Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2022/September

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

File:Zaijian Jaranilla in Baguio CIty.jpg

I have uploaded an image File:Zaijian Jaranilla in Baguio CIty.jpg, which was taken from Zaijian Jaranilla personal instagram account. I have a doubt how to write the copyright and the description. Can somebody assist me? Thanks a lot. jmarkfrancia (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@JmKissme I doubt this is an image that has the necessary permission to use on Wikipedia. Unless it is explicitly licenced by the copyright holder (who is not necessarily Zaijan) then it can't be used here. Does the Instagram post say anything about who the copyright holder and/or licensing? Nthep (talk) 11:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The Instagram post didn't mention anything about licensing or copyright, that means Jaranilla owned the copyright himself since he posted it on his personal social media sites right? It was then used by various website such as Candymag and ABS-CBN News. How i will support the photo to not be taken down? jmarkfrancia (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@JmKissme He may own the copyright, equally he may be using the photo with permission of the copyright holder. This looks like it's a promotional shot and I think it's very unlikely that you're going to find that its licenced in a way that is compatible with Wikipedia's image use policy. Nthep (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you so much for the help jmarkfrancia (talk) 06:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Copyrighted ship badges in articles

I was about to add the ship badge for the Fujian aircraft carrier when I came across this deletion discussion on Shandong's ship badge. While there is consensus that the file is not PD, it is less clear if copyrighted ship badges clears NFCC. It is noted that several other RN ships also have copyrighted badges on their pages. I am raising this question here as 廣九直通車 encouraged in hopes of clearing up the matter, as it seems this discussion might very well emerge again on Fujian's badge.

Do copyrighted ship badges clear the NFCC?

Pinging those in the relevant Shandong discussion. @Fastily, Wcam, Explicit, 廣九直通車, and B:. I apologise in advance if you have no further say in the discussion. Seloloving (talk) 11:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I still find it hard to justify using a non-free badge image to identify a physical object (an aircraft carrier), especially when a free photo of the ship is available to serve as a much more direct way to identify such a physical object. Unless the non-free badge itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article (which I suppose is unlikely and unusual for such a type of articles), I think it is hard to meet WP:NFCC#8. --Wcam (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I think you are right, but I do not think this topic is generating any consensus or discussions so far it seems... Another Royal Navy submarine HMS Anson (S124) was commissioned today, and she also has a copyrighted badge in her infobox... Seloloving (talk) 11:30, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

File:ShowtimeLiveLogo.svg

I'm not sure that File:ShowtimeLiveLogo.svg needs to be licensed as non-free content. This is bascially a text logo in kanji characters and the font is pretty commonplace. It seems as if this should be OK as {{PD-logo}} or at the very least {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. Any opinions on this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Looks like a PD-textlogo to me. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Retagging File:2go Chat Logo, 2go Interactive.png as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}

This was tagged as a non-free logo with a non-commercial license. Logo seems to originate from South Africa, which doesn't even have a TOO page on Commons, so it shouldn't be allowed there.

I wonder though, if this logo is below the TOO in the US? Would retagging as {{PD-ineligible-USOnly}} be OK? Thanks. SergioFLS (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it should be fine as {{PD-ineligible USonly}} since the US's TOO is fairly high low in comparison to something like sweat of the brow. As for South Africa, you might want to ask about that at c:COM:VPC. I see the speech balloon as now being a fairly common element that probably is no longer eligible for copyright protection in it's own right under the copyright laws of most countries given c:Category:Speech_balloons. It's the combination of text and logo that matters and if South Africa's TOO is close to c:COM:TOO United Kingdom, this logo probably can't be treated as {{PD-logo}}. I found this from Googling and it seems to indicate that the standard of originality is quite low under South African copyright law. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

PD-logo?

The following former logos of various radio stations are licensed as non-free, but I'm wondering whether any of them can be converted to PD-logo.

