Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2022/February

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

Cleveland International Records logo

Is the "Cleveland International Records" logo, seen in File:Two out of Three Ain't Bad by Meat Loaf US vinyl.jpg, eligible for US copyright or below threshold of originality (c:COM:TOO US)? --George Ho (talk) 11:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

File:Epic Records 1970s.png looks similar to the "Epic logo" appearing on label and that logo would seem to one of the two possibly copyrightable element (at least in my opinion) on the label. The other is the "Cleveland" logo, but to me looks to be nothing more than a wordmark at least on that label (though it does look a bit more complicated here). The logos might also be considered "incidental" or "de minimis" since they're not really focus of the photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I am completely lost on how to add images to Wikipedia.

Hi,

I have editted a few articles already.

How could I use the image in this article: https://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2016/05/lambeth-green-party-confirm-carnegie-library-campaigner-as-candidate-to-contest-gipsy-hill-by-election/ https://i0.wp.com/www.brixtonbuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/carnegie.jpg?w=620&ssl=1

In a wikipedia article? Would I need to write to the website asking for explicit permission?

THanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrGonzalezRojas (talk • contribs) 00:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@DrGonzalezRojas In short, you can't: "Copyright © 2022 Brixton Buzz." WP is very sensitive about copyright laws, and the default assumption is that any random pic you find online can't be used because copyright. There are some exceptions, more detail at Wikipedia:Image use policy. "We" have a huge archive of usable pics a Commons. The copyrightholder, often the photographer, can upload it there, but that means that they sort of "give it to the world." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Permission for use on Wikipedia would not suffice. If you ask for an image, you would need to ask the copyright holder to release it under a free license. —Kusma (talk) 07:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

File:Prince logo.svg

It is believed that File:Prince logo.svg is copyrighted. However, it is very simple and therefore I believe that it is way below the threshold of originality. The file is in the public domain because it is too simple.--Alex Mitchell of The Goodies (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

But apparently the US copyright office did accept a registration on this logo? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Just going to note that the OP has been indefinitely blocked per WP:SOCK so it's unlikely they will respond to any of this. Although the Commons discussion of this linked to above dates back to 2007, nothing about this appears to have changed unless Prince's estate has suddenly decided to release the logo under a free license Wikipedia accepts or there have been subsequent court rulings which have stated the logo isn't protected by copyright. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

File:Women's uprising protest in front of Potala March 1959.jpg

I guess it is better to make room for other discussions.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Women's uprising protest in front of Potala March 1959.jpg, I wanted to add this image to the article Dalai Lama's escape from China, but it was taken away as it does not meet the criteria to be used there. I actually wanted to upload and use a second one where the Dalai Lama is seen himself while during the escape, but now I am doubting on what the correct way to upload and use an image is. Could someone help in adding an image?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The article has since already gone to DYK. But I'd still be grateful for some advice. Thank you.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How to add image

For some reason a bot keeps removing Khwaja Muhammad Afzal.jpg from Khwaja Muhammad Afzal article even though its under fair-use. How to fix this? UserNumber (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@UserNumber you'd be better off using a rationale template such as {{Non-free use rationale}} to the image. The problem at the moment is that your freehand summary is failing to comply with all 10 elements of the non-free content criteria. The bot specifically looks for breaches of criteria 10c and as the image file doesn't say which article is it being used in, the bot removes the file from the article. Nthep (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Non-Free Image Content Rationale Concerns

My first two questions are pertinent to all of the images that were marked for mass deletion in Batman (comic book). My third question is for my image only, File:Batman 462 Cover.jpg.

1. Previous users and editors added a veritable history of this comic book, including decades, eras, neo-noir, etc., well before I initially visited the wiki article. Does this expansion not reconfigure the primary means of identification to different examples by time period? That is, is the primary means of identification only an issue published in spring 1940, as featured at the beginning of the article?

2. On that note, I'm a recurrent user, but new to uploading images to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. If a previously-approved licensed source site for an image uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons goes offline or is taken down, is the image (according to WP) considered a copyvio as soon as the source site's address is disconnected or the source image is taken down?

3. For my example in particular, if I added an explicit discussion of the issue and storyline to the 1990s subsection of the wiki article, would that potentially provide contextual significance? I'm aware that both contexts and significance can depend, to a limited extent, on wiki article topics and purposes that are, in turn, evaluated or even produced by an editor(s). That stated, do you have suggestions for more appropriate wiki articles for the image, e.g., the author and artist wiki article(s)? A separate article on this specific comic book in the 1990s?

Bustamove1 (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bustamove1 First of all, it has to be remembered that the Foundation's licensing policy is deliberately very strict, so while the English Wikipedia does allow Non-free content (other language Wikipedia's e.g. the German Wikipedia, don't allow any non-free content), it's use is supposed to be sparing.

