Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2020/July

< Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Finding the correct license for this "Floral Emblem"

File:Sturt'sdesertpea.jpg has the wrong license, since the artist Alison Marjorie Ashby died less than 100 years ago. I'm interested in finding out if there is a proper license for it.

This archived page from the South Australian government talks about a "Floral Emblem" and states "The Floral Emblem can be reproduced without seeking permission from the Protocol Office." It also linked to this page (also archived) where one could download the image that has been uploaded to Wikipedia, which has the same statement of release. However, both pages also have a copyright warning, "Copyright © The Department of Premier and Cabinet Protocol Unit 1997" at the bottom. The links within the copyright notice were not successfully archived.  ★  Bigr Tex 18:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I think with that explicit a licensing, we can assume that the copyright notice on the pages applies to the pages as a whole and not to the floral emblem. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Orangemike, I appreciate that. So if the copyright notice does not apply to the floral emblem, what license should we use for the image? I looked harder today and found {{PD-AustraliaGov}} and {{PD-because}}, but it's not clear that the release while being specific rises to the level of Public domain.  ★  Bigr Tex 23:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
If U.S. practice is any model, just because the national government puts things into public domain doesn't mean the states do. And I agree that the vague release doesn't constitute an explicit release into the public domain. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
This appears to be copyrighted until the end of 2057 and without a license, unless you either get Commons:OTRS confirmation from the Government of South Australia that the copyright was transferred with the works, and are being licensed by the government (as they often do with CC-BY-3.0 on their new material); or pin your hopes on an obtuse bit of Australian copyright law concerning government copyright combined with finding a very old published copy of this artwork. To wit:
  1. Absent special provisions for the government, the original art is copyrighted until the end of 2057.
  2. The alleged permission statement is not clear: "The Floral Emblem can be reproduced without seeking permission from the Protocol Office." The sentence likely refers to the use of Sturt's desert pea in general as an emblem, not to this particular artwork. Look at the bottom of each page under South Australia Insignia and Emblems at the Wayback Machine (archived 2005-06-17). For example, on the State Coat of Arms page: "Contact should be made with the Protocol Office in regard to the official use of the State Coat of Arms." vs. "The State Colours can be used by individuals or organisations without seeking permission from the Protocol Office." On the Opal page: "The Gemstone can be reproduced without seeking permission from the Protocol Office." even though the photo is a pile of multiple gemstones. So the "without permission" bit is more like what Wikipedia would normally call trademark issues, not copyright issues. (The current edition of that page is now at https://www.dpc.sa.gov.au/responsibilities/state-protocols-acknowledgements/using-the-state-insignia-and-emblems and has similar wording for the important insignia, but doesn't address the use of the "state emblems", and the photos are all different now.)
  3. According to the Alison Marjorie Ashby article, "Her 1500 botanical paintings were mostly donated to the South Australian Museum and are now held in the State Herbarium." So:
    1. "Duration of copyright" chart by the Australian Government Department of Communications and the Arts in 2018, says that works "Works made, or first published, by the Commonwealth, or a State or Territory" expire 50 years after first publication. So if you can prove that first publication of the artwork was by the government and was more than 50 years ago, it's {{PD-AustraliaGov}}. Good luck with that.
    2. If one likes to hire lawyers, try the Copyright Act 1968, Part VII, Division 2, Section 183:

      (1) The copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work or a published edition of such a work, or in a sound recording, cinematograph film, television broadcast or sound broadcast, is not infringed by the Commonwealth or a State, or by a person authorized in writing by the Commonwealth or a State, doing any acts comprised in the copyright if the acts are done for the services of the Commonwealth or State. [...] (7) Where an article is sold and the sale is not, by virtue of subsection (1), an infringement of a copyright, the purchaser of the article, and a person claiming through him or her, is entitled to deal with the article as if the Commonwealth or State were the owner of that copyright.

      Someone far more versed in Australian copyright law will have to tell us what is meant by "the sale is not, by virtue of subsection (1), an infringement of a copyright"; but if that somehow applies to this artwork donated voluntarily (which I doubt), and you find any published copy of the artwork more than 50 years old (see above), then maybe {{PD-AustraliaGov}} might apply anyway.
  4. If someone is going for OTRS: I don't know whether the law grants authority to the State Herbarium of South Australia or requires the involvement of the state minister/department in charge of copyright. --Closeapple (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Image Copyright

can I upload this image to Wikipedia? https://i0.wp.com/www.theafricanmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/WhatsApp-Image-2020-06-18-at-14.12.38.jpeg?resize=768%2C949&ssl=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizsmellof2541 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Lizsmellof2541: It is copyrighted for 50 years in Nigeria. You need permission from the original photographer to allow the world to re-use and modify the photo. (Taaooma is not the photographer unless she set up a camera to take a selfie by remote.) If the photographer is willing to give a license to the world, then there are instructions at Commons:OTRS. --Closeapple (talk) 07:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Newspaper advertisements from the 80s

Would this be subject to copyright? I know the answer might be obvious but I need to check as I'm already using two Non-Free items in the Die Hard article and I can't justify a third, but it would be relevant to commentary on marketing. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

This particular ad is probably copyrighted through the end of 2083. You were on the right track: U.S. law usually treats advertisements as separate works from the collective works (e.g. newspapers) that they appear in, and lots of them appear on Commons with Commons:Template:PD-US-no notice advertisement. However, next to the Fox logo in the lower right-hand corner, you will notice some words you can't read. Those words are almost certainly "© 19__ Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation". Works first published after 1977 with copyright notices on all authorized copies through February 1989 retain copyright without requiring copyright registration: For corporate works also created after 1977, that's 95 years from publication, which was probably 1988, so copyright runs to the end of 2083. --Closeapple (talk) 06:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Drat, that's a shame. Thanks for the thorough reply Closeapple. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Change of Heart (1993 film)

