Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2021/January

< Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Tom Burns (sociologist) photos and permission granted but no licence

Dear all,

I have been in touch with Charlotte MacDonald via the University of Edinburgh's website about Tom Burns - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Burns_(sociologist). They have kindly provided photos and permission of their late father. Do I require them to provide a licence or can I upload the photos on their behalf?

Many thanks, Greenpark79 (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Greenpark79: You need to determine who is the copyright holder of the photo, which is usually the photographer and not the person who happens to own the photo. Only the original copyright holder, or their heirs, can tell you under what licence they are releasing the photo and it may be necessary for them to verify that with the WP:OTRS team. Indeed, yes, you can upload the photo but don't waste your time doing that until you have clarity on the copyright status and the possibility of a proper release statement that OTRS accepts. ww2censor (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

BBC photo of Alasdair Milne - deceased person but no identification of photographer - permission granted but no licence

Dear all,

I have emailed the BBC and received permission to use the following image: https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/media/images/65194000/jpg/_65194913_milne_bbc_1983.jpg from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20967247

However, they have not provided a licence to use the photo under? What are the next steps?

Greenpark79 (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Greenpark79: Essentially much the same reply as the one I provided below. However, as a person deceased some years ago, you may be able to use the photo on this wiki under our strict non-free copyright criteria policy, if a reasonable search for a freely licenced image has not given any result. If your only likelyhood is to use a non-free image there are several much better images to be found online that seem superior to the BBC one you are interested in. ww2censor (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Image tagged with no copyright holder question

Hi! Quick question regarding an non-free image I just uploaded (File:Curious George 2006 storyboard.jpg) under a claim of fair use. I got a message on my talk page from ImageTaggingBot letting me know that it was missing some source info, and it added a "no copyright holder" tag to the file. I added and/or restated information about the image's source, creator, and copyright holder to the template (see diff), and removed the tag as instructed, but it was re-added by the bot shortly afterwards. Could anyone help me see what's missing here?

FWIW, I used this file as a reference for uploading the image, since it was used in a similar context in its article (which is a featured article). Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance. —DanCherek (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I've updated both to use {{Non-free use rationale 2}} instead of {{navbox}}. That should resolve the issue. Why are people using navigation templates for non-free use rationales? — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Oops. Thanks so much for your help, I appreciate it! —DanCherek (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Jammu and Kashmir High Court logo.jpg

File:Jammu and Kashmir High Court logo.jpg comprises two portions, text and a geometric shape surrounding a seal on which copyright has expired (see File:Seal of Jammu and Kashmir color.png). I don't think the file page licensing explains this as well as it could (e.g. there is only one template) but I'm not familiar with complex file licensing like this so I'd appreciate someone who is taking a look. Thryduulf (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Non-free album covers

Hi! Could you please help me with something? On the Russian Wikipedia, I got into a dispute with an administrator named Maxinvestigator over the cover image of the Ellie Goulding version of "Your Song". He removed the image from the infobox for that version and doesn't want to put it back. He insists that only one fair-use image is allowed per article, and I just can't convince him otherwise. I've told him several times already that the Russian Wikipedia has the same fair use policy as the English one and that the usage of that image complies with the NFCC, but he doesn't understand. (The Ruwiki discussion is located here.)
And it's not all. After I pointed him to the copy of the same image on the English Wikipedia, he came here and attempted to delete the image here as well. Could something be done, please? I'm desperate to convince him to leave the image be. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

