Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2020/May

< Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Is this PD-text? File:Never Have I Ever Title Card.png

This image consists of yellow text on a red background. Does this make it {{PD-text}}? Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 05:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Qzekrom, yes, {{PD-simple}} applies here, as a few words in a fairly standard font isn't original enough to qualify for copyright protection. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 08:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
@Qzekrom: Yes, it fails the treshold of originality. It only exists of text in a certain font and colours. Neither are eligible for copyright protection on themselves, and neither are a combination of the two sufficient. --MrClog (talk) 09:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I imported the image to Commons. --MrClog (talk) 09:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Audio

What is the WP-position on linking to this [1] audio in an article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gråbergs Gråa Sång. I'm not sure if there's a WP position per se other than it would depend on whether the audio is copyrighted and whether it has been released under a free license if it is per WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files. Audio files can be uploaded as WP:NFC per WP:NFC#Audio clips and WP:NFC#Multimedia, but these generally only tend to be very short clips whose non-free use is considered to meet the all ten WP:NFCCP. A freely-licensed or PD audio clip could probably be uploaded to Commons per c:COM:CB#Music and c:COM:Hirtle#Sound recordings, but it seems unlikely any of that would be OK for a podcast from 2007 or even for an original work from 1947. A copyrighted podcast could possibly be cited as a RS and even linked to in the citation if there were no problems with WP:ELNEVER, but it can still be cited as a RS per WP:SAYWHERE without a link to the podcast itself. Even if the podcast was freely licensed, it still wouldn't really be appropriate to embed a link to it in the body of the article per WP:CS#Avoid embedded links and WP:EL#cite_note-7, but it could be added to the "External links" section or maybe even added by using {{External media}} as long as ELNEVER isn't a concern. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Marchjuly, I should have been more specific. EL is what I had in mind in an article about the work. Since this is originally from Decca Records, is it reasonable to consider it a European sound recording and so in the public domain? I don't think Brexit has changed that, at least not yet. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Nevermind, I found an alternative. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

File:MusqueamPark.jpg

While I am definitely not sure if this is necessary on Wikipedia (and only saw it because I was browsing files with no license information and decided to actually make an account), the license is a derivative of the OGL 2.0 for BC for all data in the vanmap property viewer. Unfortunately, the last time I've actually dug into WP was many many years ago, so I can't figure out how to actually provide that information on the file itself. Given it's due for deletion today/tomorrow, if someone could at least rectify this (so I can come back and see how it's done!) I'd appreciate it. Berchanhimez (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  • well, forgot to actually link to where their website says that license specifically applies to maps.vancouver.ca, so here is that link. I should go to bed now instead of spending all night rummaging through WP. Berchanhimez (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
    We have open government license tags on Commons, though not for the Vancouver version. It seems like we only have OGL license tags for the UK here on Wikipedia. --MrClog (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Moving images to common

Hi everyone! The following images are in public domain and marked as candidates for Wikimedia Commons. Why are they not copied to Commons yet? Can I copy the images? --Lomogorov (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EllaEwing2.JPG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EllaEwingPoster.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EllaEwing3.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EllaEwing1.jpg

Image copyright

I'm curious about the copyright status of this image, maybe someone here could advise? File:Fabian Ware.jpg, published on 27 October 1916, is it in public domain? Also curious about the image here, which was taken on 1 August 1932. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The first picture was created by Alexander Bassano, who died in 1913. Because it was published before 30 June 1957 and the author died more than 70 years ago, it is in the public domain in the UK. It is also in the public domain in the US (published before 1925). You can use commons:Template:PD-old-auto-expired on Commons as a license. W.r.t. to the second picture, do you have any authorship information? --MrClog (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
MrClog, Thanks for the response, I've not seen anything about the authorship, but I'll look. the CWGC is particularly unhelpful in aspects like this, I've found. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
@Eddie891: The photograph of MajGen Sir Fabian Ware was published after A. Bassano's death. It seems like "Bassano Ltd" includes other photographers than A. Bassano. However, because I couldn't find any authorship information, and because it was published more than 70 years ago, it is in the PD as an anonymous work. It is also in the PD in the US. There is a high-quality version of the image available at commons, File:Sir Fabian Ware.png. I will replace the fair use version with this one at the article Fabian Ware. With regards to the second picture, if you cannot find authorship information, it would have entered the PD in 2002, after the URAA restoration date (1996). Therefore, it is still copyrighted in the US (though not in the UK), and can therefore not be uploaded here or on Commons, except for fair use. MrClog (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
MrClog, Hmmm... How about this image? It was taken in 1922, when King George V visited Tyne Cot cemetery. See [2] and [3] Eddie891 Talk Work 19:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
@Eddie891: The picture's copyright belongs to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, headquartered in the UK. Because the copyright isn't owned by a natural person and the photograph was published before 1 June 1957, the copyright has expired in the UK (publication date + 70 years). It was also published before 1925, so the copyright has expired in the US. You can upload it to Commons and use the same template I used at Commons for Ware's picture, and just need to set the paramter to the right publication year. --MrClog (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
MrClog, How does this look here? Eddie891 Talk Work 20:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Eddie891, looks good. --MrClog (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Air Senegal Logo.svg