Hi, I uploaded a movie poster of this film for the infobox as I've done for dozens of others only for it to be removed this time. It's been a while since I did earlier ones, and I'm not sure what I've done wrong. Message is that there was no valid rationale but I know I wrote one, the same I've used many times before. Film posters are fair use for this purpose and pretty well every day stuff but the bot removed it ... Did I write my rationale in the wrong box or something? Did I miss a box?ZarhanFastfire (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

ZarhanFastfire: You did not write an actual rationale for this use just a statement that is was fair use. A prose rationale that editors used to use might have been regarded as sufficient. You are probably best to use this film poster specific template Template:Film poster rationale from this selection and then reinsert it into the article. ww2censor (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Rheem and Ruud logos

The image File:Rheem logo.svg is currently labeled as non-free content. Would the current version of the image (that was uploaded on June 22, 2020) be below the US threshold of originality? In addition, the image File:RUUD LOGO.png is indicated as being {{PD-textlogo}}. Is that correct?

Both images are currently used in the main infobox of the article Rheem Manufacturing Company. --Elegie (talk) 08:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I've always felt WP:TOO was more a continuum than a clear line. There are logos that clearly land on one side or the other and others that are less clear. If I were uploading those two logos, I would use {{PD-textlogo}} for Rheem, but not for RUUD. The previous version of the RUUD image was closer to TOO than the current version, again in my opinion.  ★  Bigr Tex 16:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Elegie: I agree entirely with BigrTex's opinion of both logos. They should be redone. ww2censor (talk) 10:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@BigrTex and Ww2censor: Thanks for the feedback. I have adjusted File:Rheem logo.svg to be {{PD-textlogo}} and I have adjusted File:RUUD LOGO.png to be non-free content.
For File:Rheem logo.svg, there is a previous version in the file history that was uploaded on March 22, 2013. Is that version of the logo likely to be below the US threshold of originality?
An issue that comes to mind for the current version File:Rheem logo.svg is whether the vectorization of the logo has its own copyright.
Is the usage of File:RUUD LOGO.png as non-free content in the main infobox of Rheem Manufacturing Company justified? Or is there an alternative logo that would be free content and which could be used instead? --Elegie (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Elegie: I've tagged File:Rheem logo.svg to be moved to the commons. The old version is out of date but was non-free and when the current logo was uploaded overwriting it that kept the non-free rational. An svg format of a freely licensed jpg or gif does not obtain a new copyright because there is no creativity in making such a slavish copy. I would not concern myself with that old version. However, I wonder if the RUUD logo is even warranted in the article now because they were bought out by Rheem in 1959, so that logo seems quite redundant and I don't see it being used anywhere anymore. ww2censor (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Crew_Dragon_Demo-1.png

Was wondering if it might be possible for this file as well as File:SpaceX Demo-2.png to be relicensed as {{PD-USGov-NASA}}? Both are patches for missions jointly operated by NASA and SpaceX and a similar patch was uploaded to Commons as File:Crew Dragon Demo-2 Patch.png. The Commons file and the Demo-2 file are both sourced to www.collectspace.com which seems to be more of a fansite than an official website for either NASA or SpaceX and which almost certainly doesn't hold the copyright (if such exists) on either patch despite claiming copyright over the other content it hosts. The Demo-1 file is sourced to SpaceX's official website which is claiming copyright over the content it hosts, and that seems legit. If the Commons file is incorrectly licensed and needs to go, then the two non-free probably need to stay as such; however, if the Commons file seems to be correctly licensed, then the two non-free might also be OK to convert to PD. If there's no chance of "Demo-1" file being relicensed as PD, then it's non-free use is going to need to sorted because two of the current uses don't appear to meet WP:NFCCP. Anyone have opinions on this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Interestingly, I can find the Commons patch on the NASA website in two places, but can't find either of the local files.  ★  Bigr Tex 03:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for finding that BigrTex. Either of those is a much better source to use for the Commons file instead of collectspace.com since it's an official NASA site and the file's provenance is less fuzzy. Workign with the information you provided above, I did find this which shows the Demo-1 patch. The same photo can also be found here on Flickr. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Image removal by bot

Hello, I have added an image under fair use for the Dobsonian telescope page, File:Teeter 16 image 1.jpeg. It keeps getting removed by the JJMC89 bot . I was referred to WP:IMAGERES, seemed a problem with the image resolution so I uploaded a much smaller file, under 100K pixels. The bot still deleted it.

Can someone can tell me what I'm doing wrong? Apparently I need a lesson :)

Thanks! Assambrew (talk) 03:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Assambrew, thank you for wanting to contribute to Wikipedia. Are you familiar with the Non-free content criteria? It is part of our third pillar, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is free content.
If I were reviewing the rationale you have provided, I would certainly have concerns about your approach to WP:NFCCP#1: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." If a Wikipedian could go out and take a picture of one of these telescopes, or find someone else to do so, and the photographer was willing to release it under one of our free licenses, we would be happy to include the picture. However, we eschew non-free images whenever possible.
If this was a notable telescope that had its own page and was destroyed before anyone could take a picture of it that they were willing to release, we might be willing to accept a non-free image of it.  ★  Bigr Tex 03:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
BigrTex, thanks for the quick response. I had read the criteria, didn't realize it was enforced so stringently. I figured, fair use means be fair in my use: explain where the image came from, etc. I have been a minor editor for many years, but had seldom uploaded images before. Live and learn.
The image is meant as an example of a custom-built commercial Dobsonian. Perhaps I will ask permission to release the copyright on the image. Thanks again. Assambrew (talk) 07:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Official Portraits