P. S. I've just noticed this:

Could something be done, please? Like, is it maybe possible for some Wikimedia official to come by and just tell Maxinvestigator to leave the image on Wikimedia's servers cause it doesn't break any laws? --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Moscow Connection: WP:NFCC#3a states: "Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information" which does not preclude using more than one image. The Russian version (#3) seems to essentially say the same but concentrates its wording on the use of one image. However, generally here, for albums, songs or videos, this is allowable where the 2nd image is so different from the first. Where the DVD, album and video use essentially the same image with small differences, then that 2nd image is not allowed. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Actially, the Russian version of WP:NFCC#3 adds: "A non-free file must identify the main object of the article or specifically illustrate its important points or sections" ("Несвободный файл должен идентифицировать основной объект статьи или специфично иллюстрировать её важные пункты или разделы"). So it says explicitly that there can be one non-free image for every important section. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Moscow Connection. I'm not sure whether the "Russian version" referred to above is a translation of the English Wikipedia's non-free content use policy or whether it's something completely separate, but each Wikipedia project has it's own policies and guidelines and these might not always be the same. So, what they do on Russian Wikipedia when it comes to non-free content use doesn't apply to non-free content use on English Wikipedia any more than what English Wikipedia does would apply to Russian Wikipedia. What Ww2censor posted above is pretty much how such non-free content use is assessed when it comes to English Wikipedia. Of course, sometimes a particular non-free use is not so clear and not everybody is in agreement as to whether it meets the WP:NFCCP. In such cases, often the best thing to do is try and see what the consensus might be by bringing things up for discussion at WP:FFD.
Finally, just for reference, the are no "Wikipedia officials" at least not on English Wikipedia. We are all pretty much equal as editors. There are administrators and other editors with special user rights, but for the most part we are all the same. When it comes to non-free content use on English Wikipedia, the burden tends to fall on the editor wanting to use the file in a certain way to convince others that the usage is policy compliant as explained in WP:NFCCE; so, if a file you uploaded has been tagged or nominated for speedy deletion and you disagree, you should explain how the file's use meets relevant policy on the file's talk page. All files tagged for speedy deletion are going to be reviewed by an administrator; so, if you contest a file's deletion here at MCQ or on some user talk page, the reviewing administrator is almost certainly not going to see the relevant discussion. You can add the template {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed}} to the file page right below the speedy deletion template to let the reviewing admin know to check the file's talk page for further discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Marchjuly: the Russian versions I referred to was, if you clicked on the link I provided, the actual Russian wiki version that I did a down and dirty Google translation of to get a sense of their local requirements. More than that I cannot contribute but Moscow Connection's additional translation comment also suggests more than one non-free can be acceptable there too. ww2censor (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
While the above is all true, the additional cover version album art on Your Song is not something automatically guaranteed to be allowed per NFCC. Here, we should consider that if the cover single version needs the cover art separate from the original song being covered, and that is not something automatically covered under NFCI#1. Outright removal isn't appropriate but these are both questionable uses that don't just get a free pass for being single covers. --Masem (t) 16:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
You're right, outright removal shouldn't be the solution. The files should have at least been listed for discussion instead of being tagged for speedy deletion. Aside from WP:NFCC#3a, there's also WP:NFCC#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. Only one artwork (that of the original song) is not enough to visually convey the cover versions. Hundreds of thousands of song articles include more than one non-free artwork to illustrate notable cover versions (oftentimes even more notable than the original song) and no one seems to bat an eyelash. I'm pretty sure most of these additional files have "questionable" use rationale descriptions. I'm not saying that's the ideal situation, I just don't see why Your Song is being singled out (mention WP:WHATABOUT all you want, I still don't see a reason). snapsnap (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Should we maybe notify the music project about this discussion? Cause there are thousands of articles with more than one non-free cover. We should discuss the situation as a whole rather than on a case to case basis.
If we don't discuss the matter as a whole once and for all, this will never end. From time to time there will appear a person who will single out a single image and insist on its deletion. In this particular case (User talk:SnapSnap#Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Rod Stewart - Your Song.png), I'm afraid you will have to go on arguing forever and will eventually be driven to exhaustion. I personally am going to just let the image be deleted from Ruwiki. Cause if I insist on keeping it, I will just get in trouble. I'm not really good at arguing and convincing people, so I usually just give up and move on. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
What they do on Russian Wikipedia is of no concern to English Wikipedia. If you want to stop a file from being deleted from Russian Wikipedia, you will need to make you case to save the file on Russian Wikipedia.
You don't need to keep arguing with the person who tagged the English Wikipedia file for speedy deletion; in fact, you shouldn't. Anyone can tag a file for speedy deletion, but only an administrator can delete the file; so, if you disagree with the tag, post your reasons why on the file's talk page. If the reviewing administrator feels that more discussion is warranted, they will decline the tag and suggest as much; if the reviewing administrator feels the tagging was appropriate, they will delete the file. However, if you don't post anything on the file's talk page, the reviewing administrator will have no reason to think the tagging is being contested.
You can let a WikiProject know about this if you want. Just make sure you don't run afoul of WP:CANVASS. A {{Please see}} template is usually a good way to let others know about a discussion without running the risk of canvassing. However, what a WikiProject wants can't take precedence over a community-wide policy like WP:NFCC per WP:CONLEVEL. Everyone is welcome to participate in any such discusison, but WikiProject member comments aren't given any additional weight just because they're WikiProject member comments.
Articles about songs, particularly when the song has been covered multiple times, can sometimes be tricky to asses when it comes to non-free content use. This is because the common practice appears to be to make one article about a song (including all of it's cover versions) instead of making separate articles about each cover version. My personal opinion is that simply using a cover version's cover art in article just because it's a cover version is probably not warranted per WP:NFC#cite_note-3; however, if the cover version would itself meet WP:NSONG and just doesn't have it's own stand-alone article because the common practice is to put everything together, then probably such a non-free use could be justified. A non-free use rationale is supposed to be separate and specific to each particular use; so, an unclear rationale is not necessarily a reason for deleting a file if the use in question is otherwise non-free compliant. In other words, if the rationale is "broken", then just "fix" it. At the same time, a rationale in and of itself doesn't automatically make a particular non-free use policy compliant as explained in WP:JUSTONE. I'm sure you could look at lots of articles about songs and find multiple non-free files being used in them for various cover versions. In some cases, these additional files might be OK per policy, but it others they might not be. That's why, as explained in WP:OTHERIMAGE, non-free use can often only be assessed on a case-by-case basis and not treated as all or nothing. That's what probably needs to be done here with respect to these two files. Challenge the speedy deletion by posting on the file's talk page and wait until an admin reviews the speedy deletion tag. If the reviewing admin feels the files don't qualify for speedy deletion but the person who tagged the files insists that they still be deleted, then they will need to start a discussion about them at FFD to see if that's the consensus. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Thank you for your input. I see you've already contested both deletions. Although you've included a link to this discussion, I'll try to post something as well on the talk pages.
@Moscow Connection: I agree, perhaps this particular issue (multiple non-free artworks in a single article) should be discussed at WP:WPMU sometime in order to avoid unnecessary and/or misguided file deletions in the future. snapsnap (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

What are the rules which I must follow while adding a logo (which may be copyrighted) in a Wikipedia article?