Would like some input on this file's licensing? If File:Air Senegal logo.png is {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} because it falls below c:COM:TOO#United States, then a svg version of basically the same logo should also be "PD-ineligible-USonly". The svg does have some additional text added, but text is generally a non-copyrightable element for logos such as this and the primary imagery is the same per c:COM:2D copying. Now, if the only reason that the svg is licensed as {{non-free logo}} is because the file is in svg format and the uploader is claiming copyright over that, then the file would fail WP:NFCC#1 (per WP:FREER and WP:NFC#Multiple restrictions) and it cannot be kept since anyone could create a svg of the same image and uploaded it under a free license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly, perhaps you are right, maybe the logo should be {{PD-logo}} and {{Trademark}}. The reason I tagged it as non-free when I uploaded it was because I thought the icon might just have passed the threshold of originality, but I wasn't sure. I definitely didn't create the logo, I extracted it from a PDF with Illustrator, which I can't claim copyright for. Maybe it's too simple? — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 06:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
@Berrely and Marchjuly: I'm inclined to say that there is reasonable doubt as to whether the logo meets the TOO. Specifically, the shading that gives the work a "3D look" combined with the geometric shapes in different colours, may be the minimum amount of creativity necessary for copyright protection. I would say it should be kept as a non-free file, because its states with regards to the TOO is unclear. See also this ruling by the US Copyright Office. MrClog (talk) 08:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Can I use this image in the Coin World article?

File:CoinWorldAug2018.jpeg

Just in the article on the magazine itself.

yes you could justify that, use a typical magazine cover to help identify the magazine. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Question about adding copyrighted (NFCC) images to articles

Hello all! I was trying to add a few images to some Wikipedia pages I wrote and another user reversed my additions. Before I go to dispute resolution, any of the resources here, and in order to avoid an edit war, I'd like to know if I'm justified in adding these images to these pages:

I'd just like another opinion on this, as I'm not really sure what to do, or even how to add NFCC images to articles in the future without them being removed.

I look forward to hearing from you.Historyday01 (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