Can portraits from official government websites be considered free, do they fall under fair use, or can they not be used at all? If the rules depend on the government, I'm specifically asking about the image here of the current Slovak PM. Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 02:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ezhao02. Copyright laws vary from country to country so it's hard to give you one specific answer that will cover every situation for every country. For the US, content created by employees of the US Government as part of their official duties is generally considered to be within the public domain as explained in WP:PD#US government works; however, this might not be same for a country like Slovenia as explained in c:COM:Slovenia. Official photos of US public officials (or even officials from other countries) taken by US Government employees are going to be within the public domain almost every time; an official portrait, however, painted by someone else might not be depending upon the arrangement between the painter and the US Government. The image you link to above is a photo (not a portrait) and it might be PD given what's written in c:COM:Slovenia#Not protected, but not sure. Perhaps others will have a more definite opinion or you can also try asking at c:COM:VPC.
If such photos are not PD, then they would fall under the US concept of fair use but they would still almost certainly not be able to meet Wikipedia's non-free content use policy (see [[:WP:NFC#Background]) because of non-free content use criterion #1 (WP:FREER); so, you couldn't upload them to Wikipedia as non-free content. Non-free images of still living people are pretty much never considered OK for Wikipedia, particularly when they going to be used primary identification purposes, and I don't see any way around that with this type of image. The best you can probably hope for is that the Slovenian PM get photographed at some event and that the person who takes the photo releases it under a free license or its a photo taken in country (like the US) where official government photos are almost always PD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I think you meant Slovakia, not Slovenia. Thank you for your help, though. I'll look through those. Ezhao02 (talk) 02:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
​ So, sorry about that. Accordoing to c:COM:Slovakia there is c:Template:PD-SlovakGov, but there's no mention of photographs in that template. If you look at the bottom of the website you linked to which shows the photo, you will see a copyright notice, which might be an indication that all the content hosted by the website is considered "owned" by the Slovakian Government. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Ezhao02 (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed bot to help with copyright issues with Commons issues that are not PD-US

See discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests. (t · c) buidhe 08:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Signing ceremony for the Axis Powers Tripartite Pact;.jpg

This has been on my watchlist for literally years. I can't really make head or tail of the PD claims (and it was previously claimed as non-free). Is this PD? If not, should it be deleted? Josh Milburn (talk) 09:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Given that the Tripartite Pact was not signed until 1940, the current license, {{PD-US}} cannot be valid because there is no way for the image to have been published prior to 1925. I'm reasonably sure that does not answers all of your questions.  ★  Bigr Tex 03:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
J Milburn, This photograph is probably part of the Heinrich Hoffman collection at National Archives, which is {{PD-US-alien property}} and considered PD in US, but not in Europe as Hoffman died less than 70 years ago. (t · c) buidhe 08:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
@BigrTex: Yes, thanks; I agree that the current tagging is hardly informative! @Buidhe: Thanks, that's very useful. So it would be OK for the English Wikipedia, but not Wikimedia Commons? Do you think you could update the image page on that basis, or are you not confident enough about the attribution? Josh Milburn (talk) 09:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
J Milburn, I already did. (t · c) buidhe 09:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Apologies, was just coming back to thank you. We can consider this closed! Josh Milburn (talk) 09:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

www.piqsels.com

I uploaded an image from www.piqsels.com but it was deleted. License was: Free for personal & commercial use, CC0, public domain, royalty free. but there is no creation date or author? Is there a problem with this site? אלטר (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I find no evidence of such an upload by your account here at en-wiki. Can you provide additional information?  ★  Bigr Tex 02:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

A poster of "fugitives"

I would like to use this image [1] to illustrate this section: Gaza–Israel clashes (November 2018)#Photos_of_the_"fugitives". My question is if I'm permitted to do so under the fair use doctrine? The copyright holder is either Hamas or the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades and the montage is clearly meant to be disseminated. The image is a one-of-a-kind and there is no non-free image it could be replaced with. ImTheIP (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The question will be whether it meets WP:NFCCP#8, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." It's not clear to me that including the image provides context beyond what the sourced text in the section already provides. However, it has recently been pointed out to me repeatedly that significantly is subjective.  ★  Bigr Tex 03:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Albert Pike Memorial

After being on this article for several years, a bot removed File:Albert Pike statue protest.png citing "No valid non-free use rationale for this page." There's a rationale on the file and it passed a GA review so I'm confused. APK whisper in my ear 17:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no separate rational for the use on the Memorial page, which is required under WP:NFCCE. --Masem (t) 17:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
To add, you can write a separate rationale for this use on that page, you just need to duplicate the current rataionale template and adjust it a bit to reflect why you're using it at the monument page (which there is tied to the controversiers around the the statue , as documented there). --Masem (t) 17:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I just realized it was a redirect issue. Thanks. APK whisper in my ear 17:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
​​ I'm not sure it was a redirect issue since Brigadier General Albert Pike redirects to Albert Pike and not Albert Pike Memorial. The reason the bot was removing the file is because there was no rationale provided for the article about the memorial as Masem pointed out since the one you provided was techinically redirecting to a different article. You probably just added the wrong article name to the |article= when you uploaded the file; not a big mistake and one that you seemed to have fixed, but that's why the bot removed it. Nobody probably noticed the error until now (the use of images doesn't even seem to have been discussed in the GA review). FWIW, I think the bot has been set up to detect redirects and it wouldn't have removed the file if the article parameter link was redirecting to the article where the file was being used, but you'll have to ask JJMC89 about this since he runs the bot. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Brigadier General Albert Pike was the name of the article for nine years until it was moved to Statue of Albert Pike, then moved again for further clarity to Albert Pike Memorial. So it was definitely a redirect issue, I just made the mistake of not fixing the redirect on the image page. Oops. APK whisper in my ear 15:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
That would be it. The file checker bots should follow the redirects and not complain on that but when there are weird page moves and redirects aren't left appropriately, the bot can't work those out itself and will cause that to happen. --Masem (t) 15:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
@AgnosticPreachersKid: That explains everything. I didn't catch that there were multiple moves involved. This kind of thing often happens when articles with non-free images are moved/merged/split. Often the last thing that people think to check is whether the rationale needs to be tweaked as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Vampire Diaries Photos