File:Logo_of_Johnson_Grammar_School_(CBSE)_with_motto_and_year_of_establishment.png

I want to use the above file in this article: Johnson Grammar School. Are there any rules which I must follow? - Dfsibun (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dfsibun. Since the file is licensed as non-free content, each use of it will need to satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. There are ten non-free content use criteria that need to be met each time a non-free file is used, and this file currently is failing non-free content use criterion #7; that's why it's been tagged for speedy deletion per speedy deletion criterion F5. The easiest way to fix this would be to add the file to an article, but you should only really do that if you feel the particular use also meets the other nince criteria. Generally, Wikipedia does all non-free logos to be uploaded and used in articles per item 2 of WP:NFCI when they are used for primarily identification purposes either at the top of or in the main infobox of stand-alone articles about the organization, etc. the logo is supposed to represent. So, if you want to use the logo in the infobox for Johnson Grammar School, the that should be OK; however, if you want to use the logo in some other way or in some other article, then it might be harder to justify the file's non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: I've added the image in Johnson Grammar School. Is the image size appropriate or something needs to be changed? Please let me know. - Dfsibun (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
The size of the an upload non-free file needs to meet WP:NFCC#3b (see WP:IMAGERES and WP:FILESIZE for more details); however, the size of a displayed image in an infobox needs to meet WP:IMAGESIZE, WP:IBI and MOS:ACCIM. The two things aren't necessarily the same and for the most part need to be dealt with separately. In the case of the file you uploaded, it seems to be already an acceptable size and should be fine. As for the displayed image size, most infobox templates these days are set up to automatically display an image to the most appropriate size for Wikipedia readers and there's almost always no need to try and "fix" an image to be a particular size. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The Pleasure Garden

The Pleasure Garden (1925 film) is identified and referenced as a 1925 film due to it first being shown in Germany in November of that year. The source cited in the article identifies The Pleasure Garden as a 1927 film due to that being its UK release date. Is The Pleasure Garden still under copyright or is it now in the public domain? PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@PDMagazineCoverUploading: it depends if you can categorically show that it was first shown in November 1925 in which case it will already be public domain in the US only and that doesn't appear to be referenced in the article. [1] which specialises in this type of thing doesn't appear to have established any earlier screening than the 1927 release in the UK. Nthep (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Surendran Shelini PhD thesis.pdf

The author of the thesis has released it's right via c:Commons:OTRS. The literature overview part of the document is highly valuable as a basis for a new Wikipedia article and shall be used soon. A user requested deletion of the file as it would be out of scope of commons. Where could the file be kept to prove the copyright has been released or how would you prove in English Wikipedia that the copyright of a file was deleted if not via OTRS? --Minihaa (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Minihaa: I tend to agree with the commons out of scope view because in general, theses are not considered to be reliable sources. Please refer to WP:SCHOLARSHIP for more details. If the file is deleted, the copyright is not deleted, and there is no way of keeping the OTRS release noted elsewhere other than within the OTRS system which is strictly private. I suspect you are out of luck. ww2censor (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your response! Please note that it is not about primary research as described in WP:SCHOLARSHIP but about the literature overview of the thesis, i. e. a summary of notable peer reviewed findings. I guess I was looking for WP:DONATETEXT. Cheers --Minihaa (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
But the assertion of the author's thesis, that certain findings are notable, is disqualified as original research. If that portion of the thesis was published in a peer-reviewed journal in the field, that's one thing; but a thesis in and of itself is not a reliable source. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

ASMFC

Hello, what is the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission from a copyright point of view? Is it some kind of organisation for which PD-US-Gov is applicable on their media products? I'm thinking about grabbing some fisheries statistics that are presented on said site as JPEG images for illustration on relevant fish articles. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 08:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC) PS. Please notify me (pinging?) while replying, I'm a German editor seldom active here on EN.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Grand-Duc (talk • contribs) 08:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Grand-Duc:. Please try to remember to WP:SIGN you posts (particularly if you're asking to be pinged by those responding) so that editors don't have to dig through a page's history to find the WP:DIFF for your post.
Only agencies directly operated and controlled by the US federal governmant are coverd by {{PD-USGov}} as explained in WP:PD#US government works. The US government may be involved in lots organiztions and agencies in some way, but in some cases (like the United States Post Office) they might be technically considered "private" or "independent" to some degree. Most state, county and local government organizations are not covered by "PD-USgov" so anything you find on their official websites, etc. is going to be considered to be not PD. States like California and Florida have laws which make works created by state, country and local governmental employees PD, but the [remain 48 states don't seem to have such laws. The ASMFC appears to involve state governments; so, even though it might've been chartered by the US Congress, my guess is that content created by its employees isn't going to be covered under "PD-USGov". -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer, and sorry for that I didn't sign an apposed postscriptum separately, when I used only a single edit for the query here.
So, it is more likely than not that there's no blank public domain statute for material from the ASMFC. I am currently thinking about adding some flesh to de:Pseudopleuronectes americanus, the Winter flounder, where the catch statistics (JPEG) from here would be nice. I guess that this is a case of "unprotected bare facts" when it comes to raw numbers (but the resolution of the graph seems to be too low to get those raw data for reproduction using any wiki graph template), but does the color coding already warrant copyright protection? Do you or somebody else have some clues about the threshold of originality? After a quick glance at commons:COM:TOO, it's impossible to tell for me... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 10:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm unable to get the links you've added above to work, but I also am not familiar with German Wikipedia and how that project handles image licensing; I don't know whether German Wikipedia accepts fair use content or otherwise allows files to be uploaded locally. If it doesn't, then you will probably need to upload the files to Commons as permitted by c:COM:Germany. On English Wikipedia, it sounds like the content you're describing would fall under WP:FREER which means that a non-free image of a graph would probably be considered replaceable non-free use since the same information could probably be presented in a way that didn't involve uploading a copyrighted image per WP:GRAPHS or maybe even MOS:TEXTASIMAGES. The US TOO is relatively high in comparison to some other countries and the US doesn't apply "sweat of the brow" any longer; so, simple shapes, text, and colors aren't typically considered copyrightable elements in and of themselves, but things might be different when combined together in a graph as explained in c:COM:CB#Scientific or technical diagrams and c:Commons:TOO#Charts. If you want to know whether Commons will accept such content, you can try asking at c:COM:VPC and see what some others think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Reopening question not solved:

Hi, I'm not sure about the legacy of the DFB-logo to be uploaded, and used since 1930. Here you can find it.

As per the Commons Template, refering to German Public Corporations, it should be legible. Thus I'm not sure about the Threshold of originality which may be also legible as an unsufficient amount of original and creative authorship?? (Other valid examples here).

Here you can see similar cases, which may apply on DFB badge logo, but I prefered to ask first:

Thanks in advance. --Brgesto (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Brgesto: I think you are better asking at commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. If the reply that you get there is that the logo is NOT public domain then you could upload it here as non-free. If you are told it is public domain then you can upload it to Commons. Nthep (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
@Nthep: Thanks, I'd do so. --Brgesto (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Picture of a scientist

Hi! I was wondering if you could help me to figure out whether one of these images (1, 2, 3) are allowed to upload without permission? HovhannesKarapetyan (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

HovhannesKarapetyan: Normally, if you can't find a freely licensed image of a person deceased quite a number of years as Tetsuo Nozoe has been will be acceptable under our strict non-free policy requirements in the infobox of the article of the subject in question. ww2censor (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this image allowed?

Hi there. There's a chat between a few of us ongoing at Talk:Dream (YouTuber) about using his YouTube profile picture. I've recommended that we trace over the image, but I'm not sure in either direction. The image is currently live Dream (YouTuber). I'd really appreciate anyone with more experience chipping in. I primarily work with video game screenshots and WP:VG is quite strict on fair use rationales; the one currently on the image in question (click ) just doesn't meet that to me. Would really appreciate other opinions. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The image File:Dream icon.svg is currently a non-free image and I believe this is the correct one in contrast to your view. I don't agree that the drawing is too simple to be freely licensed. Making a tracing over the original image will make the result a derivative work which is only freely licensed based on the actual copyright status of the underlying image. ww2censor (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@Ww2censor: So the image is fine to keep up? :] — ImaginesTigers (talk) 10:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Unless someone challenges the file's non-free rational, I'd say it's ok. ww2censor (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Question regarding whether I can use this image

Can I use this image [2] taken from [3] (this is artist agency website hosted on Naver, the agency don't have actual domain website however it's the real website as per the green verified tick at the top beside the 호두앤유ent). This is permission [4] given at the bottom of the page, line 2 stated that (translated into English; you can use Google Translate app camera scan function to translate if you don't understand Korea language) quoted "if anyone would like to use the images, they have included the source (which is the page link)"

However, I did what the permission box stated by including the link when uploading to Wikipedia but it was deleted for copyright violation. Is there something, I am missing here? – Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 16:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Paper9oll: sorry but there is insufficient permission there to use the photos from that site. Permission preferably in the form of a {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} or {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} licence needs to be explicit that the images can be reused anywhere, by anyone, for any purpose - including commercial re-use. I don't see the agency giving blanket agreement to this last requirement as it devalues their product to them. Neither is it entirely clear that agency have the copyright on the images. Nthep (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@Nthep: Hi, noted. However, if you look at this image [5] uploaded onto commons. You can see that why I'm reasoning about it. Because as per the summary source provided which is dead link, however if you visit https://www.lsacmodel.com without the /sozzang part you wouldn't the find the images anywhere on the website neither does the website stated the licensing terms. Hence, this is why I'm asking the question because I uploaded the image (which is already deleted for copyright violation) is tagged similar to the commons image in which both website doesn't explictly states the licensing. Is images uploaded onto commons handled differently from images uploaded onto en-wiki? – Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 16:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
There's no difference between WP and Commons licencing policies. The image on Commons should probably be deleted too. Nthep (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@Nthep: Noted, however is there anyway I can upload the images without violating the policy? Like reducing the image to 250px and below (which should be sufficient for infobox display) and uploading as non-free similar to dramas poster or is it outright nope? I did read through the policy, however I is very confusing. – Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 16:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Images of living people normally fail the non-free content criteria especially NFCC#1 as it should be possible to obtain or create a freely licenced image of the person. Nthep (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@Nthep: Understood, thanks for the taking the time to answer my question. – Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 16:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

SEAT logos

All of the logos in SEAT#Logo history are from Commons except File:SEAT.svg and File:SEAT logo (2012).svg. The former is labeled as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} which might not be necessary if the Commons' files are OK as licensed. There is a bit of a 3D effect, but it's not clear whether that's copyrightable per c:COM:Spain. The latter file is non-free which might not be necessary even if the other file needs to be "PD-ineligible-USonly"; there's more of a 3D effect, but the logo is otherwise essentially the same. If it does need to be non-free though, then it's current use clearly fails WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#cite_note-4), WP:NFTABLES and also MOS:LOGO. Any thoughts on whether these files are licensed correctly? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

A screenshots of virtual events/livestreaming events during COVID-19 pandemic is considered copyrighted ?