If you think there is a case to be made for multiple images covering different time periods, state your case. I think you will get a lot of pushback because of the non-free content policy and that previous discussions have come to the consensus that multiple images are not in line with the non-free content policy.
No, assuming the licensing was correct then even if the source site has vanished the license is still valid.
Contextual significance needs to be referenced and not be original research but you also have to be careful that it's not becoming an undue amount of the article. Without knowing what the significance of issue 462 is, it's difficult to give anything but a general reply but if you think there is a stand alone article on this issue/storyline then go for it. Nthep (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nthep:

I do think "there is a case to be made" for multiple examples of covers from 1940-present, but given the situation with my upload, I see your point on the pushback and recent mass deletions. Also, I prefer to make such a case with the support of additional users and editors, which I don't foresee happening anytime soon, principally due to user time constraints, ambivalence, and my own focus elsewhere. That stated, "there is a case to be made" for many, but certainly not all (or even most), debates over such rationale. I will try to think about contentions in the time that I don't have, hopefully prior to the mass deletion deadline.
That's a relief. Monitoring source sites on a weekly basis was not an activity that I looked forward to.
Several of the 1989-99 Tim Drake storylines should have their own pages, especially due to the costume redesign appearing in mass media, Drake in popular DC shows, as well as the character's relevance to the 1990s comic book boom. Perhaps I will generate corresponding pages in the future, if and when I have time. I could also envision a separate page for Batman comic books during the "Year of the Bat" and 1990s. Again, given my focus elsewhere, I may or may not add a brief discussion of the file's corresponding issue and storyline to the 1990s subsection of the wiki article. I will try to substantiate the discussion with a majority of secondary sources. Then I may or may not revise my statements and questions, posted two days ago, on the linked file's talk page. But situating my particular file and image in the Grant or Breyfogle wiki-articles, or even a wiki-article featuring a way of "knowing what the significance of issue 462 is," will likely prove more expedient.

I appreciate your timely assistance and concise explanations in this matter. Bustamove1 (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nthep: For the record, your (3) isn't actually quite true. "Contextual significance" is an editorial call, that can be argued eg on a talk page, and talk pages are not subject to WP:NOR. If somebody makes a good case as to what an image is going to help a reader understand, and that appears to the community to be manifestly of value, that can be acceptable. Though it's certainly an easier case to make, if there is a sourced piece of text in the article that the image helps the reader to understand. But the question of "what is significant in the context of the article topic" is deliberately chosen to allow a bit more wiggle room than just supporting article text, where consensus agrees that an image is particularly helpful. Jheald (talk) 12:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

However, the more a plea to "this image is important!" that lacks any sourcing backup, the more likely NFCC#8 will not be considered appropriate. That is, it starts edging into original research to argue that the reader must see the image to understand the article (the second half of the NFCC#8 test), particularly considering all other NFCC that may already be used on the page as it sounds like in this case here (different cover arts to show the progressing of a character design change). --Masem (t) 22:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Masem here in that the non-free use of the image should reflect how it's actually being used in the article, not how it's being discussed on the article's talk page or how much detail is written about its use in the non-free use rationale. When it comes to NFCC#8, it's not always sufficient to just show that image improves the reader's understanding in some significant way, but it also needs to be demonstrated that omitting the image would be detrimental to that understanding. Adding any image to an article could arguably improve reader understand to some degreee, but is it to the degree that omitting the image would be detrimental to that understanding. While assessing such things can be a bit subjective, it's much easier to demonstrate that WP:NFC#CS is being met when there's sourced critical commentary about the image itself actually in the article (ideally the same section) where the image is being used. There are sometimes allowances made of this when the image is used for primary identification purposes at the top of an article or in the main infobox of an article like explained here, but uses in other parts of an article tends to be really hard to justify absent any specific sourced commentary about the image itself. If there's nothing about the image in the article other than perhaps a caption or some brief mention, then there's almost always no real need for the image to be seen by the reader. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Lt. John McGavock Grider

I am writing an article and wanted to upload a picture of the person the article is about. I have not added an image before and tried to add it to the article. I stated where the picture was from. I could only find that the picture was from the Springs Close Family Archives. However I am not sure now that an image can be uploaded before the article is published. Is this correct? Please delete the picture if there is a copyright problem.Vedlagt (talk) 09:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Files uploaded as non-free content can’t be used in drafts per non-free content use criterion #9 as explained here; so, if you try to use such a file in a draft it will eventually be removed by either a bot or a human editor who reviews files. There is, however, no such restriction placed on files uploaded under a free license or as public domain. Given that you’re working on a draft about an individual who was a pilot during WW1, there’s a good chance that an image of him from that time period would be within the public domain if you can establish that it was first published prior to January 1, 1927. Another reason why such a photo might also be within the public domain would be if it was taken by an employee of the US federal government as part of their official duties. If you can narrow down who took the photo, when it was taken, and when it was likely first published, then it may not need to be licensed as non-free. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