The way the files are currently being used doesn't really satisfy WP:NFC#cite_note-4; so, they will most likely need to be deleted if they can't be converted to PD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

(I took the liberty of numbering the original list.) My non-expert opinion is that at least #1, #3 and #4 contain non-basic shapes. (Yes, a 5-year-old could do a squiggly pointy star, or a waving flag, but the 5-year-old would be entitled to copyright for it.) #5 probably too - an ellipse with the Italian flag would not qualify, but the flag is stylized with some unique drapery/shadows. #2 is more tangent - one ellipse inside another ellipse does not qualify, neither do individual fonts, but the arrangement of text within the ellipses and a separate font for "Rock" might be sufficient.

So, in doubt, I would say delete all. But other opinions would be nice. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 14:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

File:International Judo Federation Flag.png – Received authorization to use

I've uploaded the image file as a non-free file. Since, I was mailed an authorization to use the image file on Wikipedia, for purposes detailed in the "Minimal use" section. My question is: How can I provide this authorization to Wikipedia, so that the file may be used on the site? CLalgo (talk) 10:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi CLalgo. Wikipedia doesn't really need copyright holder authorization for a file to be uploaded and used as non-free content. As long as the file's use meets all ten of the criteria given here, its use is considered to be Wikipedia non-free content use policy compliant. Copyright holder authorization is nice perhaps, but it doesn't make a file's use policy compliant and it doesn't mean that a file will be used the way the copyright holder wants it to be used. Copyright holder authorization (i.e. WP:CONSENT) is really only needed when copyrighted content is uploaded under one of the free licenses that Wikipedia accepts. Because these types of licenses place very few limitations on reuse of the content and are non-revocable, more formal verification of copyright holder consent is required to make sure it's actually the copyright releasing the image under such a license.

As for File:International Judo Federation Flag.png that you've uploaded, it's basically identical to File:International Judo Federation logo.svg that is already being used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox of International Judo Federation. There's no need for Wikipedia to have two essentially identical non-free files in this case per non-free content use criterion #3a, which means both files can't be kept. Why did you upload this flag file and on what page do you want to use it? The rationale for the file states "The flag, taken from the "IJF Flag Manual", will be used on the federation's article for identification." but as I stated above, there is already another file being used for that purpose. The rationale also states "It will also be used, in a smaller version, to indicate athletes representing the IJF where country flags are used to indicate countries represented by other athletes", but unfortunately that is almost certainly going to be considered a WP:DECORATIVE type of non-free use and not allowed per policy. Non-free images are never allowed to be used a flag icons per MOS:LOGO simply to identify organizations that someone represents. It would only be OK to use the file that way if you can convince the IJF to give their CONSENT and release their logo under a free license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Another complication is that File:International Judo Federation logo.svg is an SVG (i.e. a vector graphics format, which can be scaled to any resolution). Are SVGs allowed for non-free files? I thought we only allowed low-res raster graphics based on WP:NFCC 3b.

If so, we should probably delete the SVG and keep the PNG upload, even if all the above is correct and true. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 14:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

SVGs can be OK as non-free files, but care needs to be taken as explained in WP:NFC#Multiple restrictions. Generally, the NFC guidelines prefer that the vector version be one created by the copyright holder themselves; this is primarily for the reason you gave above, but also to make sure the vector version is an accurate representation of the logo. Not everyone agrees with this though and you'll find a number of discussions about this in WT:NFCC archives. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thank you for the detailed response. My main objective in uploading the file was using it in tournament brackets in cases where athletes represent the IJF instead of countries\NOCs. An example could be seen in 2021 World Judo Championships – Men's 60 kg, where IJF Refugee Team members (Mohammad Rashnonezhad, Mohamad Akkash & Khaled Ahmad), competing under the IJF flag^[1], are the only flagless athletes in the brackets. Is that kind of usage requires getting the IJF to release their logo under a free license? CLalgo (talk) 10:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe that type of non-free use could be justified per relevant policy and don't see any way possible way a consensus could be established that it does. If you want other feedback, you can try asking at WT:NFCC. Anyway, if you could convince the IJF to release their logo on a free license that Wikipedia accepts, then it would be OK to use the flag in such a way. Otherwise, you're just going to have to try one of the following: (1) leave the IJF athletes flagless, (2) remove the flags from all the other athletes, or (3) try and create a generic flag icon for the IJF athletes yourself (for example, the letter IJF on white background might work). -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

File:The_Bens_-_The_Bens_(EP).jpg Usage on The Bens

This image was already used to illustrate an album of the same name, but it is also a photo showing the band.

