Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2021/September

Original source (that was infringed on) itself has copyright violations

I'm doing a rewrite of Dungeons & Dragons: Adventures in the Forgotten Realms. The original article creator had copied & pasted from the MTG Wiki. I had attempted a clean up a bit ago but it was recently determined that a total rewrite would be better. During my first clean up, I discovered that the original article on MTG Wiki had copyright violations that were then copied over here. I was able to trace, add quotation marks as needed & attribute (original content was copied from a reliable source, the official Magic twitter & some wiki pages such as the Forgotten Realms) some of it. Is it still a copyright violation to keep those cleaned up bits if they've been attributed? For example:

• Sentence [1] from MTG Wiki: However, this doesn't mean that these characters have a planeswalker's spark in the same sense that the term has in Magic's lore.

• My attributed, cleaned up version: However, "this doesn't mean that these characters [...] have a Planeswalker Spark" as defined in Magic's lore.

• Sentence [2] from MTG Wiki: The D&D team worked with the Magic team on every aspect of the set, similar to how the Magic team worked with the D&D team on D&D Mythic Odysseys of Theros and D&D Guildmasters' Guide to Ravnica. The D&D team provided extensive feedback on both the visuals and lore of The Forgotten Realms.

• My attributed, cleaned up version: The "D&D team worked with the Magic team on every aspect of the set, similar to how the Magic team worked with the D&D team on" the campaign setting books Guildmasters' Guide to Ravnica (2018) and Mythic Odysseys of Theros (2020). The D&D team "provided extensive feedback on both the visuals and lore of the Forgotten Realms".

Thanks for the help! Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

References

@Sariel Xilo: This page is mainly for asking questions about media (e.g. photos, videos, files found online) related copyright questions; it’s not really for dealing with text content. Some may try to answer your questions here, but you probably have a better chance getting a response if you ask at WP:CP instead. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 August 7 § File:Atlanta 96 Gold - Copy.jpg

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 August 7 § File:Atlanta 96 Gold - Copy.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Syrian communist party logo.png

Does this really need to be licensed as non-free given the fact that it's basically no different from File:Flag of the Soviet Union.svg minus the star and a slightly brighter shade of red? The hammer and sickle imagery also doesn't appear to be eligible for copyright protection per c:Category:SVG hammer and sickle and File:Syrische Kommunistische Partei.gif. If the only issue is that this comes from FOTW, then such a non-free image can't really be justified per WP:FREER. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Surely communists don't believe in copyright? More seriously, commons has the image File:Syria Pioneering Revolutionist Party Flag.svg which looks to be identical to this and is already freely licensed. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that perhaps communists believe in more things than they let on, but thanks for finding the Commons file. The different file format means the png isn't eligible for speedy deletion per WP:F8, but deletion should be fairly uncontroversial via WP:FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Does this svg file fit to replace non-free logo?

Hi,

I had created an svg logo [1] to replace non-free logo File:MasterChef India - Telugu Logo.jpg. One of the contributer doesn't agree with it. Before going further I want to know whether this svg logo has the acceptance to replace the non-free logo?

Anoop (talk) 04:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

No. If the jpg image is non-free (it says it is and I have no reason to doubt it), then you are not allowed to copy the image unless you have a licence to make a copy. The svg image looks to me like a close copy and the file format is irrelevant. You have taken someone else's creative ideas and presented them as your own. You should go to Commons and request deletion of the file you created. Commons does not allow non-free files so even the jpg should not be uploaded there. Thincat (talk) 09:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Thincat: Pardon me, but i don't understand what you meant by file format is irrelevant. Did you even checked the svg source. It only contains basic structures and functions to redraw a structure similar to original logo. I didn't make any copy of that jpeg file. Anoop (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