For Princess Knight, the answer is no, as the image is not used for identification or being commented on by the article, it would just be decoration. I suspect the answer for the others is also no. Non Free images are supposed to be minimal in use, and decoration is not justified. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi Historyday01. I believe this has to do with your discussion with JJMC89 on his user talk page. You seem to be trying to add quite a number of non-free images to a more general type of list or genre/history article about LGBTQ animated series, which just at first glance is going to be pretty hard to justify per WP:NFCC. We are encouraged to try and use non-free content as minimally as much as possible and use free equivalents or alternatives as much as we can, even if these means using simple text and Wikilinks in lieu of any image at all. So, we might be able to justify the use of a non-free title card or a image of various animated characters for primary identification purposes in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article about a particular TV series or a particular article about the characters themselves, but that single use is already considered to be rather exceptional per WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files. This doesn't mean that a non-free file can only be used once, but it does often mean the additional uses tend to be much harder to justify and simply adding a non-free use rationale for them is not automatically sufficient. The main issue I see with the way you're trying to use these files have to do with WP:NFCC#1 (WP:FREER), WP:NFCC#3 (e.g. item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI) and WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#CS). While the individual series themselves might be worth discussing within a "History of ..." type of article, the use of such images might not necessary for the reader to understand that article unless the image itself (not the series) is the subject of sourced critical commentary. If not, then links back to the primary article about the relevant subject matter are often considered to be more than sufficient per NFCC#1. Others might feel differently than I do about this, and you can seek further input by starting a discussion a WP:FFD. There does seem to be a long-standing consensus through various FFD and other discussions over the years to not really allow this type of non-free use in list articles, genre articles, history articles or more general types of articles and instead limit such use to stand-alone articles about the primary subject matter.
As for bringing this up for discussion at ANI or DR, you can if you like; you should, however, keep WP:BOOMERANG and try to avoid commenting on other editors and instead stick to commenting on content, and also keep WP:NFCCE in mind in that the onus is upon you to establish a consensus that the files' uses in these articles is justified and that even not meeting one of the ten non-free content use criteria means that the entire use is considered non-compliant. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC); [Note:Post edited by Marchjuly to add the words “individual series” (underlined) to comment. — 14:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)]
It does have to do with my discussion on the page. It almost seems as if Wikipedia is copyrightophobic in the sense that use of copyrighted images is discouraged. Its just the text would be improved by adding at least some of those images. I could seek further input, but honestly, I don't even think its worth the effort because I'll end up losing out anyway, so I might as well just consider it a lost cause and accept the reality that I'm not going to add them to the article. Its sad, and I don't know how else to justify it apart from what I said without spending lots of time on here on this and that justification. Its just disconcerting. What I am gathering from this is that I should avoid adding any NFCC images in the future, as this seems like a hill that is too high to climb. I don't want to waste all my time on here, as I have a job, so I think I'll just give up.Historyday01 (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I would encourage you to keep fighting; the rationales you proposed were good. The removals were automatic, overbroad, and not all supported by policy. For example, in History of LGBTQ characters in animated series: 2010s, WP:NFCC#3 was cited to support the removal. NFCC3 deals with extent of use, and says to not use multiple items when one can convey the same info, and to use as little of the original as possible. So how can that justify removing the last, low-res image from an article?--Trystan (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I would not say that a subset of these can't be used, but I think you do need to be a lot more selective here to be picking the most relevent examples that show key works and how they connect directly to LGBTQ. For example, images like File:Poemy ad.jpg File:Kipo and the Age of Wonderbeasts.png, File:RScast.jpg, File:Steven Universe - Title Card.png and File:She-Ra and the Princesses of Power.png may all properly represent shows that have strong representation of LGBTQ themes (I've seen SU so I know I can vouch for it), but the poster/title card or shot give gives little to suggest any visual elements or themes to that (failing NFCC#8), in contrast to what I think are key defining images you have on this page File:Princess Knight-1.jpg, File:Big_gay_al_and_stan_marsh_in_debut_episode2.jpg, and File:The Legend of Korra S04E12 - Asami and Korra holding hands.jpg (Those three I would absolutely back for re-inclusion on the page based on their use as well predominance as examples to the topic at hand). I realize that some elements of LGBTQ characters do not come across easily from static visual images, and unfortunately, that's where NFCC is sorta hand-tied. Hence reasonably allowance for a handful of these but not all of them.
Also, a fat trout to @JJMC89: for removing rationals on some of these files after removing the images from the page in question unilaterally [4]. Removing the images is fine if you think they auto-fail, but you can expect them to be challenged and there is zero harm in keeping a rationale that may not be needed in the end. --Masem (t) 13:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Image copyright question re. front page of book

Just want to double check before I add this. This is the front page of a book published in 1942. Am I correct in assuming it is public domain because it consists only of text plus the University of Chicago coat of arms, which was first published in 1910 ([5])? And if so how would I tag this on Commons — PD-text plus PD-expired?

Supplementary question: It's obviously permitted to use a fair use book cover in an article about the book. But how about an article that is not specifically about the book but contains substantial, sourced discussion of the book? (For example, Julian Herman Lewis#The Biology of the Negro).

Thanks, SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I would believe yes to the first as a PD-logo + test is still PD in the US. You can add both tags for that to be clear and maybe add language to say which tag applies to what part.
If this were non-free to the second question we generally would not allow that, unless the cover of the work was the subject of commentary in the section. There might be exceptional allowances but I don't think this case would qualify if this was nonfree. (free, you're good to go). --Masem (t) 15:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply, I'll add the image to the article. :) Good to know how NFCC works in the second case. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Music album cover upload description

What should I put in the description box for an image upload of a music album cover that I found online? — Preceding unsigned comment added by T Yorke (talk • contribs) 19:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@T Yorke: You should use Template:Non-free use rationale album cover. --MrClog (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Government photos from a country that no longer exists

I have a number photographic images originally produced by the Government of Manchukuo to distribute in public relations packets. Manchukuo only existed as a country between 1932 and 1945. The photos were given to my grandfather when he visited that country in 1934. Are those images Public Domain.--Orygun (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