Can you help me understand how this is problematic? I have tried to find royalty free images of the band, but have had no luck. Thanks! WidgetKid (talk) 03:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC) WidgetKid (talk) 03:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

File:Logo of the Peoples' Democratic Party (Turkey).svg

I am trying to use this logo for the party again, in the alliance they belong to (Labour and Freedom Alliance). It represent the party? I cannot see how it can be a copyright violation, as it it is same for the wikipedia page as well. ~~~~ Tailorhaydon (talk) 08:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Tailorhaydon. Each time non-free content like File:Logo of the Peoples' Democratic Party (Turkey).svg is used on Wikipedia, the way the content is being used needs to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy; more specifically, this means that each use of non-free content on Wikipedia needs to satisfy all ten of the non-free content use criteria listed here. The reason that JJMC89's bot keeps removing the file from Labour and Freedom Alliance#Composition is because no separate and specific non-free use rationale has been added to the file's page for that particular use; so, that particular use of the file is not satisfying non-free content use criterion #10c. That's what the bot is looking for, that's why it's removing the file, and that's why it's leaving an edit summary that links to WP:NFC#Implementation.

Sometimes in cases like this, simply adding the missing rationale to the file's page resolves the problem; in this case, though, there are other reasons why the file shouldn't be used in that article per WP:JUSTONE. The bot is only checking whether the file's use satisfies criterion #10c, but there are other issues (WP:NFTABLES, MOS:LOGO, WP:FREER and WP:NFC#CS) related to some of the other nine criteria that the bot is not capable of assessing. Non-free logos like this file can be used when they're used for primary identification purposes at the tops of or in the main infoboxes of stand-alone articles about the organizations they represent, but their non-free use is much harder to justify when they're used in other ways or other articles. That's why the file's non-free use in Peoples' Democratic Party (Turkey) is OK, but the file's use in Labour and Freedom Alliance isn't. There's pretty much no way to justify the non-free use of a logo file that type of table because WP:DECORATIVE types of non-free aren't allowed. There's no information in that table or even in that article per se for which significantly improves the reader's understanding to such a degree that omitting the logo would be detrimental to that understanding. For sure, it "looks" odd that the logo of only one party isn't being used, but there's no real loss of information. There's a link to each party's Wikipedia articles where their respective logos can be seen; so, not really seeing any of them doesn't lead to any loss of information. Trying imagining that table without any logos at all and assessing whether not seeing them somehow makes the rest of the table impossible or at least pretty hard to understand. In almost all cases, logos used in this way look nice, but the encyclopedic value they add is very little. That's pretty much why non-free logos are never allowed to be used in such a way. Since the other files aren't licensed as non-free content, the bot is not looking at them.

Finally, you shouldn't really be uploading content to Commons as your "own work" unless you are the copyright holder. You probably should take a look at c:COM:Own work for reference. The copyright on most logos is going to be owned by the organization they represent. Even if said organization post the logo on their "public" website or their social media accounts, the logo is still under copyright protection as explained here unless it clearly states otherwise. You probably should take a look at your Commons user talk page because it kind of indicates you might not be understanding some important things about Commons. It's OK to make a mistake once and maybe twice; if, however, you keep uploading files to Commons with questionable licensing and questionable claims of "own work", a Commons administrator may decide to block your account. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

TV show theme song snippets?

For example Good Times article would include a snippet of the song here (0:12) as Fair Use. Maybe in the infobox or a media template. -- GreenC 00:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

File:No Bears Offical Poster.jpg

Hello there. I don't understand why this movie poster had to be removed by JJMC89 bot. This is basically a movie poster, like any other movie poster on Wikipedia, and it complies with WP:NFCCP. Am I missing something here? The Ocean (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@The Ocean, the non-free use template at the image must list the article in which the file is used. That is how the bot knows if the use is valid. The field Article in the image says Infobox. It needs to say No Bears. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma, Oh I see, my bad! Thank you very much, I really appreciate your help and fast response :) The Ocean (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

File:Network Effect.png

Why was this removed? Ebbedlila (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