What I mean is that it appears to me you have carefully looked at the graphical design in the original image and you have copied it. That is no more allowed than taking an oil painting and reproducing it in acrylic paint. However, I am merely giving my opinion and there is no need to accept it unless you want to. Thincat (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Thincat: Your opinion is valuable and i don't mean any disrespect. I am asking questions due to lack of knowledge. Suppose if i want to replace a non-free logo and there is no svg files available. The only option is to create one. If i created one then, should i release it under own license or under pd-text logo license ? Please put a ping before your reply. Anoop (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Anoopspeaks: I'm afraid I don't know. Thincat (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Anoopspeaks: If you're basically just converting a non-free file from one format to another and the logo isn't otherwise changed in any major way (i.e. it's wikt:slavish reproduction), then that would be most likely considered a case of c:COM:2D copying with no new copyright created. If, however, you incorporate the original logo into a "new work" (either completely or partially) in which you take someone else's creative work old and add an element of your creativity to it to create something new, then that might be considered a c:COM:DW; in such a case, a new copyright could be established for the "new work". In either of these cases, though, the copyright of the original work still needs to be considered. If the original work hasn't been released under a free license that Commons (or Wikipedia accepts) or is not within the public domain for some reason, then you will need to get the c:COM:CONSENT of the copyright holder of that work for Commons (or Wikipedia) to keep the file. If the original work has been released under such a free license or is in the public domain for some reason, then the CONSENT of the copyright holder isn't really necessarily. Svg files are a bit unclear because there is some disagreement as to whether converting something to a vector version in and of itself is sufficient to generate its own copyright as explained in c:COM:SVG#Copyright, but the copyright of the original work still needs to be considered.

In order for Commons to keep a file, it needs to be 100% free or 100% public domain in both the United States (where the Wikimedia Foundation servers are located) and the country-of-origin of the work in question because Commons files are global files that can be used by all Wikimedia Foundation projects. Files uploaded to Wikipedia (i.e. English Wikipedia), on the other hand, only really need to be 100% free or 100% public domain in the United States because they're local files that can only be used on English Wikipedia. Please understand that what I've posted is just a general explanation and might not cover each and every case. Copyright laws often vary (sometimes even quite a lot) from country to country; so, something within the public domain in one country may not be so in another country. However, if all you're doing is basically taking a logo file and converting it to a vector version, then you shouldn't upload that file under a free license unless you're absolutely sure the original logo 100% free or 100% public domain. Things can get even trickier when converting a non-free logo in one format to a non-free svg file as explained in WP:NFC#Multiple restrictions or when uploading a 100% free or 100% public domain logos as a non-free svg files as explained in WP:FREER, but those are for other reasons related to WP:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thanks. Anoop (talk) 01:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Marchjuly: Yes, that seems right to me (and more carefully explained than I managed!). Thincat (talk) 08:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

File:The Moving Toyshop, 1st edition cover, 1946.jpg

Even though this is a book cover for The Moving Toyshop, I'm not sure it needs to be licensed as {{non-free book cover}}. It's looks to be nothing more that colored text which would certainly be {{PD-simple}} in the United States per c:COM:TOO United States and most likely the same in the UK as well per c:COM:TOO United Kingdom. If we want to play itself and assume it's still protected in the UK, there should be no issue with relicensing this as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} for local use on Wikipedia. Regardless what happens with this file, it makes the non-free use of File:TheMovingToyshop.jpg questionable. Neither two non-free files of the book's cover nor one non-free and one PD file of the books cover are needed per WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3a or WP:NFCC#8 unless there's sourced critical commentary related to the second/aternative cover art. So, if the first UK edition is the one that's going to be used to identify the book, then the other file probably needs to be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Edward W. Hardy Black Logo.png

Not sure that File:Edward W. Hardy Black Logo.png needs to be licensed as {{Non-free logo}} since it's nothing more than the name of Edward W. Hardy in sort of a script font. I'm not sure if this logo represents Hardy's personal brand or his signature, but it either way I don't really think there's a non-free justification for either since he appears to be primarily Wikipedia notable for his music accomplishments, not his personal branding. So, if this can't be converted to {{PD-logo}} for some reason, I don't think it can be kept. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Album cover for Cathy Dennis

