent, then it would seem possible to find a "better" non-free image for any person (dead or alive, man or woman) who has a Wikipedia article written about them and anyone could simply argue that the non-free should be used just because they personally like it better. There's no requirement that an image (free or non-free) needs to be used in any Wikipedia article, and there are plenty of articles, including biographies, which don't have one. If there's a free image currently be used that is not very good or very flattering and the consensus is that it shouldn't be used, then that seems OK; however, that doesn't automatically mean (at least in my opinion) that a non-free should be OK to use instead.You haven't mentioned any specific images. If you do have some in mind, then maybe they would be worth discussing at WP:FFD. If enough people agree, then maybe a consensus can be established to use a particular non-free one along with a free one. On the other hand, if you feel either a change in policy or a clarification of policy is needed, and that item 10 of WP:NFCI or WP:NFCC#1 should be reviewed for the purpose of granting allowances for non-free images showing a person at the height of their historical importance, then starting a discussion (maybe even a WP:RFC) at WT:NFCC or WP:VPP might be a good idea. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
This is clearly PD, isn't it the mark shown is over 100 years old? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Applying good faith, but a view on this concerning the own work claim by the uploader would be appreciated, given that many artists will take reference photos in order to then use those photos to make potrait art. The status of the original photo isn't mentioned here. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Was it for example derived from something like File:Dhirubhai Ambani 2002 stamp of India.jpg ? (As a helfpul contributor on IRC pointed out)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Based upon the two files you've linked to above, it does seem as if the first one might be a WP:Derivative work of the second. The second image is a Commons file and if its licensing is correct, the licensing of the derivative is probably OK as well; however, you could tag the file with {{Di-dw no source no license-notice}} to make sure. FWIW, Commons has a template for derivatives called c:Template:Derived from, which makes them a bit easier to deal with, but Wikipedia doesn't seem to have a equivalent template for local use. Since the local file is not being used in any articles, it will need to be deleted per WP:F5 if it's turns out it needs to be licensed as non-free content unless it's added to an article in a manner which complies with WP:NFCCP. If the local file's licensing is OK, then it probably should be moved to Commons and it's description updated to reflect it's a c:COM:DW. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm waiting for the uploader to respond on their talk page. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
This file is a non-free file of Calder's Flamingo (sculpture), but there is a PD licensed image from Commons (c:File:Flamingo Calder.jpg) also being used in the article. I've asked about the Commons' file's licensing at c:COM:VPC#File:Flamingo Calder.jpg. The file was deleted, but then subsequently restored per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flamingo Calder.jpg; so, it's licensing seems to be OK. This means that the local non-free file fails WP:NFCC#1, unless it the license can be converted to PD as well. There are two licenses which need to be considered with respect to the non-free: the photo and the sculpture. If the sculpture is {{PD-US-no-notice}}, then it seems as if anybody can take a photo of it and release the photo under a free license. Can it be assumed from File:Calder Flamingo.jpg#Licensing that the photo has really be released under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license? If it can, then all that might need to be done is to add a PD license for the sculpture; if it can't, then the file probably needs to be deleted. FWIW, the uploader of the non-free file hasn't edited in about a year; so, I'm not sure whether they can clarify the licensing of the photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Is there any chance that this file is really {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}? If it's not then it's non-free use in Glenn Miller discography would not be allowed per WP:NFC#cite_note-3. The file is licensed as {{PD-USGov}}, but it also has a non-free use rationale and two templates are in conflict. If this is really PD, then it doesn't need a non-free use rationale and can use {{Information}} instead; if also should be moved to Commons. If it's not PD and cannot be show to have been released under a free license; it mostly likely cannot be kept per WP:NFCCP given its current use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Australian copyright for pictures from 1959
I was informed that according to the Australien copyright for pictures taken from 1955 to 1998 the copyright belongs to the person who ordered and paid for the pictures. I have pictures of a quite known house in Australia taken 1959 by the Australien Photographer Fritz Kos which were paid by my father who owned the house and planned to sell it. Now I own these pictures. I have no evidence of that deal though. I am not sure which copyright tag is apropriate. I will of cause mention the photographer. Schmila (talk) 11:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- If what you say is true, then perhaps your father still owns the copyright. Otherwise his heirs would have inherited it. Ownership of physical picture is not the same as owning copyright though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Same file (File:OkadaBooks Logo.jpg) was previously deleted from Commons as a copyvio. It's be re-uploaded to Wikipedia locally as {{PD-logo}}. The company Draft:OkadaBooks is based out of Kenya, but can't find any about Kenya in c:COM:TOO. This needs to be PD in its country of origin and the US for it to be licensed as "PD-logo". Can this be kept as licensed or should it be convereted to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} or {{Non-free logo}} instead? The latter might be the safest approach, but that would mean the file fails WP:NFCC#9 and can be tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F5. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Copyright of Amazon Prime series screenshot
I'm currently writing on a series that is available on Amazon Prime and I want to use a screenshot. Is that a violation of Amazon's copyright?