It was an automated removal because the fair use rationale is for The Murderbot Diaries but it was being used in an article for a different novel. CIreland (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Chief of Army Staff Article, Tikka Khan Portrait Removed

I added a portrait in this article and it was removed, explanation linked me to this page, Why? PreserveOurHistory (talk) 09:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@PreserveOurHistory: The file you added is licensed as non-free content and this means that each use of it on Wikipedia needs to satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. There are ten non-free content use criteria that each use needs to satsify in order for it to be considered acceptable, and JJMC89's bot removed the file from that article because the use didn't satisfy criterion #10c: this is why the bot added a link to WP:NFC#Implementation to the edit summary it left when removing the file. Resolve the #10c issue and the bot will stop removing the file. There are, however, other non-free content use issues that the bot is unable to assess and which are much harder to resolve. Non-free content such as this are generally OK when used for primary identification purposes at the tops of or in the main infoboxes of stand-alone articles written about the person shown in the image; this is why the non-free use in Tikka Khan seems fine. Trying to use the same non-free image in other articles or in other ways is much harder to justify, and non-free content of this type is pretty much never allowed to be used in tables like the one in Chief of Army Staff (Pakistan)#List of Chiefs of Army Staffs per WP:NFTABLES, WP:NFLISTS, WP:FREER and WP:NFC#CS. The long-standing consensus has been that "illustrating" table entries like this just to show what someone looks like is not a sufficient justification for non-free use and considered to be WP:DECORATIVE; in such cases, a link to the individuals stand-alone article where the same image can be seen is considered to be a sufficient alternative to non-free use. As for the other photos used in that table, they were all uploaded under a free or PD license; so, their use isn't subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

File:Manipulator_reconstruction_2022.png

This is image I uploaded from this paper.[2] The figure originally consisted of this illustration and two photographs. Original description is this, "Figure 13. (A) Ethological reconstruction of Manipulator modificaputis, drawn by Mr Jie Sun. (B,C) Zaprochilus australis, shared by Reiner Richter © CC BY-NC-SA 3.0" This just means that two photos are CC-BY-NC-SA, however it's safe to upload other illustration, right? Paper itself is CC-BY-4.0, of course. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ta-tea-two-te-to. Since you uploaded the file to Commons, you're probably better off asking about this at c:COM:VPC. It would seem to depend on whether the "A" image you uploaded is an original creation of one of the authors of the paper or whether they got it from another person. Since the image is attributed to someone other than the authors, the latter seems to be the case and I'm not sure it's OK to simply assume that the CC-BY-4.0 license for the paper automatically applies to it. Have you tried searching for the original image or for Jie Sun? It's possible that the image was released under a CC license that only requires attribution be given, but you're probably going to need to establish that per c:COM:EVID and c:COM:PCP if someone at Commons were to challenge the license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I will move the discussion to VPC. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Screenshot from Youtube video

Can screenshots of individuals taken from Youtube videos be used in Wikipedia articles? This particular one, for example.

Mooonswimmer 21:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mooonswimmer. They can be uploaded if their licenses are acceptable per WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files and c:COM:L, but whether they should be used may depend upon the nature of the image (e.g. context, quality, WP:BLPIMAGE). The copyright status of an image largely determines whether it can be uploaded and perhaps how it may be used (e.g. non-free content). Being acceptably licensed, however, doesn't mean a file's use in an article is automatically guaranteed; sometimes, like in the case to text content, that needs to sorted out on the relevant article's talk page. Images are also content and content disputes about them need to be sorted out on article talk pages per WP:DR. Anyway, in this case, the screenshot File:Armani_White_in_2022.png was uploaded to Commons and it does appear to acceptably licensed per its source. YouTube screenshots taken from YouTube channels controlled by the copyright holder's of the content are generally considered OK since it's the copyright holder releasing the content under an acceptable license. Problems start happening when people other than the original copyright holder start uploading copyright content they don't own to their YouTube channels and then release the under an acceptable license. That's called license laundering (even if done unintentionally) and it's that type of content which isn't OK for neither Wikipedia nor Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

File:Apple Desktop Bus (icon).svg

I propose to move this file to Wikimedia Commons. It is quite simple so it can be there Артём 13327 (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Non-free image at commons warning