I see you removed the cast photos from The Vampire Diaries Universe page. I can understand them being removed, but I pulled these photos directly from the individual shows' pages where they have been for years without removal. So shouldn't they be removed from there too?--Jonathan Joseph (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jonathanjoseph81. It's not clear exactly which files or which articles you asking about since you didn't provide any links, but generally it could be a case of WP:OTHERIMAGE and WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED. The use of non-free file in articles isn't automatic and there are ten criteria which need to be satisfied each time such a file is used; so, it's possible that a non-free file might be considered OK to use in one particular article or in one particular way, but not OK in other articles or in other ways. For example, a non-free image of a record album might be considered OK to use for primary identification purposes in the main infobox or atthe top of a stand-alone article about the album itself, but it might not be considered OK to be used in other related articles, e.g. an article about the band who recorded the album, a general article about a music genre, a list article about similar albums.
Not all files you see on Wikipedia are licensed the same, and there are lots of restrictions on non-free use that most editors aren't aware of; so, they just assume it's OK to add a file the see being used on one page to other pages. Sometimes it can take awhile for such a thing to be noticed by someone and the file removed; this might seem confusing, but usually there's a good reason for it. Perhaps if you check the page history of the relevant articles, you'll find an edit summary explaining why the files were removed. If the file was removed by a bot or someone experienced in file related matters, there should be an edit summary explaining why the file was removed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

FARC

Why is the Farc logo removed from FARC Dissidents? it claims to be the same organisation, and uses the same insignia. Norschweden (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Norschweden. Each use of a non-free file is required to have a separate specific non-free use rationale per WP:NFCC#10c; so, if a non-free file is being used in more that one article or being used more than once in the same article, then a rationale specific to these additional uses needs to be added to the file's page. Files lacking the required rationale for a particular use can be removed per WP:NFCCE; this is why the bot is removing the file and what the edit summary it left here means. Simply continuing to re-add the file to an article without providing a valid rationale for its use is going to only lead to the file continuing to be removed by the bot or human editor. It's OK if you weren't aware of this since non-free use can be tricky; if, however, you keep re-adding the file to the article without providing the required rationale each time it's removed, you run risk of being blocked by an administrator. You can stop the bot from removing the file by adding a rationale for the use in FARC dissidents to the file's page; adding a rationale, however, doesn't automatically make a particular use policy compliant as explained in WP:JUSTONE, which means that a human editor could challenge the validity of the use by tagging the file for review or starting a discussion about it at WP:FFD.
For future reference, when a bot removes a file it almost always because that's what the bot is being set up to do. Bots are set up to look for files that have issues and they almost always leave an edit summary explaining why they are doing something; so, if you come across a bot edit and are not sure about it, it's better to ask someone (e.g the bot operator, a WP:PNB) for clarification or address the reason why the bot did what it did. If you simply revert the bot, it will do the same thing on its next run since the same issues remain. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
thanks, but then annother question, why is it not free? it's the logo of a terrorist organisation Norschweden (talk) 03:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
What one person considers to be a terrorist organization another person might see as a bunch of freedom fighters, but I'm not sure any of that matters when it comes to copyright law per se since copyright laws can and often due vary from country to country quite a bit. Copyright laws seem to focus more on things like how long ago something was created and how creative its elements are as opposed to what something is being used to represent; there may be moral rights or other types of non-copyright restrictions in play, but those are things that are often treated independently of copyright status. This is only my understanding of things and it might not be totally correct; so, perhaps someone else will be able to clarify things.
Anyway, from the article FARC, it appears that the organization (at least the primary part of it) has switched over (or is attempting to switchover) to being more of a political organization. Even so, if you feel the file should be freely licensed, you can change the licensing if you want; before you do so, however, you might want to ask at c:COM:VPC since Commons is where the file is most likely going end up needing to be moved if it is. As currently licensed though, the file is going to keep being removed from any articles for which it is lacking a valid non-free use rationale. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Acceptable image size for non-free image

Please help me with a query about acceptable non-free image size. This page does not tell me the answer: [[2]]

I contributed this image: [[3]] to provide a photo of a deceased notable person.

Initially, through ignorance, I put up the full quality file. A warning message

appeared explaining that I should use a smaller resolution.

So I uploaded a very small reduced file only 400x372 pixels. But now the Non-free reduce warning has appeared again and I don't know how to fix it?

I can find nowhere where it says what the actual size should be for this purpose - a photo of a deceased person in the infobox. I based the 400 width on the largest thumbnail. There is no explanation in WP:IMAGERES of what actual size I should use or what size the resizing bot uses, and I have not seen any sign of the bot working despite waiting several days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cotswold Tiger (talk • contribs)

As IMAGERES points out, we're looking at the total pixel count in an image, and because image have a wide variety of aspect ratios, we can't tell you want that means in width or height. We want to keep images generally under 100,000 total pixels, so a 400x372 pixel images would be over that (148,800). You will need to reduce the width to about 325 pixels (height will come up to be about 302 pixels) to get under that. --Masem (t) 21:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks Masem for the explanation, I have reduced the image to 325x302 and hope the image will now be accepted.