Thank you for your cooperation in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.233.11.132 (talk) 03:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Squash images
I used four logos from existing Wikipedia articles for the 2018–19 PSA Men's World Squash Championship, 2018–19 PSA Women's World Squash Championship, 2018 Men's British Open Squash Championship and 2018 Women's British Open Squash Championship and a bot has deleted them saying that they can not be used on these pages. The logos however are already being used on the previous years for the same events so don't know why they cannot be used. Please advise Racingmanager (talk) 10:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Racingmanager. The files were removed per WP:NFCCE because they lacked the non-free use rationales required by WP:NFCC#10c. Each time a non-free file is used, a non-free use rationale specific to that particular use needs to be added to the file’s page. So, for example, if a non-free file is being used in two different articles or two times in the same article, two non-free use rationales need to be provided. Just providing the missing non-free use rationale, however, is not always sufficient per WP:JUSTONE; the non-free use needs to satisfy all ten non-free content use criteria, which is something that can be hard to do for multiple uses of the same file. For sporting competition logos such as these, the use in the main infobox of the main article about the competition is generally considered acceptable, but using the same logo in a similar manner in articles about individual seasons or ocurrences of the event is typically not allowed per items 14 and 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. For individual season articles, a logo specific to that particular season is preferred instead; moreover, if such a logo doesn’t exist, the default is not to automatically use the main event logo. There are sometimes cases where a second use of a logo might be allowed, but none of them seem applicable with respect to these logos. — Marchjuly (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
How should I handle permissions on this image?
I have just revised the biography page for Anita Earls, to include this image in the infobox: File:justice-anita-earls.jpg
This photo is from Earls' Judicial Directory page at the North Carolina Judicial Branch [1]. No copyright information appears there, but it appears to be her official state government portrait.
I'm new at this and have no idea how to handle the image's copyright information so that the image will not be deleted. Any detailed, knowledgeable advice will be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Canis nova (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- We ahve to assume that unless an image is clearly stated to be freely licnsed, it is copyright to someone and we need to get the copyright holder, who is usually the photographer, to provide their permission, via the OTRS ticket system by having them follow the instructions found at WP:CONSENT. You also need to add the appropriate license to the image page. You may also find it useful to read my image copyright information page. ww2censor (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Bot keeps removing image
I believe fair use rationale is correct for this image, yet I have a persistent bot that has taken it down. I don't know what else needs to be changed. File:Six Flags Great Escape Resort and Lodge.svg. Thanks in advance for the assistance.—JlACEer (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- @JlACEer: You are adding the logo to an article for which a fair use-rationale hasn't been added to the logo. It's part of the fair-use criteria that a separate fair-use rationale (FUR) has to be created for every article in which the image is going to be used. So if you want to add the logo to Great Escape (amusement park) you need to add an FUR to the logo. However this does appear to brought another issue to light, namely that there appear to be two articles about the same theme park - Great Escape (amusement park) and Six Flags Great Escape Lodge & Indoor Waterpark. If these do refer to the same place then ideally they should be merged into one. Nthep (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Image copyrights
I ran into this user User talk: Topfool16, their talk page is full of warnings regarding improper images uploads and they seem to not care even though all their images get deleted. Can anything be done or where do I report this? I reported to AIV for their recent unsourced additions and unexplained blanking of articles, but the report went stale due to no response. StaticVapor message me! 17:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the licensing of this file. It seems to be fanart based upon the Pokemon monster Rayquaza. I believe the original Pokemon imagery is still considered protected by copyright which means this would be a derivative work, wouldn't it? While it might be fine for the creator to do this under fair use, I don't think it's OK for them to do so and then upload to Wikipedia release under a free license, unless they can established the original source imagery has also been released under a free license or is in the public domain for some reason. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Vancouver archive photos