Hi, is it possible to use an album cover in the Cathy Dennis page, because there are no other copy-right free photos of her available? I posted one and someone removed it! There are already several posted in Wiki Commons. Carl Carter X (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Carl Carter X. Most album covers tend to be filled with copyrightable elements (i.e. elements deemed to be creative enough to be considered to be someone's intellectual property) which means they are treated as non-free content by Wikipedia, unless it can be demonstrated that the copyright holder has given their WP:CONSENT or otherwise has released the file under a free license that Wikipedia accepts. Album cover art uploaded as non-free content to Wikipedia is generally OK to use for primary identification purposes at the tops of or in the main infoboxes of stand-alone articles about albums per item 1 of WP:NFCI, but other types of uses or uses in other types of articles can be much harder to justify as explained in items 1, 6 and 9 of WP:NFC#UUI, WP:NFC#CS and WP:NFC#cite_note-3. So, relevant Wikipedia policy generally doesn't allow non-free album covers to be used in articles about artists, unless the album cover itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary.

The reason why the bot removed the file from Cathy Dennis was because it didn't have a separate, specific non-free use rationale for that particular use as explained in WP:NFCC#10c, WP:NFCCE and WP:NFC#Implementation: the primary task of the bot is to look for such files and remove them when they're lacking the required rationales. You can stop the bot from removing the file again by adding the required rationale to the file's page; however, simply adding a rationale to a file's page doesn't automatically make a the corresponding non-free use policy compliant as explained in WP:JUSTONE, and the file's non-free use could be challenged by another editor. In such cases, further discussion might be needed at WP:FFD to see if a consensus can be established in favor of the using the file. My personal opinion is that this would be quite hard to do so as explained above, but you can try if you want.

As for album covers uploaded to Commons, there are some, but these are usually too simple to be considered eligible for copyright protection or otherwise are considered to be public domain, or they have been released by their copyright holders under a free license that Commons accepts. If you can find any of Dennis's album covers or any photos of Dennis uploaded to Commons, then perhaps you could use one of them in the article. There are no guarantees though because people are always uploading stuff to Commons in good faith, but nonetheless its stuff that ends up needing to be deleted because the licensing can't be verified or is otherwise incorrect. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for such detailed feedback. I was using already uploaded images, but I see that even that could be an issue. I'll just leave it be for now, but I wish there was a copyright free image of hers available. Carl Carter X (talk) 02:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Image for the Air Base Speedway

A short-lived race track called Air Base Speedway appears to have only one uncredited low altitude photograph of the venue available online, via a newspaper advertisement in the April 14, 1951 edition of The Greenville News. I believe the image would be suitable for use in the infobox, but I can't make heads or tails of its usage status. What are your thoughts?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by VariousDeliciousCheeses (talk • contribs) 16:52, 9 September 2021‎

@VariousDeliciousCheeses:: Being dated 1951, if the advert does not have a copyright notice, it is in the public domain. In that case you would use the following template {{PD-US-no notice}} according to the Hirtle chart and you can upload it to the commons. ww2censor (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikimedia usage of images from another website

Hello, I am the owner of a website called hockeydb.com. My site is referenced substantially across Wikipedia because it is considered a well-researched and definitive source, encyclopedic in nature, for hockey history. The site is similar to a commercial encyclopedia, though it is ad-supported, not subscription-based.

I have noticed on occasion that people take image files from my website and add them to Wikipedia - files that I have scanned and curated of items from my personal hockey collection. They are adding them to things like team info pages or player pages with the "fair use" justification that "no free equivalent" exists.

A good example of this is the photo of Garnett "Ace" Bailey.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Garnet_Bailey.jpg

The problem this causes me is that once the image is on Wikipedia, Google will show that image instead of the original which is on my site. Google then appropriates the image into its "knowledge graph". I become an unwitting source of resources for Wikipedia - the image *is* available, and I spent money acquiring it by purchasing the original NHL media release on the secondary market, scanning it, cleaning it up, and hosting it. It would certainly be possible to find the image elsewhere, such as on eBay auction listings, but that would take more effort on the part of the person uploading. My site is very good and consistent, so people take it from there.

However I am not sure that "no free equivalent" is appropriate justification under Wikimedia's policies to take an image file from a commercial website whose purpose is similar to Wikipedia.