They’re not likely PD due to age based upon c:COM:HIRTLE. I think that it’s going to depend upon c:COM:China because that Chinese copyright law seems to apply here per c:COM:Manchukuo. — Marchjuly (talk) 05:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Unattributed images on US government websites

I'm aware that while U.S. Government photos are in the public domain, gov't websites may contain other photos that are not public-domain. When an unattributed photo exists on a government website, is there any way to determine its copyright status? This is the image I'm looking to use; it's embedded on this web page. CJK09 (talk) 04:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

You can try doing a reverse Google image search or use something like tineye to figure out the provenance of the image. Perhaps the image is being used somewhere else where it’s properly attributed. Other than that, contacting the webmaster or department in charge of the website and asking for clarification might also work. My guess is that particular photo is likely a PD one taken by a US government employee since it seems a bit of a hassle to try and use someone else’s copyrighted work for such a generic image like that when they could just have an employee take essentially an equivalent image. — Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
@CJK09: Every copyrighted image on this site should be identified and labeled properly as per their policies - the image in question is thus copyright free. Practice shows that .gov websites generally somehow indicate that certain images are subject to copyright, it is presumed that images are in the public domain in any other case. Juliette Han (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Screenshot to help readers understand how to query a government database which has no English query screen

Hello,

JJMC89 bot has removed an annotated screenshot thumb|right|Query by licence number from List of active coal-fired power stations in Turkey with the comment "No valid non-free use rationale for this page". But is it not valid for me to annotate a screenshot to try and help readers understand how to query the database from which a lot of the info was sourced? Otherwise it will be harder for readers to check that what I have put in the list is really correct.

Any suggestions welcome.

Chidgk1 (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: No, because the use of the screenshot does not comply with the contextual significance criterion of the non-free content criteria. --MrClog (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
@MrClog: Can't I argue that the database regulates which power stations are "active" and "active" is part of the title of the list therefore the database is part of the subject of the list? Previously when I just explained how to do the query with words it was hard for readers to understand. I am only trying to help the readers of the article here. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
@Chidgk1: You could, but the article is still not subject to sourced commentary in the article. --MrClog (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
@MrClog: OK thanks - as it is a featured list candidate I will think carefully about how to add a sentence and citation to the article. So once I have added the sentence and cite do I need to do something else so that a human reviews it before I add the image again? Otherwise presumably the bot would just remove it again.Chidgk1 (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
@Chidgk1: The reason the bot removes it is that the non-free use rationale mentions a different article than the one you're trying to add it too. But just adding a sourced sentence here isn't going to be enough to meet the contextual significance criterion. In this instance, only an article about the database itself will probably have a valid fair use claim. I would advise you to describe it in words and links, without image. --MrClog (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Paintings by Pablo Amorsolo