The City of Vancouver archives website says "For materials whose copyrights are owned by the City of Vancouver, the Archives grants the patron a non-exclusive license to use the reproductions without restriction as to the nature or purpose of the use." The intention, according to a staff member I've been in contact with, is to allow redistribution of this content through other sites such as Wikipedia, including commercial re-use. Does the current wording on the website fulfill Commons free-licensing requirements? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes. I believe c:Template:Copyrighted free use is the correct tag, Clayoquot. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
non-free fair use question
I've been working on Ten Talents (cookbook), which has a non-free image of the current edition's cover. The earlier editions show an interesting progression in the cover art. Would including the two covers used for previous editions be acceptable under free-use policies? I wasn't sure how to interpret 'minimal' in this case. Thanks for any help! --valereee (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- To use other covers, you need sourced discussion from reliable sources that describe the cover art progression, or a unique feature of the cover art of a specific version. Any progression that you think might be there falls under OR, and using additional images wouldn't be appropriate. --Masem (t) 19:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Masem, thank you! I was thinking the same thing -- that there'd need to be comment somewhere to even mention the progression, and that if there weren't mention and the covers were simply presented without such commentary, they might be considered as not adding information. I'll see if there's actually been any comment. valereee (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Pictures for Braunschweig meteorite
I want to upload photos from this website (https://meteoritestheblog.com/2016/11/28/the-worlds-smallest-meteorite-crater/) to Braunschweig meteorite, which I just created. I've never uploaded a photo before. How do I do it? UnsignificantEditor (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
File:Sonia.Gandhi.jpg
which tag must be added toFile:Sonia.Gandhi.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aayush anuj (talk • contribs) 22:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Aayush anuj. File:Sonia.Gandhi.jpg was deleted a few days ago by an administrator named Fastily for the reasons explained in Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#F9. Unambiguous copyright infringement. This kind of thing only happens when the administrator feels that the file cannot clearly be hosted by Wikipedia per its policy regarding the use of copyrighted content. The file was tagged for speedy deletion by an editor named Whpq, and a notification of the problems associated with the file was left on your user talk page at User talk:Aayush anuj#Speedy deletion nomination of File:Sonia.Gandhi.jpg. I am not an administrator so I can no longer see the file to check its licensing or description to provide you with any more information. If you'd like to know more, you can ask Fastily at User talk:FastilyAfter taking a look at your user talk page, it appears that there have been similar issues with other files you've uploaded to Wikipedia. Image licensing can be a tricky thing to get a hang of and mistakes are often made. Making the same mistake once or maybe even twice is probably OK and other editors will tend to assume good faith; making the same mistake over and over gain, however, is not a good sign and may lead to an administrator stepping in to take a closer look at things. Copyright violations, in particular, are taken quite seriously by the Wikipedia community and editors who repeatedly upload content deemed to be a copyright violation often end up indefinitely blocked to pevent any further disruption and violation of Wikipedia copyright policies and guidelines; so, it might be a good idea for you to refrain from further uploading any images to Wikipedia, at least until you become much more familiar with Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Copyrights#Guidelines for images and other media files. If you find an image which you'd like to upload, you can always ask for help here to see whether it should be uploaded. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
It seems like this should be OK as {{PD-logo}}, right? The crescent moon and star images are pretty ultiliatrian and the combination of the two is commonly used in various national flags, etc.; so, I don't think there's really any creative element which would be eligible for copyright. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
PD-logo?