Can someone clarify if this meets Wikimedia's policies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralph Slate (talk • contribs)

The issue here is that US fair use law and copyright law doesn't help your case here, I think. As you state, you appear to have gotten these images from materials published by the NHL or its teams, making the original images property of the NHL/teams (barring certain lack of copyright notices for older images) Even that if you have bought the copies of these yourself and did the scanning , that doesn't create a new copyright -those images are still copyright of the NHL. Under US copyright law - mechanical reproductions of 2D works, even with cleanup/etc. does not impart a new copyright. So you're already using the images on your site within fair use allowances. That same fair use allowance applies to here within context of our WP:Non-free content policy - that as long as these are small images of deceased hockey athletes, these are acceptable usage. The only factor that could be at issue is if the original works from the NHL were like press photos (akin to Gettys images) that were meant for commercial resale themselves, but that doesn't seem to be case from your description nor what I can see searching around for NHL imagery -they issued lots of press releases with lots of photos but not meant as press photos that others needed pay for.

As to the "no free equivalent", we're not talking about "free as in money" but "free as in thought", or free licences like CC-BY or public domain. --Masem (t) 17:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Adani Group logo.svg

File:Adani Group logo.svg is almost certainly {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} per c:COM:TOO United States which means it doesn't need to be treated as non-free. Any opinions on whether it's {{PD-logo}} per c:COM:TOO India? If it is, then it should probably be tagged for a move to Commons after it's licensing has been changed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Inserting an image from Wikimedia:commons

In my sandbag, I created an biography article about a scientist whose name is Isaac B. Bersuker. In the info box I inserted his picture borrowed from Wikimedia: commons. Among my personal files I have a better picture of this person. To make it possible to attach this other picture, I uploaded it to Wikimedia: commons. The file of the better picture is "Isaac B. Bersuker in 2008.png". I possess the copyright for this picture. Still, my attempts to replace the existing picture by the other one I recently uploaded fail. How can I replace the existent picture with the one I prefer better, the file "Isaac B. Bersuker in 2008.png"? Thank you for your help vpolinger (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Apparently, the problem is resolved. Thank you. vpolinger (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi vpolinger. Did you actually take File:Isaac B. Bersuker in 2008.png yourself? If you didn't, then you will need to follow the instructions given at c:COM:VRT#If you are NOT the copyright holder because Commons is going to need to verify the c:COM:CONSENT of the person who did take the photo. On the other hand, if you did take the photo but it was previously published somewhere else (e.g. in a book), then you should follow the instructions given in c:COM:VRT#Licensing images: when do I contact VRT? because Commons is going to need to verify your CONSENT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Music Clips

Hello, looking to add a few short music sample clips of a artist page or music album page. For example Beyonce, on her album pages she has samples of some of the songs. Is this possible to do? Any help is greatly appreciated thank you. Sarahalohi (talk) 05:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Image for article SMS Stralsund

The image showing the maneuvers and actions of SMS Stralsund was removed from the article. Can I receive any explanation why it has happened? There are some more images already uploadad from the same book under PD-US license with the same template and there is no problem with them. --Andreas (talk) 06:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

You didn't complete the non-free-use template within the stated deadline. --Orange Mike | Talk 07:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Andreas P 15. The bot that removed the file is run by an administrator named JJMC89 and you can ask him for clarification on his user talk page, but that bot mainly removes files which don't satisfy WP:NFCC#10c; in other words, it removes non-free files which are missing a separate, specific non-free use rationale for the article they were being used in as required by Wp:NFC#Implementation. Before trying to re-add the file to the article, perhaps it would be better to try and determine whether it actually needs to be treated as non-free content. Why did you upload the file under the non-free license {{Non-free 2D art}} if you believe the file to be within the public domain as {{PD-US-expired-abroad}}? In general, a file is either within the public domain or it's still protected by copyright (i.e. non-free content). What other files from the same book have been licensed this way? Perhaps they aren't and you just misunderstood or misread the license? -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I am noob in uploading images. I was advised from members os WikiProject Ships to upload the images from this book this way. Originally, I asked the publisher - who has all rights reserved - whether I can use this images on Wikipedia. They said they do not have any objection, but they do not know, whether a third party can have any claims. Who this third party could be, they couldn't mention. I guess maybe the Estoniai Library which digitalized it or the cartographer Herzog, under whose control this sketches were made. Herzog is not to be identified, we do not know even his surname, because all the paperwork of the publisher was destroyed at the end of the second world war. That's why I have uploaded tehem only as PD-US and not directly into Commons, even I do believe they do fit in for Commons. I have adjusted the a templates according the advises from WikiProject Ships. --Andreas (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Andreas P 15. If the book's publisher is the copyright holder of the original image, then they can give their WP:CONSENT if they want. However, Wikipedia doesn't accept any licenses that place any type of restriction on commercial or derivative re-use; so, licenses such as "Non-commercial use only", "Wikipedia use only", "Educational use only" are not going to work. Authors and publishers do often use images that they didn't create in their books and in many cases they have received permission from the copyright holder of the image to do so; this permission doesn't, however, usually extend to Wikipedia. So, if that's the case, the the original copyright holder's consent might be needed for the file to not be treated as non-free content.