Is there a templated user talk page warning/notice that non-free images must be uploaded locally instead of to Commons, and include fair-use justification? A note is on their commons talk page, but I have a feeling that the editor does not frequent Commons enough to see it. -2pou (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi 2pou. There is a general user warning for non-free content use ({{uw-nonfree}}), but I'm not sure it applies in this case. You could try posting a note on the user's Wikipedia user talk page that explains the problem and asks them to take a look at their Commons' user talk page. If the image is currently being used in a Wikipedia article or on some other type of Wikipedia page, a bot might add a notification about the image to that page's corresponding talk page. I don't think there's a bot that adds notification to a Commons file uploader's Wikipedia user talk page (except perhaps when the image is being used on the uploader's Wikipedia user page). Users can receive cross-wiki notifications if they haven't set their preferences not to do so, but these can be easy to miss if you're new and not familiar with them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Image of Prince George

I would like to upload the image in this BBC article to include on Prince George of Wales' Wikipedia page. However, I am not sure what the licensing for this photo should be. It was originally released by his parents on Instagram and, ostensibly, media organizations were given permission to use it widely. Would appreciate some help with this! BiscuitsToTheRescue 22:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi BiscuitsToTheRescue. It almost certainly wouldn't be allowed to be uploaded and used as non-free content per WP:FREER. Moreover, the fact that it was released by his parents on Instagram, even for publicity purposes, doesn't mean it's not protected by copyright. Generally, the copyright on a photo like this is owned by the photographer and not the subject of the photo or the subject's representatives. It's possible that the photo was taken by either one of his parents or an "official" photographer working for his parents, but that would still not automatically mean its free from copyright protection. In the United States, photographs taken by US federal government employees as part of their official duties are considered to be within the public domain under US copyright law, which is why you find many photographs taken of US Presidents and their families uploaded to Commons under a public domain license. UK copyright laws aren't the same and it's not clear whether this photo would be automatically public domain, even if taken by one of the boy's parents, per c:COM:United Kingdom. You might want to ask about this c:COM:VPC, but the only way this photo could be uploaded and used would be either to clearly show it's be released under a free license that is accepted by Commons or that it falls within the public domain for some reason. In the first case, the photo is still considered protected by copyright, but a version of it is being made available with very few restrictions to make it easier for others to use. In the second case, the photo was never really eligible for copyright protection from the start and thus it is not subject to any copyright related restrictions. There might still be other restrictions is place per British law, but they're not related to copyright. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about WP:Crown copyright; unless maybe you can get an email directly from the British Government authorizing such use, I'd hold off on uploading it. InvadingInvader (talk) 02:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Crown Copyright doesn't apply here, this isn't a work of the UK government but is the personal copyright of the Duchess of Cambridge (Princess of Wales). Nthep (talk) 07:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the extensive reply, Marchjuly! I'll look into this a bit closer as well. Still familiarizing myself with Wikipedia's standards on fair use of images and the like. Thanks again. Thanks also to @InvadingInvader for the heads up. BiscuitsToTheRescue 03:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Of course :) InvadingInvader (talk) 03:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Upload of non-free media file to en-Wikipedia

Hello everyone, I have been working on the article Yuzuru Hanyu Olympic seasons, which is currently undergoing a review for FAC. For that page, I photographed two monuments and a handprint memorial, which were installed in Hanyu's hometown of Sendai, Japan, in memory of his Olympic victories. However, I did not consider that the "Freedom of Panorama" (FoP) doesn't apply to 2D artworks by Japanese copyright law. So the files probably need to get removed from Commons (see discussion on respective deletion request page).