Characters in the URAA

If there is no record for GATT/URAA restoration, does anyone who discuss about the GATT/URAA restored copyrighted characters like Noddy, the Smurfs, Hello Kitty, and Godzilla. For example, in 2003, the copyright of the Troll doll was restored by the URAA, a U.S. legislation that gives copyright protection on certain foreign works that are public domain and U.S. --ZmeytheDragon16 (talk) 04:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

URAA copyright restoration was automatic, no record needed to be made. In short, anything by a foreign author out of copyright in the US on January 1 1996 but in copyright in the foreign country became under copyright in the US as if it was published on that date. As such the copyright situation is not well explained in Troll doll: "In 2003, the Dam company restored the United States copyrights for this brand, stopping unlicensed production". However, if any work was in copyright in the US on the URAA date its copyright would have continued. At a glance it looks to me as if all these characters are in US copyright. See Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Commons:URAA-restored copyrights and Hirtle. Thincat (talk) 08:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Too Much and Never Enough

I uploaded the book cover of Too Much and Never Enough under the claim of fair use at File:Too_Much_and_Never_Enough.jpg. The file is now orphaned because another editor uploaded the file to Commons at File:Too_Much_and_Never_Enough_Front_Cover_(2020_first_edition).jpg, claiming that it is ineligible for copyright. The book cover consists of a public domain photo, File:Donald_Trump_NYMA.jpg, and words. My question is, is this book cover actually exempt from copyright, or should I restore the fair use version? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The Commons book cover image looks pretty secure to me but it could get deleted either by a successful challenge to the photograph's copyright status or a claim that the layout of the text on the cover is sufficiently creative as to attract copyright. I think it would survive a Commons:Deletion request but you can never be sure. I suggest leaving things but if the commons file gets deleted ask for your WP upload to be restored because your fair use claim will have been unwittingly validated by Commons. I know this is absurd but so are our image handling procedures. Thincat (talk) 09:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Thincat, yeah it's an unclear process. Thanks for your feedback. I'll let the file be deleted. If the image is deleted, I can restore the fair use version myself, as an admin. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Wondering why the AMP logo has been removed from the article on AMP Life

Hi there, this [4] change was made to the article on AMP Life. The logo was thus removed. But the logo has existed on wkp for many years and is the logo that is adopted by the new entity. My understanding is that many "images of logos are used on Wikipedia and long-standing consensus is that it is acceptable for Wikipedia to use logos belonging to others for encyclopedic purposes." I'm no lawyer and honestly, I found the article you linked to quite hard to follow. Can you explain the issue here and how it might be resolved?The Little Platoon (talk) 07:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi The Little Platoon. There are 10 criteria that a non-free file needs to satisfy each time it’s used in an article. If it fails any one of these criteria, the particular use is not considered policy compliant and the file can be removed and or deleted. One of these is criterion #10, which has three parts. Part C states that a separate specific non-free use rationale is required for each use and that’s the reason why the bot removed the file from that article. If you recheck the WP:NFC#Implementation link the bot left in it’s edit summary, you’ll find pretty much the same information there. Files which are missing rationales can be removed per WP:NFCCE. The bot has been tasked with finding files missing rationales for some uses and removing such files when it finds them. When you created AMP Life and added the logo to the infobox without the required rationale, it showed up on the bot’s list of files to check. Since the bot didn’t find the rationale when it got to that file on its list, it removed the file. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: okay that makes sense - thanks for explaining it. I'll get to work on the rationale.The Little Platoon (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I am in the midst of writing a Wikipedia article for NeosVR, a social VR metaverse. I want to use NeosVR's Logo as part of my article, and I have obtained written permission from Solirax (NeosVR's publisher and designers) to do so on Wikipedia. To comply with Wikipedia's standards on copyrighted work, how should I go best uploading and using these? Should I upload them or is that best done by Solirax?

Thank you, TheSaucyPizza TheSaucyPizza (talk) 03:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

TheSaucyPizza: Release of an image for wikipedia use alone if not acceptable. It must be released under a free licence we accept. However, normally logos are allowed for identification in the infobox of an article about the organisation, product, game, album, etc., under our strict non-free policy. Also see WP:NFC and WP:FUR. You would normally use this template Template:Non-free use rationale 2. Do not upload this image before the article has been accepted into mainspace and not when it is a draft, otherwise it will be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 10:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Isaac Delano

Hi! I just made a new article Isaac Delano and I found a photo of Chief Delano on the "Isaac O. Delano Foundation" Facebook page, supposedly posted by one of his grandchildren or descendants. I am not sure if I can use this photo, any advice? Oniwe (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Oniwe

@Oniwe: You should be able to use the image under fair use. Go to "upload file" on the left hand side of the screen; in the wizard select the "fair use" option and "historic portrait" in the rationale. The other fields should be relatively clear; if you have any questions, leave me a message on my talk page. Vahurzpu (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Images from stage performances

I found out that Ondine (ballet) uses an old poster, so now I'm confused about under what circumstance and how can I upload images and posters from stage performances. Corachow (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Also am I allowed to use File:Fille Mal Gardee -Royal -Nerina & Blair -2.JPG, File:Fille Mal Gardee -Royal.jpg or File:Fille Mal Gardee -Royal -Sara Lamb and Martin Hrvey.jpg for La fille mal gardée (Ashton)? It seems like someone removed it from the page, but remained on commons, because of WP:NFCC. The photos were taken from that production. Corachow (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • If you want to use those images in another article, you will need to create a rationale for each one. They will need to meet all ten criteria at WP:NFCCP.  ★  Bigr Tex 03:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