"Public domain" basically means that for some reason a work is either no longer deemed eligible for copyright protection (e.g. it's too old and its copyright has expired) or never was eligible for copyright protection (e.g. too simple or a work by an employee of an organization that under statute or in principle releases its works into the public domain). So, if you can demonstrate the map to be within the public domain, then it doesn't need to be treated as non-free content. When an author or publisher uses public domain photos in their books, they will, of course, own the copyright on any original content about the photo they included in the book. I don't think they can claim a new copyright over the photo itself though; they can try, but I don't think it works quite that way. In addition, I don't think the digitalization of an old map seems to generally not be something that generates a new copyright for the digitalizer per c:COM:2D copyright, though many might disagree as explained in copyfraud. Copyright laws differ from country to country which might explain why someone advised you to use the template {{PD-US-expired-abroad}}.

One last thing, while it might be possible to use such a map as non-free content, it might be hard to justify such a use per WP:FREER and WP:NFC#CS if equivalent encyclopedic information can be presented in some other alternative way (including text alone) instead of using a non-free image. If you want to try such a thing, you'll need to replace the more general {{Information}} template you added with a more specific non-free use rationale which clarifies how the file's use in that article meets all ten WP:NFCCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

If I do understand what you have written, than it is possible to care this images as Public Domain. (?) First, the Copyright-holder publisher allowed to use them, second, the Estonian library can't claim any rights, and third, the author, Kartograph Herzog as working on the German official history at sea was "an employee of an organization that under statute or in principle releases its works into the public domain". It would be great to get these images into Commons, because I originally wanted to use them on Hungarian Wikipedia. --Andreas (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The book from which the diagram was taken was published in 1920 in Germany - as such it should be pd in the US (because it was published pre-1923), although it may not be pd in Germany (depending on whether an author could be found). It should be OK for use on en:Wiki if not commons. The non-free tags appear to be incorrect.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The problem is solved. I have forgotten to add the PD-US as permission in the Summary section. Thank you for Your help! Maybe in the near future all these images can be transferred to Commons... --Andreas (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Commons needs the file to be PD in both the United States and in its country of origin; otherwise, the file may end up deleted. It might go unnoticed for awhile, but will eventually end up deleted. If you want to use the photo on Hungarian Wikipedia, then you should check as to whether that project allows fair use content to be uploaded and used because that might be the only way to do so if the file isn't PD in Hungary. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for this idea. I will ask after it. --Andreas (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

PD-Simple

​​​​​​​​Any opinions as to whether File:Golden Ticket Awards logo.png or File:Golden Ticket Awards.jpg can be converted to {{PD-simple}}? Each image is basically text on a gold background with some minor color gradations/shading and 3D-like effects. If these can be converted to non-free, then files would no longer be subject to WP:NFCCP and be easier to use in Amusement Today. — Marchjuly (talk) 06:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I am concerned that the color gradations combined with the rest could be considered a creative choice. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Marchjuly, this is a good question for Clindberg. It's a US work and while I think none of the elements individually (color gradient, ticket shape, lines, various bits of text) would be eligible for copyright protection, all the elements as a whole possibly have enough complexity. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