Do files File:TRG International Logo.png and File:TRG International Logo.png need to be licensed as {{Non-free logo}}? I came across both while checking on files tagged for NFCC#9 violations, and they seem simple enough to be at least {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. Both files are being used in the username space which isn't allowed for non-free content; so, they would need to be removed if these are truly non-free. The TRG file has also been tagged with {{Non-free reduce}}, which would not be necessary if it's PD. Any opinions one way of the other? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
non-free fair use question for photo of roadside sign
File:Notice in Avoiuli script at a custom school, Pentcost Island, 2014.jpg was reduced in resolution because it's tagged as 'fair use'. (Not of the photograph, which was uploaded by the photographer, but of the content of the sign.) However, it's a roadside sign. Is it any more copyrightable than a photo of a building that has signage on it? E.g., in the article building there are several images with signage, none tagged as 'fair use'. The larger letters at the upper left of this image are the name and location of a school, not even a logo. Is that eligible for copyright? Is there any real difference from, say, File:Perumacheri AUP School.JPG? It would be nice to have the full-res version of this img to illustrate the script at avoiuli. The reduced-res version is so blurry that you can't make out the letters, which rather defeats the point. (Since there are no avoiuli fonts or Unicode support, photos like this are the primary evidence for what the script looks like.) — kwami (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- If a photographer wants to release their photo under a free license suitable for Wikipedia purposes, they are free to do so. If, however, the subject of the photo is a copyrighted work created by someone else, then the photo is likely going to be considered a WP:Derivative work and things get more complicated. A photograph of a building technically has two copyrights with need to be addressed: the one for the building and the one for the photo. The copyright status on the first often depends on the WP:FOP of the country where the building is located; for example, buildings are generally not considered eligible for copyright protection in the United States per c:COM:FOP United States, but France is much more restrictive per c:COM:FOP France. So, the copyright status of the building depends on what type of FOP Pentecost Island follows. As for the signs on the building, this often has to do with de minimis (see c:COM:DM). If the sign is sort of just something in the background which is attached to the building in a manner which pretty much makes seem like one part of the building, then often de minims can be argued for the sign; it's not primary focus of the photo, but rather just some incidental part of the scene. If, however, the primary focus is to show the sign, i.e. a close up of it image, with the building being the incidental part of the photo, then it becomes much harder to argue de minimis. So, for Wikipedia to treat this photo truly as "free", both copyrights need to be "free". If only one of the two is "free", then the entire file is treated as non-free content.Just out of curiosity, why is a non-free photo of this particular sign needed, per WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. It might be an interesting photo, but how is it essential to the reader's understanding of Boustrophedon. There's no possibility of a free equivalent using avoiuli being created per WP:FREER which could serve the same purpose as this non-free? A non-free image is needed for the (unsourced) sentence "The Avoiuli script used on Pentecost Island in Vanuatu can be written boustrophedonically." to be understood by the reader? Moroever, if the sign itself is really not eligible for copyright protection, then a non-free photo of the sign cannot be accepted per NFCC#1 because basically someone else could take a similar photo and release it under a free license; so, the uploader of the file would need to release it under a free license for it to be kept. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think the uploader is asserting copyright, only that the sign itself might be protected. I don't see however how reproducing a photo of a sign that's on public display harms the intellectual property rights of the maker of the sign, any more than a photo of a billboard advertising Coca Cola would violate their rights -- after all, the whole point of such things is to be seen.
- As for illustrating boustrophedon, for me the main use would be to illustrate avoiuli, which doesn't have any other print images available. — kwami (talk) 08:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- You may be right about the copyright status of both the sign and the intent of the photographer/uploader; however, all files need a WP:FCT, and I think that this particular one might technically need two. The current licensing might indirectly cover both, but I'm not sure the same can be said if you replace the non-free license with a PD or otherwise free one. The photo is not a simple simple 2D reproduction, but rather more like a photo of a 3D work of art; so, I believe a license is going to be needed for the photo even if the sign is ineligible for copyright protection. There are a variety of free licenses which could be used in such a case, and I think it would be best for the uploader to do the choosing since they took the photo. The fact that the uploader is no longer on the island where the can be found is not going to be a valid justification for a non-free license to be used for the photo; so, the uploader is going to have release the file under a free license. I guess it might be possible that like any other Wikipedia edit, the uploading of the file would be covered by a "CC by-sa 3.0" license, but the uploader may prefer another free license instead.Finally, being on public display does not mean "public domain". There are lots of copyrighted works (works of art, advertising, etc.) which are on public display because the creator wants them to be seen, but that doesn't necessarily make them no longer eligible for copyright protection. See c:COM:CSM#Noticeboards and signs, c:COM:CSM#Murals, c:COM:POSTER and c:COM:CSM#Road signs for some examples of why publicly displayed does not always mean free from copyright protection. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Expiration for Crown copyright logo
When will the copyright on File:Commonwealth of Nations logo.svg expire? I know that File:Commonwealth Flag - 2013.svg's copyright will expire in 2023. Qzekrom 💬 theythem 19:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
At commons under a 'free' license Commons:File:EEA agency logo.svg so querying if this needs to be under NFCC locally. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Why? Seeing as it is licensed freely on the commons, the image can be used here without being uploaded here, unless you have some reason the challenge the current license there. If so there are a few others EEA logos using the same graphics. ww2censor (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- @ShakespeareFan00 and Ww2censor: This logo is non-free. From their copyright notice:
Qzekrom 💬 theythem 04:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)The Agency logo is the property of the EEA and is registered with WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organisation). It may be reproduced by media for journalistic purposes, but all other usages needs the Agency’s prior consent. The logo may not be cropped or amended in any other way than what is detailed in the EEA’s corporate identity manual."