confusion about permission to post an artist's images on the Commons

Hello. In my sandbox I'm working on an article about an artist and have attempted uploading three images of his work to Wikipedia Commons. I know one is in the public domain because of the way it is labeled by a museum. The other two images are published on the artist's website. Is it possible for you to coach me? Thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallodrow (talk • contribs) 14:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gallodrow, the artist holds the copyright to those works, and only he can allow them to be uploaded to Commons. Just being available does not make someone's online images free to use here. See Wikipedia:Image use policy. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for writing. The artist is in his 80s. It is my understanding that he wants his work to be available. Short of asking him to figure out applying for copyrights, how to I secure his permission to use the images in the article since he has allows people to download from his website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallodrow (talk • contribs) 00:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Gallodrow. The artist needs to place a statement on his website saying that all images are licensed under an acceptable free license, and must remove any restrictive language such as "all rights reserved". You can learn more about acceptable licenses on this Wikimedia Commons page. Cullen328 (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Gallodrow. You posted above that the artist wants his work to be available, and that's really cool. However, when it comes to Commons and Wikipedia, that basically means that the artist wants his work to be available for anyone anywhere in the world to download at anytime and reuse for any purpose (including commercial and derivative use). In other words, uploading the artist's work to Commons means that the artist is pretty much giving advance permission to anyone anywhere to download it and do what the want with it as long as they comply with the terms of the licensing the files are released under. This might include ways that the artist may not approve of or may be commercial reuses that the artist doesn't directly benefit from. Most of the licenses accepted by Wikipedia and Commons are fairly non-restrictive and typically only require that the creator of the work be properly attributed. Licenses which try to limit reuse to "for educational purposes only", "for Wikipedia purposes only", or "for non-commercial purposes" only are too restrictive for Wikipedia and Commons. Please make sure the artist understands this before uploading any of his work. He's not transfering his copyright ownership to Wikipedia, Commons or anyone else; he's just making a version of his work freely available so that it's easier for others to reuse. Moreover, he can't really take it back once he does this and people will be able to continue reusing it as long as they comply with its license. So, if the artist is concerned about the commercial value or his work or how others might possibly reuse it, he probably shouldn't allow it to be uploaded to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello! This is extremely helpful. As the writer of the article, am I allowed to contact the artist directly to communicate this to him? I know that one of the three photos I posted is identified by the Dallas Museum of Art as being in the public domain. How do I delete the other two images I uploaded until I can solve this problem? I really appreciate the help and apologize for knowing so little. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallodrow (talk • contribs) 13:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi again Gallodrow. There should be no problem with you contacting the artist to explain what needs to be done. There's even some guidance on how to do so found at WP:PERMISSION and c:COM:EMAIL. If you uploaded files and then realized that it was probably a mistake to do so, you can request that they be deleted from Commons per speedy deletion criteria G7. Just go to the respective file's page, click on "edit" and add the template "db-author" to the top of the page. There are instructions on how to use the template given at c:Template:db-author. As for the one photo that you believe is public domain, that would be OK if it's true; however, there's going to need to be some way of verifying that to be the case. Can the image be seen somewhere online (e.g. the museum's official website) where it can be verified to be licensed as public domain? Sometimes people (even people who work at places like museums) mix up "public domain" with "publicly displayed" or "publicly available", but they aren't not the same thing. Most creative works start out being protected by copyright, but then move into the public domain after a certain amount of time passes. The amount of time necessary for a work to become public domain can vary quite a bit from country to country because different countries have different copyright laws. So, whether the Dallas Museum's assessment is correct could depend on various factors. One thing about public domain is that it basically means that the work in question was either never eligible for copyright protection (i.e. too simple), no longer eligible for copyright protection (i.e. it's copyright has expired or wasn't renewed), or the copyright holder has waived any claim of copyright they had over the work; it's not clear which of these apply to the Dallas Museum's image, bt this would need to be assessed. It's also not clear if the museum's claim that the image is public domain applies to the photo of the work or the actual work itself. Generally, photos of works of art like File:Roger Winter Bless These Windows 1969-1971.jpg, File:Roger Winter Self-Portrait 2013.jpg and File:Roger Winter The Long Walk 2010.jpg are what are considered to be slavish reproductions that aren't creative enough to generate a new copyright for the photo itself. In such cases, it's the copyright of the work that is photographed which matters and you can't uploaded a photo of someone else's creative work to Commons without their consent. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Insert logo "branch campus of the University of Nottingham"

Hello everyone,

I am new to Wikipedia.

I wanted to add the "University of Nottingham Ningbo China logo" to the wikipedia site of the university. Important to know: The logo is the same as from the University of Nottingham (UK).

However, this was denied to me. Why can't I add the logo that is already available on Wikipedia to the branch campus page?

Regards

Source:

https://www.nottingham.edu.cn/en/index.aspx (Logo)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Nottingham_Ningbo_China (Wikipedia) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Since1728 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Eduard Grossman, Sa-Nur Artist's Village image deletion

Dear Wikipedia, I would like to know why the image was deleted. This photo was taken in the studio of the artist's Village in Sa-Nur and on the wall their are written all the names of the artist's that were living their during that time before the demolition. I also mentioned books about Exhibition of the artists of Sa-Nur in the References page.

Thank you, looking forward to your reply.

@Alex kalganov: As your talk page says, the images were all deleted for lacking both information about where you got them from and under what grounds they are used on Wikipedia. It is absolutely essential that images uploaded contain this information, as a very minimum, otherwise there is no way of establishing that the use of the images valid and not a breach of someone's copyright. Nthep (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Poster with a commercially viable photo

I thought about uploading either a poster (looking like a cover art) or a streaming service cover art for a television film, but they both contain the same photo. However, the photo is collected by a photo agency. Would using an image containing the photo risk infringement? --George Ho (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

If the work (the movie here) is produced by a respectable studio/distributor, we have to assume they have gotten the permission from the press agency to use the photo for that cover, and thus it is beyond our remit to really question that aspect. But if you think the studio/distributor is some fly-by-night business and they may not have done that, you're free without evidence to question that they did follow proper licensing and thus not use either image. --Masem (t) 13:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Found the photographer who made this photo. --George Ho (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Kieran Sadlier -0 review photograph

How do I upload a more recent image of Kieran Sadlier now he has signed for Bolton Wanderers and also confirm its origin.