We are generally far more likely to find copyright originality than does the US Copyright Office.[2][3][4] The first reference relates to this image. Of course that office advises on legal matters but does not decide them. Thincat (talk) 11:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Concur with Thincat, but we do that because in fence type situations here we err on the side of caution. I think that's what we need to do here. Also, File:Golden Ticket Awards logo.png needs to be deleted, since it's effectively a copy of File:Golden Ticket Awards.jpg, and it's orphaned. We also should not be using the latter image through various "Best ..." sub-articles from Amusement Today, per WP:NFC#UUI #17. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

  Hammersoft, no longer orphaned. It seems that the year of File:Golden Ticket Awards.jpg was possibly photoshopped out by JlACEer. (see upload summaries) If that's true, it should be deleted. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I did not alter the ticket. There are multiple versions of the ticket and the VIP logo is used by Amusement Today when referencing the Golden Ticket Awards without any specific year or a specific category. Watch the first minute or so of the golden ticket announcements on YouTube, you will see the podium uses the "non-dated" VIP logo. You can also see the non-dated VIP logo being used at the company's booth at a trade show. The 2020 logo should be deleted as it is the wrong logo for that page — that particular award ended in 2018.—JlACEer (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

If you would like a different file type or resolution uploaded, I can request a copy from Amusement Today. I know how to get in touch with them.—JlACEer (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

JlACEer, there was no source on the file page so I couldn't verify the authenticity. I added the links you gave so now it's fine. A better quality version would be nice, the compression artifacts really hurt this image. A .png would be preferable as text is major part of the image. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Jo-Jo Eumerus, Alexis Jazz, Thincat, and Hammersoft: Thanks for the comments so far; however, it's probably better to move this discussion to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 September 19‎#File:Golden Ticket Awards logo.png since JlACEer has gone ahead and started an FFD. It would probably also be a good idea to add File:Golden Ticket Awards.jpg to that FFD as well. If the rough consensus is that these files should be kept as non-free, then it should be discussed whether only one or both are needed and which non-free uses or uses would be NFCCP compliant. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Olympiacos Piraeus season 2021-22 logo usage

Hi there,

I'd like to use the file 'Olympiacos FC logo.svg' in the page 2021–22 Olympiacos F.C. season. Is there any issue with this? Sir Pretender (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sir Pretender. Non-free team logos aren't considered usually OK to use in article about individual seasons except in cases where the team logo itself might be specific to the particular season; for example, if a team is celebrating an anniversary and a special logo was created particularly for that anniversary season, then the non-free use of the logo in the season article could be most likely be justified per items 14 and 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. Another possible case would be when a team introduces a new overall logo for a particular season and sourced critical commentary about the logo change can be found and added to the season article. If, in general, the logo is just one a team is using for all its seasons, then such a logo would be probably OK for the team article but not for the individual season article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. OK! Thanks a lot for the info, much appreciated! Sir Pretender (talk) 21:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Use of Blodhemn.jpg on the Viking metal page

File:Blodhemn.jpg was removed from the Viking metal article. The bot claimed that it had no fair-use rationale. The usage on the Viking metal page was explicitly mentioned on the file's rationale. Was there a technical oversight somewhere where myself or another editor didn't fully provide the appropriate rationale? Thanks. --3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi 3family6. A separate, specific non-free use rationale is required for each use of a non-free file and that is what the bot is looking for. Combo-rationales are almost always never a good idea because two non-free uses are almost always never the same and thus the justification for each use is pretty much never the same. The non-free use of the file in Blodhemn is what the rationale is for since the file is being used for primary identification purposes in a stand-alone article about the album it represents. The non-free use in Viking Metal is quite different since that is a genre article in which a non-free image might not actually be needed per WP:FREER or WP:NFC#Cite_note-3 to express what is trying to be expressed. Of course, if you disagree with that assessment, then you more than welcome to add a separate rationale for that particular use to the file's page. Just understand, that such a type of non-free use is really quite hard to justify and in many cases a link simply to the album's page would be preferred. Morover, adding a non-free use rationale doesn't make a particular non-free use policy compliant and the file's use could still be challenged per WP:JUSTONE. Finally, I briefly scanned the source that was cited in the file's caption and I'm not finding anything particular to that cover covered in the source. The source might speak in general terms about the type of imagery used on that particular cover, but it might be hard to justofy the file's use unless the source specifically refers to the cover itself. If I missed something about the cover in the source, make sure to add such content to the article as well to better justify the need for the reader to see that particular cover. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! I see the failure to include a second fair use rationale. Per your reasoning, I don't think the image itself can be justified, since a mention of the album can convey enough of the information. That specific album cover IS mentioned though by name, in the last line of page 68 (not including image caption).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Keswick Mountain Festival