Hello it has come to my attention that works painted by the Philippine artist Pablo Amorsolo (1898-1945) on the Wikipedia entry are still under copyright, despite that the copyright status of the works has been placed under the public domain since 2015. I wish that someone can move this image and under works involved be placed under the public domain. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 06:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rizalninoynapoleon: Hi! Pablo Amorsolo's works are under copyright in the United States, since Philippines is a member of the WTO and parties to the Berne Convention, see WP:URAA. Pablo Amorsolo died in early 1945, pma is 50 years, while the date of restoration in this country is January 1, 1996; consequently, their works will be copyright protected in the US until at least 2021, see WP:NUSC. I hope this information was helpful for you. Juliette Han (talk) 07:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
@Juliette Han: That's incorrect, because the copyright had expired prior to the URAA date (1996). --MrClog (talk) 07:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
@Rizalninoynapoleon: The images have been in the public domain since 1995 (life + 50 years in the Philippines) and are therefore not copyrighted in the US either (they were in the PD prior to the URAA date). I will upload the paintings on Commons with the appropriate license. --MrClog (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
@MrClog: I strongly disagree with you. Pma started January 1, 1946 and ended January 1, 1996 (the last day of the term is included in Philippines), consequently, it was not in the public domain in the source country on the URAA date. See S.214 (Calculation of Term.), Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 8293) (previous revisions are the same). Thanks. Juliette Han (talk) 07:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
@Juliette Han: "The term of protection subsequent to the death of the author provided in the preceding Section shall run from the date of his death or of publication, but such terms shall always be deemed to begin on the first day of January of the year following the event which gave rise to them" What part here says to include January 1 of the 51st year? --MrClog (talk) 07:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
@MrClog: The author died February 21, 1945, term is calculated from January 1, 1946 (as per the calculation rule in this country that you cited), term thus ends January 1, 1996 (the last day of the term is included, nothing special here - a year term counts from the day till the same day of the following year unless otherwise indicated). January 1, 1996 is also the URAA date. Works in question were in public domain in the source country since January 2, 1996 (since the day following the day that marks the end of the term). I can't see any contradictions here. Juliette Han (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
@Juliette Han: Copyright tends to end on Dec 31 (at the end of a full year, after 365 days), not on Jan 1 of the 51st year (when a copyright term is 50 years), afaik. When copyright laws talks about years, they generally mean all days within a specific year (e.g. all dates in 2020, being Jan 1, 2020 - Dec 31, 2020). Do you have any statue that suggests otherwise? --MrClog (talk) 08:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
May be Masem or Marchjuly can help out. TL;DR: a person died in 1945 and their copyright term lasts for 50 years, starting at Jan 1 of the next year (Jan 1, 1946). Does this copyright term then last until the last day of the 50th year (i.e. Dec 31, 1995) or does it include the first day of the 51st year (i.e. Jan 1, 1996). (This is important because of the URAA). --MrClog (talk) 08:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
A possibly useful analogy: if you sign a contract saying you will be employed by Foobar, Inc. for 1 year, starting Jan. 1, 2020, that would mean that you would have to show up to work from Jan. 1, 2020, to Dec. 31, 2020 (not Jan. 1, 2021). --MrClog (talk) 08:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
@MrClog: It's true for the US, but civil law in the Philippines is codified and strongly influenced by Roman law, where a general rule is: 'The term, which is calculated in years, expires only in the last year of the term in the same month by name and on the same day in accordance with the day by which its starting point is determined.' The Civil Code of the Philippines does not explain how terms are calculated, but indeed uses a general rule, for example, for agreements. Juliette Han (talk) 08:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Juliette Han, if that's the case, then it is indeed still copyrighted in the US. MrClog (talk) 10:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
@Rizalninoynapoleon: In short: any work made by Amorsolo and published on Jan. 1, 1925 or later is still copyrighted. Anything published before that is in the PD. --MrClog (talk) 10:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Was pinged, I would recommend asking over at Commons, they have better awareness of these types of issues. My gut would say to treat as non-free for the time being. --Masem (t) 13:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
    Done, see here. --MrClog (talk) 06:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
    It turns out they were no longer copyrighted on Jan. 1, 1996 as I suspected and thus did not have their copyright restored. I will update the files (high resolution, move to Commons, proper license tags, etc.). --MrClog (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Use of noncommercial image permitted "in certain situations" - French knowledge needed

I'm extremely interested in using this image [6] from the University of Ottawa collection for my recently improved article CFVO-TV. The data included says "noncommercial use authorized in certain conditions". The linked Rights page provides rates that are free for noncommercial use. How should I proceed in procuring/uploading this image or potentially others available under the same terms ([7] [8] [9])? Raymie (t • c) 09:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Raymie, images uploaded on Wikipedia must allow for commercial use. The University of Ottawa must release the work under a free license (like CC-BY-SA 4.0). Alternatively, you may upload them if you have a valid fair use claim. --MrClog (talk) 09:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Raymie. If the station has a logo, you could probably upload for primary identification purposes and add it to the main infobox as non-free content per item 2 of WP:NFCI using the copyright license {{non-free logo}} and the non-free use rationale {{non-free use rationale logo}}; those images you linked to above, however, don’t seem as if they would satisfy all ten non-free content use criteria, in particular criterion #1 (WP:FREER) and criterion #8 (WP:NFC#CS), and thus would unlikely survive a deletion nomination.
One thing that might be worth checking on is whether the university actually holds the copyright on the photos. Sometimes people or an organization try to claim copyright over images they don’t own because they mistakenly assume that hosting an image on their website gives them ownership over its rights. I don’t understand French, but you might try asking about these images at c:COM:VPC to see if some can help track down their provenance. — Marchjuly (talk) 12:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: The collection is the photo archive of Le Droit newspaper, if that helps. I might ask UOttawa today, though I'm sure responses would be delayed, and I get the sense that the conditions they have won't result in a CC license. Raymie (t • c) 16:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Cray technical drawings

Hi, just want to double check. I'm currently working on Cray XMT and some documents (e.g. this system overview) published by Cray contain very insightful technical drawings of the system architecture (page 17). As far as my understanding goes,