There's a conflict here between the {{PD-logo}} and {{Non-free use rationale 2}} that's causing the file to be flagged as a WP:NFCC#9 violation in User:Jmmonty16/sandbox. This is probably PD in the US per c:COM:TOO#United States, but I'm not sure about in the country of origin per c:COM:TOO#France. Replacing the non-free use rationale with {{Information}} and relicensing as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} is a quick fix, but that keeps this a local file. Any opinions on whether this is OK as "PD-logo" for France? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'd be cautious. French TOO is weird and can be very low in some cases. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
This logo is probably simple enough per c:COM:TOO#United States to be at least {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}, and maybe even simple enough to be {{PD-logo}} depending upon Kosovo's TOO. However, I'm wondering if it might also be PD per c:Template:PD-Kosovo-exempt similar to the way File:RTK logo.svg licensed. If it really needs to be non-free, it can't be used in Draft:RTK 1. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
There's a conflict between the {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} license and {{Non-free use rationale}} being used on the file's page. Since the country of origin appears to be the UK, this might really be only PD in the US, which means the "PD-ineligible license" is OK; however, a non-free rationale wouldn't be needed in that case. On the other hand, if this file is not even PD in the US, it needs the rationale and a non-free license. The current situation is causing the file to be flagged as a WP:NFCC#9 violation; so, the conflict should be resolved one way or the other. Anybody feel this is too complex for "PD-ineligible-USonly" per c:COM:TOO#United States? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Photo licensing tag
File:Zack_Stentz_Arclight_photoshoot_2016.jpg is an image, provided to me by Mr. Stentz himself, for use on his Wikipedia page. I was under the impression I had done the right licensing on it - what I believed was the same licensing as his Twitter profile image I used for the main image - but, apparently not. And, on that, I kind of had to improvise because there is no "image provided to me by owner for use on Wikipedia" option (there really should be, but that's a whole separate discussion). What tag(s) should I put on it? --WTRiker (talk) 04:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hi WTRiker. If Zack Stentz is the copyright holder of the the image and he has no problem giving his WP:CONSENT for it to be uploaded to Wikipedia, then easiest thing for him to do would be to email Wikimedia OTRS and say as much and specify that he agrees to release the photo under one of the licenses listed here. However, please understand that it is the person taking the photo, not the subject of the photo, who is generally considered to be the copyright holder; so, Stentz is going to have to establish in the email that he is the copyright either because he took the photo himself or because he paid someone to do so as a work-for-hire and the copyright of the photo was officially transferred to him as part of his agreement with the photographer. This last part can be tricky sometimes because some photographers (particularly professional photographers) often retain some claim to copyright for the images they take; they may give the subject permission to use the photo on official websites or social media like Twitter, etc., but that permission might not extend to uploading the photo to Wikipedia.Basically, for Wikipedia to keep this type of photo, the copyright holder is going to have to agree to allow anyone anywhere in the world to download it at anytime for any purpose (including commercial reuse or derviative use). Some minor restrictions on subsequent reuse (such as attribution) may be added depending upon the specifics of the license chosen, but Wikipedia will not accept license that places any restrictions on commercial or derivative use; so, "For use on Wikipedia only" or "For non-commercial (non-derivative) use only" types of licenses will not be accepted. Another thing to consider is that the free licenses that Wikipedia accepts are non-revocable; in other words, the cannot be cancelled or changed at a later date if the copyright holder has a change of heart. Uploading a file under a free license doesn't mean the copyright holder is transfering their copyright to Wikipedia; it just means that the copyright holder is making available a freely licensed version of the photo to allow others around the world to use it more easily. Even so, even releasing a version of ones work freely is a big step so to speak, which is why Wikipedia requires some form of formal verification to try and make sure nobody's copyright is being infringed upon as well as to protect itself from any claims of violating someone's copyright. If you still have any questions, feel free to ask them below. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Logic Supermarket cover
The album cover for Supermarket can be found here. Is this PD-text? Qzekrom 💬 theythem 00:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Qzekrom. In my opinion, I think this would certainly be "PD-text" or even "PD-simple" for the US based upon similar files in c:Category:Covers of music albums. Logic (musician) is based out of the US, but its usually the record company which releases the album that owns the copyright on the cover art. Is his record company also based out of the US? Sometimes, PD in the US doesn't automatically mean PD in the country of origin which is why {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} is sometimes used as a license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: Def Jam is based in the U.S. Visionary Music Group doesn't reveal in which country it's based, but since both of its artists are based in the U.S., I think we can safely assume it's also based in the U.S.