What's the problem with the image on this page? The one on the parallel Kendal Mountain Festival page hasn't been queried. If anyone could put the correct tag on the deleted pic and reinstate it, it would be much appreciated. Ericoides (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ericoides there was an error in the non-free use rationale. You'd labelled it as for use in the article on the Kendal festival not the Keswick festival so the bot saw this as a misused logo and removed it. Updating the rationale to say Keswick not Kendal sorts things out. I've also re-added the logo to the article. Nthep (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nthep Thanks. What a clot I am! Ericoides (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I stared at it for several minutes before I spotted it - you see the K and gloss over the rest as you're expecting to see Keswick. Nthep (talk) 16:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

NBA logo files and licensing conflicts with Commons

File:National Basketball Association logo.svg is being treated as non-free content locally here on English Wikipedia and that seems to make total sense at first glance since the silhouette imagery seems to be too complex per c:COM:TOO United States to be {{PD-logo}}. However, it has been pointed out in a currently ongoing discussion over at Commons VPC that the logo might've never been registered for copyright protection or might've been published without a notice; so, it's possible the logo could be treated as {{PD-US-no notice}}. If that's really the case, then perhaps the logo uploaded here to Wikipedia doesn't need to be treated as non-free. Just for reference, the reason I asked about this on Commons had to do with some of the files being used in NBA Finals. It seemed odd to me that the main infobox logo File:NBA Finals logo (2018).svg would be treated as non-free, whereas File:2003 NBA Finals logo.png used in a section of the article would be considered "PD-logo". I'm aware that Commons and Wikipedia aren't always in agreement when it comes to file licensing; however, I don't think it's a very good thing when two files which seem to be essentially the same in terms of copyrightable elements have conflicting licensing. Perhaps there's no way around this kind of thing in some cases, but these conflicts only lead to confusion. If they can't be resolved in a way that is good for both English Wikipedia and Commons, then I don't think the Commons files should be used.

Another example I came across is File:San Antonio Spurs Wordmark Logo 2017-current.png and File:San Antonio Spurs.svg. Other than the difference in file format and the color of the spur, these appear to be identical. I can't see any justification for the difference in licensing; so, either they're both PD or they're both non-free. I don't think it's good situation for Wikipedia that the non-free one is being used in San Antonio Spurs, but the PD one is being used in Lakers–Spurs rivalry, Spurs–Suns rivalry, Rockets–Spurs rivalry, and Mavericks–Spurs rivalry. If a consensus between Wikipedia and Commons cannot be reached with respect to the licensing of a file such as this, then I think we shouldn't be using the Commons files. If other language Wikipedias want to use them, then fine; English Wikipedia, however, should try to avoid these licensing conflicts whenever possible. I can't speak to motivation of the persons who uploaded this file to Commons or added it the English Wikipedia articles, but the licensing conflict is something that needs to be resolved in my opinion even if everyone did what they did in good faith. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Australian copyright law

I recently created an article about the 1971 Qantas bomb hoax and someone has requested an image be provided. I found some police photographs of the hoaxers; however, I'm not sure I can use them because they were taken in Australia. I was just wondering if photos taken by police in Australia are in the public domain, like how they are in the United States. Thank you. Huey117 (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Huey117: For Australian copyright law see c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Australia. Are they government works? If so they are copyright for 50 years after publication which might expire next January if published in 1971. Currently they are not in the public domain but perhaps you could use one photo under our strict non-free media policy if it complies with all 10 requirements. ww2censor (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll look into it, copyright law is just really confusing. Huey117 (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Picture for the Bear Quartet article