The image came from Kieran Sadlier after the clubs photographer gave him the photographs from his signing at the club? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sads123blue (talk • contribs) 01:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I assume this is about File:Kieran Sadlier Bolton.jpg, deleted yesterday under WP:F4 and today again under WP:F2, both times by @Explicit:. I am not an admin and cannot review the deleted revisions, however, generally, all files must comply with Wikipedia:Image use policy and therefore be either evidently freely licensed, public domain (which is not the same as freely available), or meet all of the non-free content criteria. Non-Free images aren't an option, since WP:NFCC#NFCC1 requires that no free equivalent is available. In general its easier to use the upload wizard, which should ensure all information are properly entered. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Regarding uploading an image file that belongs to Nintendo to Wikipedia Files (Not Wikimedia Commons)

I am attempting to upload an image file to Wikipedia Files for use in an article I am working on. The image in question is the promotional art for Mario Strikers Battle League. I found the image on their store page. I am wondering if I am allowed to upload this image to the Files database. Cheers. WikiRegularAtSchool (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@WikiRegularAtSchool: I wouldn't worry about images too much as long as Draft:Mario Strikers Battle League is in draft. Images are not required for a draft to be accepted, and promotional cover arts are almost always non-free content (including this time), which isn't allowed in draftspace. If the draft is accepted, one might think about uploading the game's logo under fair use, using our upload wizard. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

18th century map of Bristol Channel

I have discovered this map online: [1]. The original map is clearly substantially out of copyright. I can find nothing on the website that makes a claim of copyright. Is a download of this image free to use on Wikipedia? I feel as though I am missing some fundamental point on this, so sorry if this is a stupid question. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

They appear to be selling the physical authentic printed map, and thus the simple act of scanning a 2D image to a 2D electronic format is not considered a new copyright at least within the US, so it should be possible to use those images as PD (well beyond copyright). --Masem (t) 21:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Can Profile Pictures be Added from a Corporate Web Site?

I don't own the copyright but if an image from a corporate web site is available, can it be used for the Wikipedia entry?

I'm asking for this page.

The image I'd like to add is found here

Thanks, Ddspell (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ddspell. Such a thing generally depends on the copyright status of the image. If the copyright holder (which in this case seems to be the organization whose website is hosting the file) has published the image under a one of the free licenses that Wikipedia accepts, then there's a good chance it would be OK to upload and use the file. Another possibility in which an image could be uploaded and used would be that the image is considered to be within the public domain for some reason (i.e. considered to be no longer eligible for copyright protection or never have been eligible for copyright protection). Absent either of those two things, the image is going to be considered non-free content which means it could only be used if it complies with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. This policy is quite restrictive and non-free images of still living persons are pretty much never allowed per non-free content use criterion #1. The website where you found the image states "Copyright © 2022. All rights reserved" at the very bottom which means that at least the basic assumption is going to be that all content found on it is copyright protected and thus needs to be treated as non-free content. There is also a further claim of copyright given here. Thus, it seems that the profile images found on the website of people like Charles L. Evans are not going to be OK to upload and use without getting the consent of the FRB of Chicago -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Properly Citing Images

Hello - I am looking for help citing images. As a medical student, I see patients in acute care settings with sometimes rare diseases. Before submitting to Wikipedia, I always obtain patient consent and de-identify the image. Please help me know how to properly cite these images. Thank you CheckDO (talk) 07:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@CheckDO, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine may be able to offer some relevant advice on this. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Doc James if you have any input. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi CheckDO. If by cite these images you mean upload them and use them in Wikipedia articles, then there are a couple of issues here that would need to be resolved before you can do anything like that. The first one has to do with the copyright of the images. Please take a look at WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files for more details, but if you are the person who took these photos and you're willing to release them under one of the free licenses that Wikipedia accepts, then the best thing to do would be to upload them to Wikimedia Commons. Commons is a sister project of Wikipedia and its primary function is to host images and other media content to make it for others to use. Before you upload anything to Commons, though, please make sure to read c:Commons:Licensing, c:Commons:Own work, c:Commons:License revocation and c:Commons:Non-copyright restrictions to better understand what it means to upload your photos to Commons.

In addition, to the copyright stuff, there is also the contextual relevance of the images that needs to be resolved; Commons is mainly concerned with the licensing of the images its host, while Wikipedia is also concerned with the contextual relevance of the images used in its articles. So, even if the copyright stuff is sorted out, you might still need to establish a consensus to use the photos in any Wikipedia articles. The best way, in my opinion, to go about doing this would be to post something at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine as suggested above and explain what the images are and in which articles you think they could be used. The members of that WikiProject should be able to help you sort that part out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

User:CheckDO as long as you took the picture yourself you can upload under an open license. I get signed patient consent and let them know the image may be used on Wikipedia and on other projects. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

How do I provide a valid non-free use rationale for a page?

I'm trying to change a name of a page and give it a proper main image, but all I get is Removed WP:NFCC violation(s). No valid non-free use rationale for this page. See WP:NFC#Implementation. - Cody Fearless-Lee ✉ (talk) / 1:04PM / February 14, 2022

1. I assume this is about [[File:Alfred Molina as Otto Octavius in Spider-Man 2.webp]]. Why do you think the use of this copyrighted picture would be fair use????