- The cover is mostly just yellow text on a red background, but there are small white spots. Do you think that crosses the line into copyright? Qzekrom 💬 theythem 05:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Defunct Company Logos
I have a company logo image for a company that has been defunct since 1963, can i upload it? RicardoDonovan (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hi RicardoDonovan. It's hard to give you a specific yes or no answer without knowing more details. Whether you should upload the file depends on quite a number of things, but basically how a file is used on Wikipedia depends upon how it is licensed. There are really two types of files you see on Wikipedia: "free files" (files licensed as public domain or released under a free license) and "non-free files" (files licensed as non-free content). The former are much easier to use and subject to much less restriction than the latter; so, take a look at the image at the top of c:Commons:Licensing and try and figure whether the file you want to load is free or non-free. Once you've made that determination, it will be easier to give you a more specific answer. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response, I have emailed the site I found the logo on and I have done some research on Commons with other similar defunct Italian motorcycle logos. Once i have a bit more information I can see how best to proceed. Thanks again. RicardoDonovan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- The website hosting it is probably using it under fair use. Fair use of logos is often possible on an article about the company. Otherwise someone likely still owns the copyright, even if they don't know it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response, I have emailed the site I found the logo on and I have done some research on Commons with other similar defunct Italian motorcycle logos. Once i have a bit more information I can see how best to proceed. Thanks again. RicardoDonovan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Answering machine, voicemail, etc. copyrights
Does anyone whether phone calls, voice mails, etc. are considered protected by copyright? Is the person leaving the message considered to be the "creator" of the content with the machine just being a mechanical reproduction of what was said or does the owner of the machine also "own" the message? A person leaving a message on an answering machine probably understands they are being recorded; so, I'm not asking about the legality of the recording. What I'm interested in is whether the recorded message itself is eligible for copyright protection. The specific example which comes to mind is Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 March 29#File:Alec Balwin phone call to daughter Ireland.ogg. The use of such non-free content may be allowed per WP:NFCCP, but I don't think that a file linking to a YouTube channel is going to be allowed per WP:ELNEVER, WP:COPYLINK or WP:YOUTUBE unless the recording was uploaded to YouTube by either Alec Baldwin or his daughter Ireland. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Copyright of a voice mail message is clearly with the speaker of the message - same with the writer of an email or text message. The recording is a mechanical/slavish copy, and thus creates no new copyright. (mind you, then if you added autotune or something where the copy is no longer slavish, that then can be a new copyright). There's the whole expectation of privacy elements which are probably far stronger as a reason that we should not use leaked material offered by TMZ.
- But there are other reasons to delete: if that YT vid is the entire message, at 2m16s, then the max length the sound bit can be is 10% of that or about 13 seconds. Also, I'm not impressed with the rationale that hearing the anger in Baldwin's voice is needed for understanding. Again, given we're starting with TMZ on a BLP (which is a huuuuge issue), all we would need to say is that Baldwin was upset at her daughter. --Masem (t) 01:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- I was thinking along the same lines. If the message had been released/uploaded by it's creator, then perhaps part of it could be used per NFCCP since there would be little doubt about it's authenticity and copyright ownership. However, using YouTube as the source raises questions about both, at least in my opinion. As for the NFCC#3 and NFCC#8 issues, I understand that different people might have different takes on that, but that's fine for discussing at FFD, etc. My main concern was whether linking to the clip violates COPYLINK because that would seem to take precedence over whether the file meets NFCCP in my opinion and may mean the file should be deleted asap per WP:F9. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Railroad Photographs
- Am I right in believing these two photographs ... Photo 1 and Photo 2 ... can be used in Wikipedia with proper attributions? They both come from this on-line site ... Boxcar photo web-site. The railroad that these railcars were part of is now defunct, so they may qualify for fair use if used in an article specifically about that defunct railroad, but I would rather upload them into common if that is appropriate.--Orygun (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- The first is clearly CC-BY so that is OK. The second says photographer unknown, so any copyright release is likely unauthorised. If the second is replaceable by the first, then you cannot use it under fair use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)