TV/film reviews that link to copyright violations

WP:COPYVIO and WP:COPYVIOEL seem pretty clear that we should not be directing our readers to any material which is potentially a copyright violation, but I'm wondering just where the limits of this are. Concretely, I've been seeing some articles in online publications lately which link to YouTube videos that are copyright violations—but I believe the articles themselves are covered under fair use. I can link to a particular example I've stumbled across but to err cautiously I won't do this unless it's necessary. Here's the style of thing I'm talking about:

In Television Show 3, the protagonist famously calls the deuteragonist a "flower-sniffer", a word which later entered the public consciousness. [30-second YouTube video of that scene] It is not only a memorable line but one which reflects the characters' relationships perfectly. [3 paragraphs of critical analysis of the scene and the storylines and characterization leading up to it] [30-second video of a related scene] [2 paragraphs about the phrase's later use outside of the program]

So it's an article with substantial commentary and criticism which likely makes the inline YouTube videos acceptable fair use. However, if one is to go to YouTube directly then one is watching a copyright violation, as there is no reasonable fair use on the part of the person who uploaded the clip.

One possible answer is "reliable sources don't use copyright violations in this way" and that's not out of the question, but I've been seeing this on the sorts of websites like Inverse, ScreenRant or Collider (not necessarily these exact websites because I can't remember the cases I've found in the past) that I believe have widespread acceptance as reliable for critical analysis (and indeed the article I found lately would be very useful for expanding a particular episode article).

Is my understanding of fair use correct here and is it acceptable to use these articles as references? — Bilorv (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Because fair use in the US is a defense and not a hard set of allowances or disallowances, we really can't judge when a source's use of copyright material they don't own exceeds fair use allowances. We should keep in mind the four points of fair use in the US: purpose of the work using the copyrighted material (eg is it educational, critical, satire?), nature of the work, extent of the work used, and the impact on the work's commercial value. If we linked to a reliable source that as part of a critical review of a film included a 2 minute clip of that film within its body, or if in a video format, within that, that's likely within fair use - the movie studio with the rights may not consider that - but for use it seems reasonable, and if it is a relevant source, we should use it and not worry about the fair use problems. On the other hand, linking to these new "reaction" videos that basically include the entire work and the person's comments atop it beg the question of fair use and we probably shouldn't use those. (and they're probably not reliable in the first place). So basically I would say, consider that if the copyright usage at the target article makes sense within reasonable fair use rights (not lawyered to the extreme).
And there, in general, if a site has been deemed reliable, with an editorial team, usually that editorial team has taken on to make sure they are respecting fair use as well; that is, I've rarely seen sites known to be RSes to incorporate unlicensed copyrighted content that fair exceeds reasonable fair use allowances. But one still should be careful, and not blindly assume this. --Masem (t) 14:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the general advice. The latest example I found of this is (includes Breaking Bad spoilers up to the finale) [5], which has a total of 3 minutes of Breaking Bad footage from YouTubers of dubious origin (plus one official video). I'll add it to Crawl Space (Breaking Bad) if there's no specific objections to this use case. — Bilorv (talk) 09:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Photo of a ship

I have inherited a photo of a Royal Navy ship taken in 1943. I believe it was taken by the captain of the ship whilst he was physically in command of it. Is it reasonable to use the justification that "Photographs taken, or artworks created, by a member of the forces during their active service duties are covered by Crown Copyright provisions. Faithful reproductions may be reused under that licence, which is considered expired 50 years after their creation"? Jll (talk) 10:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jll: the wording of the 1998 Copyright, Design & Patents Act is "Where a work is made by Her Majesty or by an officer or servant of the Crown in the course of his duties" (s 163). If the officer's duties included taking official photographs of the ship then yes it probably is covered by Crown Copyright. However if his official duties don't include photography then this is just a personal photograph and the copyright is his, not the Crown's. Unless you can establish the former then I think it's more likely that this is a personal photo not an official one. You say you inherited it. Do you mean purchased/swapped or inherit as in passed down by a will? If you genuinely inherited it then as the heir you also inherit the copyright so you can release the image into the public domain or release it under a creative commons licence. Nthep (talk) 11:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Photos from BBC under WP:NFCI No.8 on Akku Yadav

Hello. I'm doing a GAN review of Akku Yadav. The article uses two images:

WP:NFCI No.8 reads in part:

  • Note that if the image is from a press or photo agency (e.g., AP, Corbis or Getty Images) and is not itself the subject of critical commentary, it is assumed automatically to fail the "respect for commercial opportunity" test.