© 2007–2009, 2011 Cray Inc. All Rights Reserved. This document or parts thereof may not be reproduced in any form unless permitted by contract or by written permission of Cray Inc.

probably means fair-use is not an option? Another question is this workshop presentation by a Cray employee in 2011. No copyright notice is present throughout the presentation; slides 8 and 9 are of particular interest for the barrel processor and Cray XMT articles, respectively. I have prepared downsized (to 0.5 megapixel), cropped and metadata-cleaned PNGs of the original PPMs from the mentioned PDFs for upload if that's acceptable. Thanks for any input. Vivrax (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Both of these documents are automatically copyrighted and non-free regardless of the copyright notice. But that is just what fair use is meant for: If you can provide a rationale, you may even use small portions of copyrighted material that is otherwise not avalaible for free use. So, while you could not upload the entire PDF under a fair use claim, snaphots of individual drawings would be allowed under a fair use rationale, if they complement the understanding of the Wikipedia article. De728631 (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing it up, those drawing substantially improve the understanding of the subject the article is about. On a loosely-related note, there is another drawing of particular interest to the article from an Pacific Northwest National Laboratory article. Does PNNL fall under U.S. government public-domain or not? Vivrax (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Vivrax, although De728631 is correct in saying you may have a fair use claim, I would note that there are two criteria that will probably be difficult to meet:
  1. "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." → It shouldn't be impoosible to create drawings that would serve the same purpose as the copyrighted ones.
  2. "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." (emphasis mine) → Although the drawings may "significantly increase readers' understanding", it may not be so easy to proof that the absence of the drawings will be "detrimental".
Best, --MrClog (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I read through the criteria before and understand your points. I, too, would prefer to use public domain (or at least CC) works. Even so, the diagrams are quite complex and I myself am in no capacity at the moment to faithfully recreate them for public domain :/ I have uploaded and added the MTA architecture schematic to Cray XMT, though I was quite confused by the licensing choice (the uploaded image fell under no category). Vivrax (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Vivrax, the question is whether you are able to create an alternative, but whether someone could reasonable create an alternative, which in this case they could. Therefore, you do not have a valid fair use claim. It will now be deleted on May 20 because of the lack of licensing information. But even if a license was added, I'd nominate it for deletion because it fails the no free alternative criterion. --MrClog (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
MrClog, I understand, maybe I acted too fast with the upload, sorry for that. Could you please point me to someone who could create an alternative? The schematic, in my opinion, vastly improves understanding of the topic, so not having an alternative would be bad. Also, what about Pacific Northwest National Laboratory content (I asked about it before but got no answer) - can that be used? Thanks, Vivrax (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Vivrax, the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is managed and operated by Battelle, a private nonprofit, for the US Department of Energy. They are a contractor to the US federal government, not a part of the government itself, and therefore their works are eligible for copyright protection. Under their terms, their work "may be freely distributed and used for non-commercial, scientific and educational purposes", which means you cannot upload it (Wikipedia requires works to allow for commercial use). I think c:Commons:Picture requests might be the place to request someone else create such a drawing. MrClog (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
MrClog, thanks, I figured as much. As for the Common request page, thanks for the suggestion but it seems rather dead... I could try doing it on my own but it will take quite some time, even for the basic ones. Vivrax (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Canada Crown Copyright & Municipal Copyright - Photos of Government Officials

I have a question about Canadian Crown Copyright and potentially Municipal Copyright (not Crown). Crown copyright#Canada

Basically I was wondering how an official government photo of an elected official is treated for Public Domain to expand on the explanation provided on wikimedia commons and on the PD-Canada Template wikimedia.

Crown Copyright

As I understand something subject to a Crown copyright enters the public domain 50 years after it was published. So currently that would apply to a Crown publication prior to May 1970.

Question - Does this include photographs?

Question - Do these rules on public domain equally apply to Provinces and the Federal Government?

Question Example - Just as a quick example Lawrence Kindt has a photo published on lop.parl.ca Lawrence Elliott Kindt, M.P. which is Copyrighted "House of Commons 1966". Since it has been more than 50 years (54 years) since the photo was copyrighted does that mean the photo could be considered public domain and acceptable to add to wikicommons? (I know its not a good photo, I just quickly found a relevant example)

Municipal Government Copyright

I understand municipalities are creatures of the provincial government and derive all power and authority through delegations from the province. However if a municipality copyrights something, it is not considered Crown Copyright? The municipality would have the same copyright privileges as a corporation?