I was informed that under special conditions it is possible to upload the files here to en-Wikipedia, following the rules of non-free use rationale, but I am not familiar with this procedure at all, and user Gråbergs Gråa Sång reminded me to check the contextual significance of the images in accordance with WP:NFCCP before uploading. It is true that the existence of these images is not essential to the global understanding of the article, but since the monuments are mentioned in two sections, it would be nice to have them included in a visual form as well. However, I don't want to cause another unnecessary deletion procedure, so I'd like to hear the opinion of some more experienced users before a re-upload under fair use conditions. Thank you very much in advance. Henni147 (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Henni147. The sentence It is true that the existence of these images is not essential to the global understanding of the article, but since the monuments are mentioned in two sections, it would be nice to have them included in a visual form as well. makes me think that the way you'd like to use the images would be considered WP:DECORATIVE non-free use and likely not be considered to meet WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#CS). In addition, non-free images are very rarely considered OK to use in an image gallery per WP:NFG like you seem to want to do in Yuzuru Hanyu Olympic seasons#2018 post-Olympic events and after season honors and the single sentence at the end of Yuzuru Hanyu Olympic seasons#2014 post-Olympic events and after season honors about the two monuments seems sufficiently understandable per WP:FREER without the readers of the article needing to see either image. It would be nice to use them perhaps, but Wikipedia's non-free content is quite restrictive and "looks nice" usually isn't considered a sufficient justification for non-free use. This is just my opinion though and others might feel differently. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thank you very much for the quick reply. Unless there is an opposing opinion, I will refrain from uploading the images under fair use conditions then. Henni147 (talk) 13:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Plan B: Make Commons consider these 3D. I'd say there is a case, but that belongs on Commons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I fear that this won't make a big difference. In Japan, FoP neither applies to 2D nor 3D artworks, unfortunately. Only architectural works can be uploaded with an FoP tag. Henni147 (talk) 07:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah, didn't know that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Yes, that was my issue too. Here in Germany, FoP applies to both architecture and artworks, and I did not consider that copyright law might be different for Japan or other countries. So I boldly uploaded those images to Commons, but now I know better and will take care next time. Again, thank you very much for your help. Henni147 (talk) 10:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

United 175 image upload

Hello,

We are seeing if a new photo depicting the impact of the 2nd plane would be able to be uploaded onto the page for the 9/11 attacks.

The photo does have full editorial rights. Would a Wikipedia article qualify as use of the photo under those rights? That Coptic Guy 19:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@That Coptic Guy no, images from Getty and other press agencies do not allow unrestricted reuse by others so fail the image use policy. Nthep (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Shoot... I figured. Thanks. That Coptic Guy 20:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if there's another picture we can use that doesn't have such restrictions on it. Hmm1994 (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Hmm1994: did you review this commons category, and it sub-categories, for a suitable image? ww2censor (talk) 11:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Having had a look through the gallery, I think it's a toss between these three photographs. Which one would you guys go for? --Hmm1994 (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Hmm1994: That depends entirely on the article. Perhaps post the selection on the article talk page and see what interested editors think. ww2censor (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

How can I fix this copyright issue?

I uploaded the image: Apostolos Serletis photo2.jpeg for the professor's profile.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a0/Apostolos_Serletis_photo2.jpeg/945px-Apostolos_Serletis_photo2.jpeg?20220926073147

This is from his profile at the University of Calgary. I got the message that copyright info is missing, and it will be deleted in 3 days?

What should I do? Periklis Gogas (talk) 08:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Perrygogas I assume you uploaded this image? Any uploaded image needs to show why it is either in the public domain or why fair use is claimed. Fair use doesn't apply here so you need to show why the image is in the public domain. Being published on the internet is not the same as being in the public domain. For Wikipedia purposes you need to show that the image is licenced under a suitable licence e.g. {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} or is out of copyright. The University of Calgary website doesn't appear to release any materials under a suitable licence. Nthep (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

File:Medal Luther Goldschmidt Hind.jpg

I'd like to update this existing image with a higher quality version taken from the internet archive's scan of the same newspaper. It's available in much higher quality, but the licensing is unclear.

My questions regarding this:

is the original, paper version of this in public domain already? (published in 1869, in the UK)
can we use the internet archive's scan of this to replace the existing version?