Is the BBC a press or photo agency? CC: Statik N. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 21:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Psiĥedelisto i think i must've used the wrong link or the photo disappeared from the article. Statik N (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
@Statik N: I don't know what you mean. It is on Outlook India also, but the original source is BBC. Outlook India is using it without attribution. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 01:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
To try and answer your question. I don't think new organizations like the BBC are considered to be press or photo agencies in the context of WP:NFCC#2 since they aren't really in the business of selling or licensing photos for a fee. They may do so sometimes as part of their normal business activities, but it's probably not their main function. There might, however, be a problem with WP:NFCC#4 if there are concerns about someone uploading/publishing another persons copyrighted work without their permission; but, once the photo was published by the BBC, other news organizations probably were OK to use it per fair use or fair dealing. They probably should be attirbuting the original source of the work, but if they're not then that's a problem that the BBC will have to resolve. For Wikipedia purposes, it's probably OK to simply mention the original source on the file's description page or provide a link to the original source instead of a convenience link.
My personal opinion is that those two photos being used outside of the infobox seem questionable when it comes to WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#CS) and might not survive an WP:FFD discussion about them. The crowd photo in particular seem to be rather WP:DECORATIVE since a non-free photos of crowd scenes of random people are rarely considered to meet not only NFCC#8, but also WP:NFCC#1 (WP:FREER). Although the crime scene photo seems a little more plausible, it's still a bit of reach in my opinion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Marchjuly I do remember always to link where i found the photo. maybe i made a mistake or maybe the photo isn't in the article anymore. maybe it appeared on google images but not in the article. Statik N (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
BBC usually adds credit. If you look at the source of the article, you can see that the crowd image is claimed to be to "Ranjit Deshmukh" who would appear to be a photo editor at Times of India. But beyond that I can't find more. It would unlikely be from a press corp (Gettys) source so in this type of case, NFCC#2 isn't a problem, but I would tend to agree on Marchjuly's point if these are necessary images per NFCC#8. --Masem (t) 04:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
@Masem and Marchjuly: Thank you all for the help. Statik N agreed to remove the images, and I passed Akku Yadav as a WP:GA. 🥳 Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 02:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm reviewing the article Bounce Scooter Share. It includes the company's logo (File:Bounce Logo.png), which has been uploaded by a user claiming copyright for it as their own work. This seems unlikely to me, but I don't know for sure. How should this be handled? Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a Commons file so technically it needs to be resolved over there. It's the only file uploaded by that particular Commons account; so, it could just be a good-faith misunderstanding of c:COM:L and the meaning of "own work". You could add c:Template::No permission since to the file so as to let the uploader know that some sort of formal verification of their copyright ownership claim is needed. You could also start a c:COM:DR so as to get feedback from other members of the Commons community. One thing about the logo is that it's fairly simple and it might actually be considered WP:PDFONT per c:COM:TOO United States and c:COM:TOO India. The logo is pretty much the company name without any really complex elements to it, so it definitely seems too simple to be eligible for copyright protection in the US; Commons files, however, need to be "free" in their country of original as well and India is one of those countries whose c:COM:TOO might fall between the US and c:COM:TOO United Kingdom depending on how old the logo is. The logo can be seen here; so, it is the company's official logo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Great, thanks @Marchjuly: I'll add the NPD tag and start a discussion, let's see what comes out the other end. :) Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Potential WP:NFCC violation of File:Vivaldi browser 1.8 session in use.png

This screenshot is under the claim of fair use, but freely licensed screenshots exist at https://vivaldi.com/press, so it potentially violates WP:NFCC#1. However, no matching screenshot appears to exist at that page (also with WP:NFCC#1), so I'm not sure if it is still eligible for deletion per WP:CSD#F7. Should the screenshot be left intact or subjected for deletion via {{subst:rfu|Freely licensed screenshots exist at https://vivaldi.com/press}}? Ntx61 (talk) 02:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The page you link to with screenshots has "© Vivaldi Technologies™ — All rights reserved." at the foot of it. Are you sure they are freely licensed? Thincat (talk) 07:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
@Thincat: The page itself explicitly states that the "screenshots and image resources on this page are released under the CC-BY-4.0 (Creative Commons Attribution 4.0) licence"; also, see c:File:Vivaldi Browser 3.0.jpg and its page history. Ntx61 (talk) 07:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh, yes. I had gone straight to the end of the page to look! I think the two statements are compatible: they hold copyright and reserve rights to do things such as licensing. However they have licensed these particular screenshots as CC-BY-4.0. So those on the web page can be uploaded if anyone wants and, because of that, the existing file should most likely be deleted unless it has some special justification. Thincat (talk) 08:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
@Thincat: File nominated for deletion per WP:CSD#F7. Ntx61 (talk) 09:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Questions on Filipino Government Works

Per {{Non-free Philippines government}}, Filipino Government works are unfree as Republic Act 8293 (Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines) forbids the use of government works for commercial purposes. However, another Commons template, c:Template:PD-PhilippinesGov stated that all Filipino Government works are in public domain (and relevant deletion requests are on c:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-PhilippinesGov and c:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-PhilippineGov). Here comes a contradiction on whether Filipino Government works can be accepted as free works.

So, can works like File:The AFP Medal of Valor.jpg tagged under {{Non-free Philippines government}} be moved to Commons as free files? And how to deal with Commons works tagged under c:Template:PD-PhilippinesGov that are used on English Wikipedia (i.e. remove them from articles?)?廣九直通車 (talk) 04:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

There's been some disagreement over this for quite some time between Commons and (English) Wikipedia. One discussion I remember is Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 64#Philippine government works, but I there are others that go back as far as 2006. I've seen quite a number of files which were uploaded locally as non-free to Wikipedia, turn up at Commons as PD which leads to the local files deletion per WP:F10. For those files still around that were uploaded locally as non-free content, they're probably OK as such as long as the way they're being used in articles complies with WP:NFCCP; problems, however, can develop when editors start adding them (in good faith for the most part) to pages where non-free use is never allowed (e.g. userpages, templates, portals) or try using them in ways which are tend to be problematic per WP:NFCC#8 (e.g. list articles, as infobox flag icons). Not sure what the solution is since everytime it comes up, there's a bit of discussion which usually ends up archived without anything be really resolved. The same thing happens with lots of things related to the NFCCP.
FWIW, files like File:The AFP Medal of Valor.jpg might be a bit trickier to deal with because of c:COM:CB#Jewelry. There might be two copyrights involved even if medal is PD for reasons similar to those given in c:COM:Replicas of PD artworks. Neither Commons nor Wikipedia is going to accept a files that is not 100% "free"; so, unless the photo itself is considered a slavish copy, permission might be needed for that as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Can I use a picture from a newspaper?