2. What article (not "page"; Facebook has pages, we have actual articles) do you wish to re-name, and why? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

1. What makes a copyrighted picture from a movie like Spider-Man 2 or Spider-Man: No Way Home fair use???? - Cody Fearless-Lee ✉ (talk) / 1:24PM / February 14, 2022

Bluntly, it literally almost never is. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Then why is there a picture of him from No Way Home? Isn't that a little hypocritical? I'm trying to get the main image of the article to be that from Spider-Man 2 which he originated from. - Cody Fearless-Lee ✉ (talk) / 3:32PM / February 14, 2022

2. Sorry. I have been mistaking "articles" for "pages" lately. Anyway, I wanted to give the article of "Otto Octavius (film character)" the proper name of "Otto Octavius (Sam Raimi film series)". I get that Doctor Octopus appeared in an MCU film, but he's not really an MCU character and only appeared via multiverse. This page should be titled "Otto Octavius (Sam Raimi film series)" as it's the franchise he originated from and the main image in this article should be the image from Spider-Man 2. - Cody Fearless-Lee ✉ (talk) / 1:24PM / February 14, 2022

Nope. Doc Ock is an old Marvel comics character and there's nothing non-Marvel about the Raimi version of him over any other. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

All that is true except he originated from the Sam Raimi trilogy otherwise we wouldn't have articles titled Peter Parker (Sam Raimi film series), Mary Jane Watson (Sam Raimi film series), Norman Osborn (Sam Raimi film series), Harry Osborn (Sam Raimi film series), Peter Parker (The Amazing Spider-Man film series), etc. - Cody Fearless-Lee ✉ (talk) / 3:32PM / February 14, 2022

Football sites whose photos aren't copyrighted

Does anyone know a football site whose photos/videos aren't copyrighted? Dr Salvus 12:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus: If by "football" you mean "association football" or "soccer", the you might want to try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football to see if any members of that WikiProject are aware of any such sites? If you're asking about "American football", then you can try asking the same thing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football. There's some general information in meta:Free image resources and c:Commons:Free media resources, but I'm not sure either page lists specific sites for "football". -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

File:Yan Shiqi.jpg

The bot still deleted the image added to Yan Shiqi. The image will be tagged speedy deletion within a week if no one used it. Is it wrong tagging? What should I do?— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Ngancheekean (talk • contribs) 05:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ngancheekean. Non-free content is required to have two things per Wikipedia:Non-free content#Implementation: a file copyright license and a non-free use rationale for each use of the file. File:Yan Shiqi.jpg does have a file copyright license, but it doesn't have a non-free use rationale. That's is why the bot is removing it. If you believe the file's non-free use is justified in Yan Shiqi, then you need to add a non-free use rationale for that particular use to the file's page. You might want to ask about this at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content to make sure, but I think you can probably use Template:Non-free use rationale biog for the non-free use rationale in this case. One concern is whether there are a freely licensed equivalent images of Shiqi already existing or which could be created that could be used instead of this non-free one. Another concern is whether this image is an accurate representation of how Shiqi really looked or just someone's interpretation (i.e. a case of WP:IMAGEOR). You might want to ask about the accuracy of the image at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taiwan or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Recordings of copyrighted works by military bands

To put it simply, are recordings by military bands of music not in the public domain in the public domain? I thought of this question after seeing the United States Navy Band's performance of "Sleigh Ride" on its Wikipedia page. Would this mean that recordings of works by modern wind ensemble composers would be able to be uploaded to their respective pages if they were made by military bands? Why? I Ask (talk ) 04:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Why? I Ask: A recording (cover version) of someone else's copyrighted music seems to be, at least in my opinion, a type of WP:Derivative work. This means that there would be two copyrights to consider: one for original song and one for the cover version. If performances by US military bands are considered to be in the public domain per WP:PD#US government works (FWIW, I'm not sure about that.), then that would seem to take care of the cover version's copyright; however, that still leaves the copyright of the original work to consider. In addition, it's not clear whether official works created by the militaries of other countries are automatically PD like they are in the case of the US military. Perhaps this article will shed some light on this since it seems to be about this very thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Basically my question boils down to if recordings on YouTube from official US military band sources are able to be added to the "External Links" section, and whether or not the Sleigh Ride video should remain on its page. The file [2] says it's allowed because copyright wasn't renewed, but Leroy Anderson's son actually chimed in and said that it is not in the public domain on its talk page. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

New editor, image licensing and the VW Phaeton.

Toyota Corolla E140 has twice now uploaded an image of the VW Phaeton, and I'm positive that licensing is not correct. The first upload has been deleted, and Toyota Corolla E140 has re-uploaded it with a slightly different license.

The issue is that Toyota Corolla E140 believes the image to be free use, and I've been unable to convince them that there are doubts over this. I was beginning to think them a troll, but a recent post makes me think not - but that they still wont' listen. Can somebody else please have a look at the article in question, my talk page, and the image upload, to see what an external opinion may be?