Although the screenshot of virtual events/livestreaming events across the media such as video games and videos can be uploading to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, i don't know is that copyrighted or not copyrighted, if copyrighted it is not allowed to upload on Wikimedia Commons and only under as fair use, else if not copyrighted, the virtual/livestreaming event screenshots allow to upload on Wikimedia Commons. Firzafp (talk) 03:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

School information license

I would like to add a pdf (1)to a page for a school with academic information on it, but I am unable to find any information regarding copyright info for the document. They have it on their public site (under curriculum guide 2020-2021) for anyone to view. I tried to add the schedule earlier but was not sure what to put there either. Is the document ok to use, and what would I put the license as?

FYI: It is a private school so not government-run. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loganscott74 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Loganscott74: In the absence of any explicit statement to the contrary we have to assume that the document is copyrighted and hence un-uploadable to Wikipedia. But what do you want to use the information in the document for? It looks quite a lengthy document just to insert in an article. If you want to use it as a citation in an article, you can simply reference it. Nthep (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Re: Proper copyright release of File:Raised by swans in concert, Bamberg, Germany, 2015.jpg

Hello. I originally uploaded File:Raised by swans in concert, Bamberg, Germany, 2015.jpg with permission from its creator/owner (it has been posted with his permission on the artist's official website for the past four years at https://raisedbyswans.com/?p=1530), but did so without understanding that express written permission must be supplied by the creator. My sincere apologies for this. I've done my best to rectify the situation - the image was re-uploaded and a release email sent by the creator/owner to Wikipedia, but clearly we're still missing something, as the image has been flagged once again for deletion. The creator/owner is a German photographer, Stephan Obel, who sent the appropriate copyright release email from his email address. He released it under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license via this email on December 14th, 2020. A copy of Stephan Obel's email is below. Can someone let me know what we're missing in terms of proper procedure? I'm wondering if the underscores in the file name in his email versus the file name on Wikipedia Commons are what's causing the problem. Thank you very much for your help and guidance in advance.

Hello,

I hereby affirm that I Stephan Obel, am the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work as shown here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Raised_by_swans_in_concert,_Bamberg,_Germany,_2015.jpg and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work.

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Sincerely Stephan Obel Copyright Holder 14.12.2020 Hedinsfjordur (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I found this OTRS ticket Ticket:2020121410020276. The ticket has not been replied to for a month, It requires answers that must be responded to by the person who emailed the OTRS team. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi Hedinsfjordur. The problem seems to be that there were two versions of the same image uploaded: one to (English) Wikipedia as File:Raised by swans in concert, Bamberg, Germany, 2015.jpg and one to Commons as c:File:Raised by swans in concert, Bamberg, Germany, 2015.jpg. When two files are uploaded with the same name like this, the local file (i.e. the Wikipedia one) "shadows" the Commons version; basically, this means that when the software is looking for a file that matches this file's name, it goes with the one uploaded locally to Wikipedia because it cannot, so to speak, "see" the other file in the local file's shadow. Most of the time when this happens, it's simply an oversight that can be corrected by changing one of the file names; in this case, however, both files seem to be the same and there's no need for two of them. Since the Commons file currently is having its license reviewed by OTRS, the easiest thing to do here would be to tag the local file for speedy deletion per either WP:G7 or WP:F8. Once the local file has been deleted, the software will automatically replace it with the Commons version.
Now, there still seem to be issues with the Commons file, but those are going to need to be resolved on Commons. If you're the person sent in the WP:CONSENT email to OTRS for the Commons file, you might want to ask about it at c:COM:OTRSN. Only OTRS volunteers can see the contents of such emails, and I'm not an OTRS volunteer. You can also post a message at c:User talk:Ww2censor since Ww2censor is the OTRS volunteer who did review the Commons file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Political flyer from 1955

Hello! I'm interested in using this image of a political flyer used in a 1955 campaign (source). Would it be correct to say that since it was published during 1926–63 without a copyright notice, it has entered the public domain? DanCherek (talk) 06:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@DanCherek: There are two possible issues with this in my opinion: one related to context and accessibility and one related to copyright.
  1. WP:TEXTASIMAGES – The flier is basically printed text and a picture which means even if it's public domain, it's not clear what value there would be in using it in any Wikipedia articles. This is more of a contextual and MOS:ACCESS matter than a copyright matter. See WP:IUP#Adding images for some more on this.
  2. WP:Derivative work – The flier consists of two possibly copyrightable elements: the layout of the flier and choice of text itself and the photo being used. Both of these things might need to be considered separately from a copyright standpoint and unless the both are PD, then combination of the two isn't likely going to be PD. See c:COM:DW, c:COM:POSTER and c:COM:CB#Noticeboards and signs for some more examples of this kind of thing.
-- Marchjuly (talk) 09:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Thank you! Just to make sure I understand, a 1947 newspaper ad would not be PD per the last paragraph of c:COM:CB#Advertisement, because it's unclear whether the photographer retained their copyright? DanCherek (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I think it depends on the nature of the advertisement. If it has multiple copyrightable elements, but all of the elements were created by the same copyright holder (e.g. a company advertisement for one of the its products), then I think that's probably going to be {{PD-US-no notice}}. On the other hand, if the "advertisement" includes multiple copyrightable elements which were created by different copyright holders, then maybe each element needs to be assessed. I think that's what is meant by "It is best to avoid advertisements that include notable artwork that may have been covered by copyrights — there have been cases where companies ran ads with images they did not own." on the Commons page. I think its reasonable to assume that whomever placed the "ads" for the candidates appearing in that 1947 paper represented them or their campaigns, which means "they" probably were the original source of those photos. Thus, those images are probably OK. Since such an image would likely be better off uploaded to Commons, you might want to ask as c:COM:VPC about it.
Unlike Commons, however, Wikipedia does allow some types of non-free content to be uploaded and used in its articles as long as WP:NFCC is met. If the person depicted in such an ad is dead, then an image of them could probably be uploaded and used as non-free content per item 10 of WP:NFCI as long as if it's used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article about them. The copyright license that can be used is {{Non-free biog pic}} and the non-free use rationale that can be used is {{non-free use rationale biog}}. So, if you want to use a photo of Bailey as non-free, then you probably could; whether you could use the whole ad as non-free is not as clear, but a photo of her should be OK as long as you provide can show it meets WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion (WP:NFCC#4) and WP:NFC#Sourcing (WP:NFCC#10a). -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Makes sense. Thanks again for the detailed responses, this was really helpful. DanCherek (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