I am currently working on improving the article for a very obscure rock band called The Bear Quartet. This article originally had an image which only showed two members of the band, one of them displayed much more prominently than the other. I replaced this image with an image which showed all of the band members together. However, this image was copyrighted and I did not have the proper copyright information on it, so I requested speedy deletion of it, which was granted. I later reuploaded the image locally to Wikipedia under fair use. However, it is now being discussed that the image should be deleted because it is not a unique historic portrait like I claimed it was (I was just choosing the closest descriptor), and the person who created the discussion believes it could be replaced with a gallery of freely licensed images of the band members. Freely licensed images of two of the band members do exist and are on commons, but the rest of the band members are hardly public figures anymore, and freely licensed images of them would be impossible to find. This image still falls under fair use, however, it lands me in a difficult predicament. Is it still ok to use this file on Wikipedia? If so, how can I keep it up, if not, how do I replace it? -- Cliferton (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cliferton: Since this file's non-free use is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 September 26#File:The Bear Quartet as pictured by Kevin Conrad.jpg, it would probably be better to keep all relevant comments there to avoid splitting the discussion. You may, however, want to look at this first because fair use and non-free content use aren't exactly mean the same thing when it comes to Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Adjusting licensing details for a logo on Wikipedia

Can the licensing information be adjusted on the this logo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lipsy_Master-logo-full.jpg This is a non-free logo and should have licensing similar to what these logos have:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boohoo_logo.png
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RiverIsland.svg
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Next_2007-_logo.svg

What is the process for changing the licensing, and what information is needed for accomplishing the change? Thank you. 151.225.254.248 (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi IP 151.225.254.248. What you're asking can't be done, at least not in the way you seem to be asking. Commons doesn't accept non-free content as explained in c:COM:FAIR; so, there's no way to convert a Commons file to fair use or non-free license. What would need to be done would be for the Commons file to be deleted and the for the file to be uploaded locally to English Wikipedia. Before you try to do any of that, however, you might want to look at c:COM:TOO and threshold of originality, and then ask yourself the following questions.

1. Why do I think the Commons file is non-free?
2. Am I mixing up the idea of a logo being trademarked with the idea of it being copyrighted?
3. Why do I think the "Boohoo" and "RiverIsland" logos need to be non-free? (The "Next_2007" logo isn't technically licensed as non-free so I'm leaving that out)

Regarding Q1, you're going to be expected to provide a reason why you nominate or tag the Commons file for deletion to establish a consensus that the file should be deleted. Others might disagree with your assessment, particularly if you just say because files which look similar are uploaded locally to English Wikipedia are licensed as non-free. Such a line of reasoning might not be very convincing because the Wikipedia files might actually not need to be non-free. It might also be the case that a Commons is just incorrectly licensed and that the file's licensing can be fixed without needing to delete the file.

Regarding Q2, Commons has no problems with accepting trademarked logos as explained in c:COM:Trademarks. It's quite possible and actually often the case for a logo to not be eligible for copyright protection but still be trademarked.

Regarding Q3, sometimes people upload a file as non-free just because they think that all logos need to be non-free; that, however, isn't automatically the case and logo could be public domain for a variety of reasons. Since Commons is a global project it's licensing requirements require that the files it host be "free" or within the public domain in both the United States and the country of origin. Files uploaded locally to Wikipedia, on the other hand, need only be free or public domain in the United States. My personal opinion is that "Boohoo" and "RiverIsland" logos don't need to be treated as non-free and that their licensing can at least be converted to Template:PD-ineligible-USonly for English Wikipedia purposes.

Finally, for reference, Commons and (English) Wikipedia are separate projects with their own respective policies and guidelines; there's a lot of overlapping of things, but Commons issues need to be resolved on Commons. There is a Commons' equivalent to this page at c:COM:VPC, where you can ask about Commons files if you want. Asking about them here doesn't mean someone won't try and help you, but it just means there are limits as to what can be done. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)