I've brought it up here rather than AN or AN/I for a more informal approach. Thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Chaheel Riens. The file uploaded to Commons is almost certainly going to end up deleted because Commons doesn't accept any type of licensing that place a "non-commercial use" only type of restriction on a file's reuse. This is clearly stated in c:Commons:Licensing and there's not much you can do if the uploader refuses to accept that. The file has been tagged for speedy deletion per c:COM:CSD#F5 and will be deleted after seven days if the copyright holder's c:COM:CONSENT can't be verified. If the file does end up being deleted, a WP:BOT will remove it from the article. If the uploader then tries to re-upload the file to Commons, it will most likely be deleted yet again. If they persist in trying to do this, a Commons administrator will eventually step (perhaps via c:COM:AN/U) in and either warn them to stop, or figure they've had enough warnings already and simply block the account. Unless there editing has been otherwise disruptive on English Wikipedia, there's probably not much of a reason to go to WP:ANI over this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Nah man its free to use, its better image than the orginal, the first edit was my mistake, i accidentally credidted my self because i didnt see the bottom option one, so i have credited my self accidentally couple of times but once it was legit because i edited the wikipedia photo and converted the units inches to millimeter so that was a legit edit. Richard Nixons remastered photo has not been published someoen whose "verifed" editor, i aint. I just am best as my self and use my software skills of re-touching some images that need/are asked to be remastered and im somewhat good on it. Just let the stupid picture be ill license it tomorrow with the proper, free to use license so ya all can go on yo own busniess continue upgrading wikipedia with better photos and not get bogged down with some photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toyota Corolla E140 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The photo is not free to use in the sense that's it's been released under a copyright license accepted by either Wikipedia or Commons. There's a difference between being free from copyright protection and being free (i.e. cost no money) to download. Even though it's a better image than the original, it can't be kept on Commons unless it can be demonstrated to have been released under an acceptable free license by its copyright holder. You can refuse to believe this fact all you like, but it won't stop the file from being deleted yet again. If you can find the image released under any of these licenses by the original copyright holder, they Commons can use it; otherwise, it can't. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

It has no copyright holder! It doesnt need a license, automaniac.org stated that its free to download, use, share, modify, publish, etc. It doesnt need no license, automaniac doesnt own the picture, they are just the source for this photo. The team that made the photo orginally in 2002 would be god damn happy to see it being used in wikipedia as main the main photo, it got the angles, it got the background, its in great shape, good color, a bit better res than that scrap yard orginal, doesnt take much space too — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toyota Corolla E140 (talk • contribs) 07:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The file was deleted from Commons by an administrator named c:User talk:Magog the Ogre per speedy deletion criteria c:COM:CSD#F4. If you feel a mistake was made, you can ask Magog the Ogre for clarification or you can request a review at c:COM:REFUND. However, you seem to be misunderstanding some very important things about Commons; so, once again I suggest you take a look a c:COM:L and also c:COM:NETCOPYVIO. Pretty much all photographs are subject to copyright and that copyright is generally held by the person who takes the photograph. Even in cases where the photographer is unknown, Commons is going to assume the work is protected by copyright absent anything that clearly shows otherwise as explained in c:COM:PCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Cover of Double Cup in Footwork (genre)

Can I please use the cover of Double Cup (Image:Double Cup.jpg) album in Footwork (genre) article? The article currently has only one image illustrating a different section. This image would make a perfect illustration for the "History" section, as this album is highly influental in the genre. I tried to use it but the bot deleted image from the article, citing "no non-free use rationale" and redirected me here to ask first. DJ Alla Dean (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi DJ Alla Dean. Album cover art like File:Double Cup.jpg is treated as non-fee content which makes any use of it on Wikipedia subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. This policy is quite restrictive and basically limits the use of album covers to the main infoboxes or tops of stand-alone articles about the albums they represent. Uses in other articles or in other types of ways is almost always not considered acceptable as explained here. It's generally quite hard to justify the use of non-free images in genre articles like Footwork (genre) unless there's specifically sourced critical commentary about the image in question within the genre article; simply wanting to "show the image" or "illustrate the article" are almost always considered to be a type of WP:DECORATIVE non-free use that's not allowed. The best that can probably be done in this case would be to add a link to the album's article as explained in item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI. Now, freely licensed or public domain images aren't subject to the non-free content use policy, which makes them much easier to use. There are many such images found on Wikimedia Commons and perhaps there are some images already uploaded by others to Commons which could work in the "Footwork" article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, I won't use this image DJ Alla Dean (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Medal of Honor (Frederick R. Jackson) Photograph

Would this photo be in the public domain? The subject died in 1925 so it is in the window of being usable. It is available at this website, https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/frederick-r-jackson. The photo is very similar to many other Medal of Honor recipient and appears to come from from sort of book. Any help in identifying and figuring out copyright status is appreciated as I would to have as many Medal of Honor recipients with photos as possible.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandalf the Groovy (talk • contribs) 23:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Gandalf the Groovy. It's not so much when the subject died, but when the photograph was first published that matters here. If the photograph can be shown to have been first published prior to January 1, 1927, then it would likely be considered OK to upload under a {{PD-US}} license. If the photo was taken by a member of the US military as part of their official duties, the photo might be OK to uploaded under one of the {{PD-USgov}} licenses (there are different variations of this license for different parts of the US government) regardless of when it was first published. Obviously, there was no Internet back when Jackson was alive, so any website hosting the image is almost certainly not the original source of the image; however, whether such a website represents the instance of first publication is not always so easy to figure out. In addition, it's not always clear whether organizations like Congressional Medal of Honor Society of the United States of America are actually part of the US government. Some may have an official sounding name, but there's no real connection; others, on the hand hand, may have a more direct connection, but are considered to be quasi-independent or fully independent like the United States Postal Service. You can try asking about this at c:COM:VPC, but it might be a good idea to email the website and see if they can further clarify where they got the image. It only states "Accredited to: New Haven, New Haven County, Connecticut" and there's also a "© Copyright 2022 Congressional Medal of Honor Society" at the very bottom of the page. The latter seems a bit odd for a US Government website (note the difference between copyright notice for the official White House website and the copyright notice at the bottom of the US Postal Service's official website.), and might be an indication that the site isn't an 100% official US government one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I see you also asked about this at c:COM:VPC#Medal of Honor (Frederick R. Jackson) Photograph a few minutes after posting above. While I can understand the desire to want to try and cover all bases and get as much feedback as possible as quickly as possible, it's not really a good idea to simultaneously ask about essentially the same thing on different noticeboards because it can sometimes lead to confusion, splitting of discussion, redundancy or even different answers. It's best to pick one noticeboard and stick with that as long as possible. All editors on Wikipedia and Commons are volunteers and it sometimes takes a bit of time for someone to respond. If days pass and nobody responds, then maybe asking on another noticeboard makes sense; you should, however, try and be a bit more patient than waiting only a few minutes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