White Croats

I uploaded this map[6]. My work. The background is a geographical map of Europe from this page [7]. Is everything according to the rules of Wikipedia? Thank you? Mikola22 (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mikola22. Since you uploaded File:Bijelohrvati-nazivi (1) (1).jpg to Wikimedia Commons, it is the rules of Wikimedia Commons which matter here. In particular, you need to be sure that the file you uploaded meets c:Commons:Licensing. There are two things to consider here: c:Commons:Derivative works and c:Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Maps & satellite imagery. The first thing has to do with your version of the map and the second thing has to do with the original version of the map. The copyright license you chose when uploading the file is probably OK for your version, but you can't apply that license to the original version if it is protected by copyright and that copyright is held by someone else. I can't see anything on that Pixabay page with states that the original version has been released under a license that Commons accepts. I also can't determine whether the person who uploaded the original version is even the copyright holder of the map (i.e. the person who created the map). If you look here, you see that Pixabay has quite alot of details on what kinds of files it hosts and how the files it hosts can be reused, but it doesn't claim any responsibility for checking those files to make sure they are 100% free. Most websites which allow editors to uploaded content have similar policies, which means there's always a chance of c:Commons:License laundering (even if it's unintentional). You might want to ask about this at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyrights, but I think this might be a case where the uploader of that original map isn't the copyright holder of the map.
Wikipedia of course can't use the map if it's considered to be a copyright violation of any type, but Wikipedia might also not want to use the map for contextual reasons as well if its considered to be a type of image original research. That, however, is probably something that should be discussed on the article's talk page by those familiar with the subject matter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Signature copyright

Haag's signature is available in the Laudatio published here. Is it possible to extract the signature and use it in the infobox scientist template? In the affirmative case, do I need copyright permission from the journal? Is it considered non-free fair use content? --SimoneD89 (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Public domain, probably, see advice at com:SIG. Thincat (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
You might want to ask yourself the following question before uploading anything: How would adding this person's signature to a Wikipedia article written about them be encyclopedically relevant to the readers of the article? If you can't think of an answer or the only thing you can think of would be that it would be interesting to see, then such a file would pretty much have zero chance of being considered acceptable non-free content per WP:NFC#CS. Moreover, even if the signature is PD, its addition to the article might seem unnecessarily decorative per WP:IUP#Adding images to articles by some; so, you might still end up having to establish a consensus for its inclusion in the article on the article's talk page if someone feels it's not an improvement. I'm not trying to discourage you from uploading the file, but you probably should give some thought to whether it's encyclopedically relevant to subject matter and whether content about the signature could be added to the article to help make that connection. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the answers. I am aware that for a scientist the signature is less important than (for example) a painter. The (scientist) infobox wikipage doesn't say anything about the relevance of the signature. I was considering adding it because it was available in one of the sources of his biography. Only a few scientists have a signature and I don't see a criterion (is it based on importance?). Probably the best solution is to start a discussion in the WikiProject Biography/Science and academia. --SimoneD89 (talk) 08:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I've now found this RFC where the focus was rather much on living people and which closed "... No consensus for BLPSIGN to become a policy or guideline. Concern raised about potential misuse and general low encyclopaedic value, though there is a loose acceptance for some limited use in some instances - and this can be worked out on a case by case basis on the article talkpage ..." and that led to WP:Signatures of living persons which is now merely a WP:Essay. Thincat (talk) 09:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference. --SimoneD89 (talk) 09:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Questions

I added images to the article Dungeons & Dragons controversies today. Most of the images are fair use from other articles (I didn't upload anything new). Just want to ask some questions.

  • The images are mostly logos and book covers. There's corresponding mentions of those companies and books in the article. Is using fair use images here OK? If not, let me know and I'll remove.
  • File:Tsr_logo_lines.png is tagged "public domain", but may be mis-tagged. Isn't public domain only for US government works and works like a century old? This is a company logo from the 70's, so I find it suspicious.
  • (Different article) File:Wizards_of_the_Coast_logo.svg is tagged as fair use, but is high resolution. Do we need to upload a lower resolution image over it?

Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Fair use images fall under our non-free content policy, and require specific rationales to be reused on other articles. Just because they are used at one articles doesn't necessarily qualify for their use on a different one.
There is a concept in copyright law called the threshold of originality, that you cannot copyright simple wordmarks or shapes. The threshold level in various countries are different, but in the US it is rather loose, so that logos like TSR's does NOT have a high enough level to be considered original and thus cannot be copyrightable - and thus is a public domain image.
SVG - Scalable vector graphic images - are uniquely handled in our NFC policy. As long as they are company logos directly obtained from official company works, we allow the SVG to be used directly. --Masem (t) 04:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Novem_Linguae
  1. Simply being mentioned by name is almost never a sufficient justification for non-free use per WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#CS, WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and WP:NFC#cite_note-4) when it comes to logos for companies or book covers. Generally for the non-free content use of such files to be justified, there needs to be sourced critical commentary related to the logo/cover art itself in the article. I don't think the non-free use of the files you added to the Dungeons & Dragons controversies article is justified for these reasons and would recommend that you remove them. If you disagree with this assessment, you are going to need to provide a non-free use rationale for each of these files specific to the ways they are used in the article in order to satisfy WP:NFCC#10c. The files do have rationales on their pages, but not for these new uses and it's responsibility of the person wanting to use a non-free file to provide a rationale for its use per WP:NFCCE. A non-free file has to meet all ten WP:NFCCP each time it's used, and providing a rationale for a use is WP:JUSTONE of these criteria, but it's something that is necessary if you want to stop the file from being removed per WP:NFC#Implementation.
  2. US government works are only one type of WP:PD. There might be other reasons as well that have nothing to do with the works age. File:Tsr logo lines.png was licensed as PD because the uploader felt it was too simple to be eligible for copyright protection. Copyright laws various from country to country and what one country considers to be too simple to eligible for copyright protection may differ from other countries. This file is uploaded to Commons, and Commons files need to "freely licensed" or "free from copyright protection" in the United States (where the Commons servers are located) and in their country of origin. This logo seems to be PD per c:COM:TOO United States, and since TSR, Inc. is headquartered in the US that would also make it PD in its country of origin. So, I think this file is correctly licensed. You can, however, ask about it at c:COM:VPC if you feel differently.
  3. File:Wizards of the Coast logo.svg is an svg file while might make it seem high resolution, but it looks OK per WP:IMAGERES. However, the WP:NFCC advises to avoid svg versions of logos per WP:NFC#Multiple restrictions unless they're ones that have been officially released by their copyright holders. Not all members of the Wikipedia community agree with this though and think svgs are preferred regardless of where they come from. Perhaps it would be better for the file to be in some other format, but that's just my opinion.
-- Marchjuly (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the very detailed answers. I understand much better now. I appreciate your time. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Copenhagen - the little mermaid statue - 2013.jpg

Should this file: File:Copenhagen - the little mermaid statue - 2013.jpg, be given a WP:Non-free content treatment (a relevant NFUR, and must be used for one relevant article only)? It is a non-U.S. sculpture in a country (Denmark) with no FOP for non-architectural works, and not a building itself (so {{FoP-USonly}} cannot apply). Additionally, the heirs of its sculptor are noted to be aggressive in litigations, most especially against the Danish media which is considered commercial in their purposes. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Photos of statues are pretty much always considered to be WP:Derivative works to best of my knowledge which means two copyrights tend to be needed. Sometimes for statues which are too old or otherwise PD, one copyright license may suffice; in this case, though, I think a non-free license (maybe {{Non-free 3D art}}) and a corresponding non-free use rationale is probably going to be needed for the file. That would most likely mean that most if not all of the current uses of the file are going need to also be assessed and that mostly likely (per item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI, WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFLISTS, etc.) the file's use in The Little Mermaid (statue) is going to end up being the only place it can be used. It certainly will need to be removed from userpages and sandboxes per WP:NFCC#9 if converted to non-free, but the other uses might need to be discussed at WP:FFD. This kind of thing would've in general previously been discussed at WP:PUF, but now such discussions take place at FFD; so, maybe it's just best to move this there now and take care of everything at once. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
It certainly appears clear that this work is copyright until 2030, so should be chnaged to non-free with a rationale for each legitimate use per WP:NFCC, which may well only be then allowed in this article The Little Mermaid (statue). This issue was indeed discussed previously in 2010 at FFD as well as in other 2009 and 2011 discussions when those files were all deleted. ww2censor (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Political Party flag or election symbol usage

How the All India Forward Bloc party flag (File:Aifbflag.PNG) and Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) Liberation election symbol (File:Cpimllelectionsymbol.png) violates the WP:NFCC? User:JJMC89_bot removed this citing reason as "No valid non-free use rationale for this page." on 2021 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbpollanalyst (talk • contribs) 11:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wbpollanalyst When that particular bot removes non-free files, it almost always leaves an edit summary that includes a links to this page which explains why it removed the file. Did you check to see whether the bot left an edit summary? Did you take a look at the page it linked to? All non-free files are required to have two things: (1) a valid file copyright tag and (2) a separate and specific non-free use rationale for each use of the file. My guess is that you or whomever added the election symbol file to the election article probably forgot to add a corresponding non-free use rationale for that particular use to the file's page; this is primarily the main reason why JJMC89 bot removes files from articles. So, you can stop the bot from removing the file by adding a rationale for that particular use to the file's page. However, there are ten non-free content use criteria that need to be satisfied each time a non-free file is used, and even failing one of these criteria means that the file's non-free use is not considered to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. So, even the adding a missing rationale will stop the bot from removing the file, providing a rationale is WP:JUSTONE of the ten criteria. In most cases like this, Wikipedia policy allows an election symbol file to be used for identification purposes in a stand-alone article about the party it represents, but other types of non-free uses (like in articles about elections) are really quite hard to justify and almost never allowed, which I think is probably going to be the case with these two files as well. If you have any questions about what I posted above, feel free to ask them below. You can also ask JJMC89 about this to since he's the Wikipedia administrator who operates that bot. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Could this image be transfered to Commons?