Question - This would mean municipally copyrighted photographs would become part of the Public Domain in Canada if it was created prior to January 1, 1949? PD-Canada Template wikimedia

Thanks for the help!

Caddyshack01 (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Banksy artwork

Hello so quick question can we upload artwork by Banksy such as Painting for Saints using the Non-free graffiti tag with the purpose "The image serves as the primary means of visual identification of the subject (the painting)." You can see the image here Smithr32 (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Generally speaking, in an article about a particular work which is still under copyright, one nonfree image of the work is permitted for identification purposes. It will still need to follow all the other nonfree content requirements, and contain a nonfree use rationale clearly explaining how it meets each one. (There's been a habit of using "n.a." for some of them, but that is not acceptable; every requirement always is applicable so an explanation must be provided for each and every one.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
That said, if the work is notable for a standalone article (what you have for Painting for Saints is questionable), then per WP:NFCI#7 we generally allow one non-free image. But I would strongly urge make sure you have notability met before adding the image, as if the article is deleted for lack of notable, so will the image. --Masem (t) 21:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Images from NYPL Billy Rose Theatre Collection clipping file

I am working on creating a page for Sony Hall AKA the Diamond Horseshoe, and discovered some great pictures of its historic interior here. All the images were taken in 1938 (with one exception for a 1941 image). The pictures come for the clipping collection so they are all published images but none have visible copyright notices. I have found multiple other images on commons from this file marked public domain "because it was published in the United States between 1925 and 1977, inclusive, without a copyright notice" such as [10], [11], and [12]. The NYPL states on each image under copyright "The copyright and related rights status of this item has been reviewed by The New York Public Library, but we were unable to make a conclusive determination as to the copyright status of the item. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use." Are these images in the public domain, or can I only chose one image for the article about it due to fair use?--Found5dollar (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

We have to assume the worst: that the pics were clipped from some publication such as a newspaper or magazine which may have included a copyright notice on the whole issue, and that that copyright might have been renewed. So I don't see that you can make a case even for one image, much less the whole collection. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Intel Teraflops Research Chip

Hi, me again. Though, this time it is about images that are not recreatable - die and package photographs of the Intel Teraflops Research Chip (it wasn't ever released publicly and possibly only a handful exist). [1], [2], [3]. Would that be acceptable under fair-use? Vivrax (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Vivrax, there is already free media in that article, so that is replaceable and indeed replaced, and would therefore fail NFCC #1. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Seraphimblade, I think you misunderstood. It is true that the article makes use of a "CC-BY-SA 2.0 de" diagram of the architecture but I'm asking about Intel's die and package photographs (mentioned and linked above) which are not reproducible. Vivrax (talk) 11:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
No, I did not misunderstand. Replaceability is per article subject, not per facet of the subject. So if the article subject is "Teraflops Research Chip", and there is any free media available about the chip, nonfree media about it may not be used. If it were parsed finer than that, NFCC #1 would become essentially a dead letter, since there will always be something different about nonfree media. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Old map in ICJ case

Hello, I wonder about the license of this map which is "Annex I map" in an ICJ case Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand) (decided in 1962). The map is most likely an old map since French Indochina era. However, there is no info about the context of the map. Could the map be uploaded as PD-old? Thanks. (Please ping me when answering). --Horus (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

So I tried to see if the Las Estrellas logo was too outdated so I decided to change it but I don’t know if it’s fair use or not and also the logo for Canal 5 was also too outdated so I changed it but however the relay stations for both channels share the same branding as the networks. Please HELP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Add an image

Hello. I wanted to add an image to the Wikipedia article "Detroit Music Awards". The image that I found is on Flickr.com and is listed as being "public". Here's a link to the image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/93399084@N02/14064608507/. What information should I include for the image description in regards to copyright and/or licensing? Thanks. T Yorke (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@T Yorke: I hate to disappoint you but that image is marked as "all rights reserved" i.e. anything but reuseable. I think you've seen the viewing privacy label which indicates who can see the image. Nthep (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

upload an image to wiki

Hi, I would like to upload the logo of our company to Wikipedia to use it in an article later (I also want to ask wiki members to edit my article after that, because the image is required for the article). I do not know in this case what is the License of my logo image because we have its proprietorship. Thanks for your help in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farzaneh.mostafaei (talk • contribs) 20:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