What's going on here?

File:Charles Thomas Wardlaw (1858–1928).jpeg — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeenAroundAWhile (talk • contribs) 02:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)‎

Hi BeenAroundAWhile. The file was deleted by an administrator named Explicit per speedy deletion criterion WP:F5. Non-free files are required to be used in at least one article per non-free content use criterion #7 and those which aren't are considered to be "orphaned non-free use" and are eligible for speedy deletion after five days have passed. You were notified that this could happen on your user talk page here. If you think a mistake was made, you can ask Explicit about it at User talk:Explicit; however, after looking at Charles T. Wardlaw, it appears that the file was removed by a bot here for not having a valid non-free use rationale. SInce the file has been deleted I can't see it because I'm not an administrator to verify exactly what the bot was assessing, but that bot removes files which don't comply with non-free content use criterion #10c. This usually means that there was no non-free rationale provided for a particular use or that a rationale was provided but there was some problem with it. You can ask about the bot's edit at User talk:JJMC89 since he's the administrator that operates that bot. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The file was tagged with {{Non-free biog-pic}}, but had no accompanying fair use rationale, which explains why the bot removed it from the article. I'm seeing now that BeenAroundAWhile cited "Van Nuys News, February 28, 1928. https://www.newspapers.com/image/32635741/?terms=Charles%20T.%20Wardlaw&match=1 No copyright notice" on the description page. Was this an attempt to claim that {{PD-US-no notice}} applied? ✗plicit 03:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind messages; I was steamed for a while. Well, for some reason, WP has done away with the form I used to use when uploading photos: That one was simple, compared with the choices I have had to make since the big switcheroo. (And, of course, bots have no brains.) Yes, the newspaper issue of that date contained no copyright notice. Sincerely, your friend, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi again BeenAroundAWhile. It's possible depending upon when the photo was first published that it could be within the public domain. If you can demonstrate that the photo was first published prior to Janaury 1, 1927, it might be OK to upload to Commons as c:Template:PD-US. Similarly, if you can show that the photo was first published between 1927 and 1977 without a copyright notice, then it could possibly be c:Template:PD-US-no notice. There may be other possibilities as well and you can find them at c:COM:HIRTLE or ask for help at c:COM:VPC. One thing about photos in newspapers and other print publications though is that, unlike advertisements, I don't think individual photos or articles were required to be marked with separate copyright notices and instead were covered by the copyright notice for the entire publication. This is slightly different from the requirements for publicity photos and other types of images that may have been common during that time period. Many papers got (still get) their images from wire services or other third-parties and these may be attributed somewhere where the photo is being used. Such things can sometimes make easy to figure where the image originated from and who published it first. Those are the types of things someone on Commons can probably help you figure out. As for Wikipedia, a non-free image of Wardlaw could possible used as with {{Non-free biog pic}} as the copyright license and {{Non-free use rationale biog}} as the rationale. Given the years he lived, however, there may be issues with WP:FREER since there might be images of him taken and published before 1927 that would make using a non-free one not acceptable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again, particularly for the templates. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

But how do I get that photo restored to the page where it belongs? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Use of existing Wikimedia playing card images e.g. File:Rosamond's Bower Patience.png

I am creating images using graphics software to illustrate how patience or solitaire games are played e.g. File:Rosamond's Bower Patience.png. However the actual playing card images are taken from Category:SVG playing cards 4 on Wikimedia Commons. Under "Source" I have described them as "Own work" because I produced the actual graphic, but added the words "The card images are from "Category:SVG playing cards 4" here on Wikimedia Commons." Is that acceptable or is there another, preferred, way of indicating the source of the actual playing card images? Bermicourt (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Possible Flickrwashing

Does File:31st Battalion Calgary 1914.png really need to be treated as non-free content? The file's description states it was originally published in 1914 which would seem to make it PD in both the US and Canada. The file is sourced to the Flickr account of the Glenbow Museum under a license that needs to be non-free, but that looks like a possible case of c:COM:LL, even if it's not being intentionally done. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Any Canadian photos created before 1949 (or 1946 to be URAA-compliant) are automatically OK per c:Template:PD-Canada. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this King of Hearts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Callaway Arts and Entertainment logo?

Hello, I am editing the Callaway Arts and Entertainment page to add an image in the infobox, but I have to upload it first. So, I don't know if this is under Creative Commons license or copyrighted.