Kuschku (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Both original and scan would be public domain due to age (153 years ago). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

File:Euro Series Banknotes (2019).gif

File:Euro Series Banknotes (2019).gif is currently tagged with {{Wrong license}} and that's probably because of the conflict existing between {{Non-free currency}} and {{CC-by-sa-3.0}} licenses. If EU currency is considered to be PD per c:COM:CUR European Union, then this may not need to be treated as non-free. The CC license seems to be necessary because this is a WP:DERIVATIVE incorporating PD curreny images from Commons in the form of a "slide show": the order the images are displayed is probably enough to establish a "new" copyright for the derivative work. My guess is that the non-free license subsequently added was just a good-faith mistake and should be OK to remove. Any opinions on whether this should remain licensed as non-free? Maybe all that needs to be done here is to add a PD license for the currency images and then tag the file for a WP:MTC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Can I use a picture?

Good day, I am trying to use a picture for an article, however the city of Dubuque seems to not know how to help me and this is my first time. The person I was talking said, "We ask that you give photo credit to the City of Dubuque. I'm am not familiar with what makes a photo free license or public domain. However, you do have permission to use them as long as you credit the City properly." How would I go about getting the proper license for the picture. Also, I don't know if this matters but I was redirected here by the Treehouse. Marshmallo3535 (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Marshmallo3535. Crediting the city is no problem, but the wording of that email is way too vague. If it is a contemporary photo, it is almost certainly copyrighted, and the copyright holder must freely license it properly. If it is a historic photo, the copyright may have expired. Tell us more about the photo. Do you know when it was taken? Cullen328 (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

She sent me multiple images, sort of like a catalog, that I could pick through. The one I want to use (and why I contacted the City) is a map. As the project I am covering is new-ish I highly doubt this is over 70 years old. The only time stamp I have is when she sent me it at 09/28/2022 11:58AM. Marshmallo3535 (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The map must be presumed copyrighted. Please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Cullen328 (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Do I just send her that link saying all images on Wikipedia are 100%, etc. etc. or should I do something else?

Marshmallo3535 (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Marshmallo3535: More information is needed about the provenance of the images you were sent in order to their copyright status to be assessed. Since none of us answering questions at WP:MCQ are professional WMF staff and probably none of us are professionally licensed copyright lawyers, most of the copyright assessments you get here are just educated guesses based upon whatever information is known; however, without knowing some basics, it's hard to even given you a general assessment. That is why, as Cullen328 stated above, common practice is to presume that an image is protected by copyright unless it can reasonably demonstrated that it's not; moreover, it's expected that person uploading a file to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons will exercise due dilligance when doing so and make every effort to demonstrate the uploaded file can be licensed as claimed. So, if you can find out who originally created the image (e.g. who drew the map) since the creator of an image is generally considered the copyright holder and when it was first published (or even whether it was ever published) since date of first publication is often the determining factor when assessing copyright, then that would be helpful. If the person you spoke to at the City of Dubuque can provide that information, then a general assessment can probably be made. If they can't and you otherwise can't find it on your own, then it's probably best to not try and upload the files to Wikipedia. Even if the best that can be assumed is that the map was created by an unknown person with an unknown publication date, it would likely still be considered protected under US copyright law until 120 years after the date of creation as explained here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Images owned by the subject of my article

I have uploaded a couple of pictures that I want to use. How do I tag the picture when I got it directly from the subject (Abe Fogle) of my article? Thank you. Blairsmom (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Blairsmom Wikipedia is very careful about copyright, and the pic from [3] is marked "Photo by Jim Trocchio", so the default assumption is that he is the copyright holder (he may have legally given it to someone else, I guess), and the one who must give the pic a WP-usable license. It's not at all sure this is something that he wants to do, but if so, try directing him to Commons:Wikimedia VRT release generator. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Actually Jim Trocchio gave Abe Fogle the picture and permission to use it. He is the band's photographer. I will see if he is able to complete the "release generator". Blairsmom (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Blairsmom. Unless Tocchio is also willing to give everyone in the world the same permission as he gave Fogle so that they can download the photo from Wikipedia at anytime they want and reuse it for pretty much any purpose they want (including to make money off of), you might want to advise him not to do so. Basically, Tocchio is going to need to give his WP:CONSENT (or c:COM:CONSENT) in order for the files to be kept. Before he does that, you might want to suggest that he looks at c:Commons:Licensing, c:Commons:License revocation and c:Commons:Enforcing license terms. Sometimes copyright holders don't understand what it means to upload their creative work to Wikipedia until its too late. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)