I want to write an article on Emile Benoist, a spree-shooter in Hackettstown, NJ. There's not a whole lot of sources, but I'm going to see what I can dig up as I am local. Anyway, would I be able to use the only picture of him I've been able to find (https://www.newspapers.com/clip/56164076/) which originates from the Allentown, PA Morning Call Newspaper? It appears to be a school photo, but there's no way to know its origin beyond the newspaper, and there's no photo credit in the article. I know I may be hampered by a lack of sources, as that is the only photo I have found, but I just want to know if it can be used in an article. "Yes...It's Raining" 07:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Yesitsraining. If Benoist is still living and you didn't take the photo yourself, then you'd need the WP:CONSENT of the person who did in order for it to be used. You can find out some more information about this at c:Commons:OTRS. Without the CONSENT of the copyright holder, the file could only be uploaded as non-free content; however, non-free photos of still living persons are almost never allowed per non-free content use criterion #1. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for answering. No, he's not alive - he killed himself at the end of his shooting spree. How does that change the guidelines?"Yes...It's Raining" 08:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Non-free file’s of deceased persons can sometime be used per item 10 of WP:NFCI as long as the particular use satisfies all ten non-free content use criteria listed at WP:NFCCP. Non-free files, however, can only be used in articles; so, if no Wikipedia article has been created about this person yet, then you shouldn’t try and upload any non-free photos of him until one has. — Marchjuly (talk) 09:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I hope I'm not being annoying and I appreciate your help. I want to be the person to write that article AND upload that image to include it with the article. So, if I were to create an article on this subject, would I be able to include the picture in the article? Thanks for helping!"Yes...It's Raining" 09:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Just as there’s no guarantee that any article you create won’t end up deleted for one reason or another, there’s no guarantee that any non-free images you upload to use in such an article won’t end up being deleted. Articles aren’t required to have images, but non-free images are required to be used in at least one article per WP:NFCC#7. So, my suggestion to you would be to first create an article which will survive WP:AFD, and then figure if a non-free image can be used. As long as there’s no reasonable expectation of a free equivalent image being created or found which can serve the same encyclopedic purpose as a non-free one, it should be OK. However, as long as there’s no article to use the image, uploading it will only lead to it being speedily deleted per WP:F5. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Gotcha. Thanks a million!"Yes...It's Raining" 10:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Radio Station ID Check?

Looking for advice/opinion on potential copyright issues with uploading a recording of a top-of-the-hour ID for a radio station. I found some old recordings and thought it would be a good addition to an article, and while I think it would be at least fair use I'd appreciate others' opinions. To be clear, all I'm talking about is audio of stating the station call letters, city of license, and slogan with an SFX bed under it. Thanks Carter (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Tcr25. The general concept of fair use is similarly to Wikipedia's concept of non-free content in many ways, but it's not the entirely same thing as explained in WP:NFC#Background and WP:ITSFAIRUSE. Since the recordings you're asking about seem to be "non-free content", you're going to have to establish how their use meets Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. Wikipedia does allow short audio files to be uploaded as explained in WP:NFC#Audio clips, but each clip will still need to satisfy all ten non-free content use criteria. There are a couple of these criteria which might be hard to meet when it comes to such clips (at least as you've described them above).
The first possible issue has to do WP:NFCC#1 (WP:FREER) in that even though the clips themselves might be copyrighted, it might be possible to for a free alternative way of providing the same information to be used instead of a non-free file. If the clips are basically a recording of the station's ID/call letters and it's slogan, then most likely the same information could just as easily be understood through simple text (text is an acceptable alternative to non-free content) supported by a citation to a reliable source.
The next possible issue has to do with WP:NFCC#3 (WP:NFC#Multimedia). If there's some kind of background music playing in the background, then that might introduce additional copyright eligible elements that need to be considered. There's also the length of the clips that would need to be considered since anything deemed to be too is not unlikely going to be deemed minimal use.
WP:NFCC#4 might be an issue if you the clips you want to upload are coming from a website which hosts user-generated content per WP:YOUTUBE and WP:ELNEVER because quite bit of content uploaded to such sites is usually done without the consent of the original copyright holder. If the audio is sourced from a radio station's original website or official social media account, then this would probably not be an issue. If , on the other hand, it's just some website or YouTube channel maintained by fans, etc., then it could be.
Finally, the last thing might have to do with WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#CS). Even if there's something really unique about the recording (the DJ's voice, etc.), it might still be a case of WP:NOTEVERYTHING which might not really be necessary for the reader's of the article to know; nice perhaps to hear, but not really necessarily something that would be considered to significantly improve the reader's understanding of the article. Most likely you would need to see whether you can find any sourced critical commentary about the particular audio clip (not the station, but actual discussion about the clip itself) which could be added to the article so that there's a good contextual reason for the reader to hear the clip. Simply adding the clip with a caption just because the reader might find it interesting is likely going to be considered a bit WP:DECORATIVE.
The thing about these 10 non-free content use criteria is that they all are expected to be met for each use; so, if even WP:JUSTONE doesn't, then the use is considered to be non-free compliant.
I've just given you a bit of a general answer and some things to think about. I'm not trying to discourage you, but non-free content use is by it's very nature considered quite exception for the most part and there generally needs to be a very solid policy based justification for using it. If perhaps you can provide more specifics, someone else can perhaps give you a more specific answer. There is a Wikiproject called Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations where you might also get some additional feedback. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Marchjuly, I figured it would be a marginal case, probably a WP:NOTEVERYTHING situation. Carter (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Leonard Hofstadter.jpg

Hello, tell me please if I can use this image in my commertial Social Media. Of course with credit to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.248.199.136 (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry no. The image is used on Wikipedia under Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. As Wikipedia does not own the copyright on the image nobody here can give you permission for you to use it elsewhere. Nthep (talk) 12:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

File:TIGER 21 Logo Wobble.jpg

Any reason why this needs to remain non-free? Country of origin is the US and it appears to be nothing more than a simple shape with perhaps some color gradiation added. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2020/July&oldid=1138542490"