This image is currently unused on the Ukrainian Wikipedia but it doesn't seem to be at risk of being deleted. Is it Commons compatible?★Trekker (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The source is very unclear. It says "Fox". But what does that mean? A photo of a sculpture can have copyright. So I would say that the uploader did not take the photo, but copied it from somewhere. Best to leave this off commons. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Shell logo.svg

I'm wondering whether File:Shell logo.svg needs to be licensed as non-free. It seems to be at least {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} per c:COM:TOO United States and may even be {{PD-logo}} based upon this discussion at c:COM:VPC#Category:Shell logos. Any opinions on this? I guess the fact that it's an svg file might be a problem if that svg is user-created per c:COM:SVG#Copyright and WP:NFC#Multiple restrictions, but not sure about that. If the svg is a problem, another version of the logo can probably be found here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The .svg format content appears to be complex enough to have copyright, as it is not just a minimal encoding. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
We do not have a strong answer to the question of whether the SVG code itself is a unique copyright separate from the graphic image itself. While one *can* "code" SVG by hand (it is a human-writable language) most people never actually see the SVG as it is the output of programs like Illustrator, and there's no strong case law around it yet. This would be in constrast with, say, computer code and its on-screen output (the code is something written, and that's where copyright is recognized to be held, not the executable, though there are aspects of the executable that may also have copyright aspects, depending on various facets). If anything, trying to consider the idea–expression distinction of US copyright law, the SVG and final graphic image are so closely tied that these may be too closely linked, to the point that if the graphic is too simple for copyright, the underlying code can't qualify either. MAYBE. This is very hypothetical with zero case law to support any answer either way, but its why we don't talk about the SVG code's copyright in terms of an SVG. --Masem (t) 21:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Political party logos

Removal of Political party logos form List of political parties in the United States, but not from the parties own wikipedia pages? Doremon764 (talk) 03:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Political party logos are not automatically free images, and the ones that were removed are clearly marked non-free. Under WP:NFC policy, they are allowed on the page about the political party, but they cannot be used in tables or lists. --Masem (t) 04:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

"May be reproduced without permission" Tag Question

Hello. I have found a publication which has images which could greatly improve Wikipedia, but I want to make sure I can use them freely. The publication is Liberia Today. It was published by the Liberian Embassy in Washington D.C., around the 1950s to 1960s. According to normal Liberian law, governmental media is not public domain until 70 years after it is published BUT I noticed on the linked page here that it says: "All material may be reproduced without permission." This is likely why it's public domain on HathiTrust. I was wondering, does this mean I would be able to upload media from this publication, and if so, what copyright tag should I give it? – RoundSquare (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

A couple of things you need to probably be careful of here. One is possible c:Commons:License laundering, even if its unintentional. If the content on the HathiTrust website is stuff was created by HathiTrust, then that license might be applicable; on the other hand, if they took the content from somewhere else, then that license probably isn't applicable because HathiTrust can claim copyright ownership or non-ownership over content it didn't create. It looks like (but I'm not sure) that someone at HathiTrust might think that it owns the copyright over a digitalized version of the the publication, and therefore it can release its version into the public domain; however, I'm not too sure that's correct because digitalizing printed publications seems to be a type of c:Commons:2D copying in which no new copyright is established for the digitalized version. Even if there was, at the very least the digitalized version would still probably be considered a WP:Derivative work means that the original print publication would also need to be public domain or freely licensed for Wikipedia or Commons to accept it under such a license.
Another thing you might want to be careful of is the vagueness of the license. "All material may be reporduced with permission" is a bit vague. Does it mean "All material may be reproduced without permission and used for any purpose"? If there are any exceptions as to how the material may be reproduced like "educational use only", "non-commercial use only", etc. like listed here, then that would not be acceptable for Wikipedia or Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Please help - issue regarding non-free use image

Recently I uploaded a non-free use image solely for informative purposes, to identify a historic figure called Wogan Philipps, 2nd Baron Milford. I then noticed a bot had marked my image as too high a resolution, so I uploaded a new version of the photo with a smaller resolution. I thought I was replacing the old photo but the original larger version is still here. Can someone tell me how to delete it?

This is the original photo I uploaded: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wogan_Philipps,_2nd_Baron_Milford.jpg#filelinks This is the smaller reupload: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:(reupload)_Wogan_Philipps,_2nd_Baron_Milford.jpg

Any help or advice that anyone can give me will be greatly appreciated. BulgeUwU (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@BulgeUwU: all taken care of. For information if you get the message about replacing images with a lower resolution version, a bot will take care of it within a few days without any human intervention. Nthep (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

UK TV logos

I've started a discussion about some UK TV logos over at c:COM:VPC#UK TV station logos and am posting a link here for reference. There are couple such logos uploaded to Commons as "PD-textlogo" that are identical or similar to local versions of files Wikipedia is treating as non-free or "PD-ineligible-USonly"; so, if the Commons files are OK, the local-only versions are probably no longer necessary and can be either relicensed or removed. Anyone whose interested should feel free to post over at Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2021/January&oldid=1012007486"