If the logo is very simple, eg shapes and some text, then it could be public domain due to simplicity. An authorised person from the company could grant a license such as CC-BY-4.0, and this would allow use on Wikipedia and other places. The license could be placed on the web site of the company to prove it. You may be able to act on behalf of the company to grant such a license, but I don't know. Lastly it could be used under fair use, but an article on the company would already have to exist. So for that means only upload after an article is accepted in article space. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Image removed for WP:NFCC violation even though "Non-free media information and use rationale" exists

The image "File:Order of the Arrow Distinguished Service Award.png" was removed from Recipients of the Distinguished Service Award of the Order of the Arrow with the comment:

8:37, 24 May 2020‎ JJMC89 bot talk contribs‎ 24,979 bytes -59‎ Removed WP:NFCC violation(s). No valid non-free use rationale for this page. See WP:NFC#Implementation. Questions? Ask here. undo

However, the file description page does, in fact, contain a "Non-free media information and use rationale". I do no understand what else is required. Thanks.
— Delmont43 Talk —

That's because the rationale there is for Order of the Arrow honors and awards. Per WP:NFCC#10c each use has to be enumerated in the file page. Incidentally, I don't think it meets WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3 on the recipient page - why does a photo of an award significantly enhance the understanding of the list of its recipients and why can't the use on Order of the Arrow honors and awards suffice? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Delmont43: another point is that non-free images are generally not allowed in list type articles which Recipients of the Distinguished Service Award of the Order of the Arrow clearly is, per WP:NFLISTS. ww2censor (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Hermann Julius Hoefle mug shot 1961.jpg

A free equivalent image of this non-free one of Höfle exists as File:Hermann Julius Hoefle.jpg. Both files were uploaded by the same person, with the "free" image being uploaded in 2011 and this non-free one being uploaded in 2014. This non-free one seems to have originally been uploaded as "PD", but then converted to non-free shortly thereafter by the uploader. Assuming that the licensing of the "free" one is acceptable and this file does need to be licensed as non-free, then any non-free image of Höfle used primarily for visual identification purposes would fail WP:FREER and cannot be kept per WP:NFCCP. I was going to tag the file with {{rfu}}, but decided to ask about it here first. Please note that the uploader has been indefinitely block per WP:SOCK and the master is listed at WP:LTA; so asking them for clarification seems unlikely to yield any response, but I will post a {{Please see}} on Talk:Hermann Höfle for reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Question whether it is acceptable to use the Daisie App Logo ~ in the Maisie Williams article

Hi I am editing the article on Maisie Williams, who apart from being an actress has, also developed and launched a social media app for creators called Daisie, which has over 130,000 users in 2019. Would it be acceptable to put a non free image of the logo of her app on her article in the relevant section, to help re-enforce that is a real endeavour. I have not created a separate article for the app, as it is early days and I never feel confident to start articles. The Daisie logo can be viewed here @ https://www.daisie.com/ ~ BOD ~ TALK 14:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I have uploaded the file 
[[File:Daisie Logo.png]]
to Wikipedia, but have not yet used it, being still unsure whether it is acceptable or whether I should use it.

Daisie Logo from the Daisie App Source: https://www.daisie.com/ The Logo was designed Koto (London, UK)

The Logo might be above the threshold of originality in the UK and uncopyrightable in the US 

Template:PD-ineligible-USonly

Fair Use in the Maisie Williams article in the relevent section, this is the logo of her own company. (Currently the is not an article on the App itself.) The sole purpose of the use of the copyrighted image is to visually illustrate and educate readers about the existence of the Daisie App. The image is currently not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value. ~ BOD ~ TALK 09:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Any advice or suggestions?  :) ~ BOD ~ TALK 14:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

what license do i give to this file, and how do i add it.

 

Every element of this is either not copyright-able, or my work, or from wikipedia, or an open license, I put the full details in the summary.

Indiyā ꯏꯟꯗꯤꯌꯥ in Meitei script in the font Noto Sans Meetei Mayek
text added by User:Jismani to Names of India in its official languages
added to page version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Names_of_India_in_its_official_languages&oldid=946850685
font: https://www.google.com/get/noto/#sans-mtei
font license: https://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&id=OFL

But i don't know what tag to pick or how to add it.
Irtapil (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I took a guess and added public domain for now. {{cc-zero}} Is that appropriate for single letters or words? does it matter which font they are in? I've been trying to use open font license fonts, but i don't know if that's necessary, or how to show it if it is? Irtapil (talk) 00:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2020/May&oldid=1145948921"