Can you give me some help? Gabi Salinas (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Gabi Salinas. Is the image yours? Is it, in other words, something you created yourself (e.g. a photo you took, a painting you painted, a company logo that you designed) or is it something that was created by someone else? Only the copyright holder can really release something under a Creative Commons license and it's the creator of a work who is typically considered to be the copyright holder. Most of the images you find online are going to be considered to be protected by copyright unless it explicitly states to the contrary. So, if you can provide some information about the image's provenance, then perhaps someone can help sort things out. For reference, there's some general information about this at c:Commons:Licensing (most of that page applies to images uploaded locally to Wikipedia as well). -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The logo can be seen here. It is too simple to be copyrighted in the United States where the company is based, so I uploaded it for you: File:CallawayWebLogo.png. De728631 (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

File:Freedom-Fries-Menu.jpg

This image is claimed to be copyrighted only by its photographer, who released it under GNU/CC-BY-SA. However, the main feature of this image is a restaurant's menu. Does this prevent the image from being released as a free image? (2.55.175.176 (talk)) 08:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The file was uploaded to Commons which means you will most likely need to raise any concerns you have about it there. You can try asking for opinions at c:COM:VPC. Personally, I think it depends on how the menu is viewed. If you see the menu as being nothing more than printed text on a sheet of paper (i.e. there are no images or anything else on it that would certainly be eligible for copyright), then you could try and argue it wouldn't be eligible for copyright protection. On the other hand, you could also argue that the ordering of the list required some creativity and that would enough to make it eligible for copyright protection. Personally, I tend to lean towards the latter interpretation and that seems to be what is being stated here and here. If that's the case, the file couldn't be kept on Commons without the c:COM:CONSENT of whomever created the menu since the photo would be considered a derivative work. The CC-BY-SA license would be fine for the photo, but that license wouldn't extend to the menu. The other imagery in the photo would most likely be considered de minimis or incidental, but the menu would be the problem. It's important to note that none of the individual items on the menu like "Freedom Fries" are eligible for copyright as words (they could possibly be trademarked), but the layout and the ordering of the menu items would likely be eligible for its own copyright. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchjuly (talk • contribs) 11:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Do photocopies and scans of works in the Public Domain have their own copyright in the US?

I found a higher quality version of an image on Wikimedia Commons, but can't find a definitive answer. - ChainSmoker82 (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi ChainSmoker82. You can find out some more about this at c:Commons:2D copying, but generally making a slavish reproduction of something (e.g. scanning or xeroxing) isn't considered sufficient to generate a new copyright. There needs to be some kind of creative input added to something for it to be considered a WP:Derivative work (see also c:COM:DW). However, there might be other issues involved which would make such an image unsuitable for Commons; for example, it might be illegal to create a high resolution photo copy or scan of something due to the copyright laws of the country where the work is published. Neither Wikipedia nor Commons are most likely going to accept such files. For currency, you might want to look at c:COM:Currency; for US currency, you might want to look at c:COM:CUR United States. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Upon further examination, it appears to be a photo rather than a scan. Because of this, I'll need to seek permission from them regardless. - ChainSmoker82 (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

No, a photo of a 2-dimensional work would fall under the same rules as a scan ("slavish reproduction of something"), unless there's some kind of creative choices involved, which seems unlikely. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

National Maritime Museum Photo: Francis Curzon

I am trying to understand the copyright status of this photo [3] which is held at the National Maritime Museum at Greenwich. Their description suggests that it was taken by Francis Curzon, 5th Earl Howe, though study of his article leaves some slight question in my mind as to whether it was taken by someone in the cinematograph service for the Navy. (The RMG information on their exhibits is often somewhat inaccurate.) If it was taken by Curzon, this seems to be as a result of his duties as a naval officer. Therefore I understand that it is OK to use (though I could not point anyone to where that rule is written down). Thanks, ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired if Curzon did take the photos as part of his duties, we would need to know if the authorities claimed Crown Copyright on them. If they did then they will be PD in the UK as the Crown Copyright is over 50 years old. If Crown Copyright was not claimed then the copyright is still in force as Curzon only died in 1964. It's a pity the RMG website is so lacking in recording any copyright information. Nthep (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Looking at his role in WW1, together with all the other photos taken by him of associated subjects (all on naval ships) and all (it appears) in the same place, some of which would have required a high level of access, I think it defies belief that these were "personal" snaps. I note that one of the pictures is of the cinematographic unit for the navy (the team that it was his job to command). If they were done as part of his duties, I understand that there is an automatic claim of Crown Copyright – he was a serving naval officer

Is it really likely that an heir of Curzon would go to the trouble of asserting copyright when they would probably have as much evidence on the matter as we do? Would the RMG be in a position to assert copyright – in other words, could Curzon have transferred the copyright to them when he donated the collection of photos? Does the community of Wikipedia editors have any experience of asking RMG a question like "was this picture under crown copyright?". From the website of this museum and also the Imperial War Museum, they seem intent on maintaining the fiction that they have a current copyright on every picture they put on the internet. Therefore it is a little difficult to believe that they will give an honest answer.

The reason for the extra questions is that there is a whole wealth of photos of our maritime history that are locked away behind the ambition of these museums to make money from concealing or misrepresenting copyright status. I have no wish to get involved in a big battle on this, but I am prepared to get into a dialogue with them if I know what to say. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Special:ListFiles/Ngs61

Hello. Can someone verify if these maps are derived from free sources? --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 09:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)