Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2023/December
 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 4 § Category:Fair use images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Removal from Article
I am really struggling to figure out why my image keeps being removed from my article, I have a non-free use rationale and a copyright tag but cannot figure out why it always gets taken down. The message left by the bots is "No valid non-free use rationale for this page" but I think I have one?? The file name is hillagency2.jpeg. Is there something I'm missing that needs to be included in the article when I upload an image???? Mch2001 (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- Drafts (not in the main namespace) may not display non-free content. Before the draft was moved to the main namespace, the removals were done for that reason, according to the bot edit comments. Your latest insertion of the file was made one minute after the move to the main namespace, but the file did not have a non-free use rationale template. The bot removed the file at 21:10 (UTC) apparently for that reason, according to the bot edit comment. You added the rationale template to the file at 21:58 (UTC), after that removal was already done. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Mch2001: I've re-added the file to the article's infobox. Most likely, as Ascleias mentioned above, the bot checking on such files just had it on their list of things to do and got to the file before you could add the rationale to the file's page. This bot not only looks for WP:NFCC#9 violations, but also WP:NFCC#10c violations, and it will remove files from articles when it's unable to find a rationale corresponding to the file's use in an article on the file's page. You can, of course, ask the bot's operator JJMC89 about this if you really want to know why. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Dr. Sandra Myrna Díaz photo update
Dear All:
On August 28, Dr. Daniel Cáceres released the copyright of a photograph he took of the multi-award-winning Argentine scientist Sandra Myrna Díaz. Dr. Díaz asked me, since I am in charge of communication and press at the research institute where she works, to update her photo on her Wikipedia pages by adding the photograph taken by Dr. Daniel Cáceres. To our surprise, not only did they revert to the old photograph, but after another attempt they deleted the oldest photograph from the English page (but not from the Spanish page), but not before threatening to close my Wikipedia account for violating copyright laws.
Dr. Díaz is not very happy with this decision and she wishes that her photograph be allowed to be updated once and for all.
I leave below all of the information about Dr. Díaz page in English, the link to the photograph whose copyright was released, the message from Dr. Daniel Cáceres about it and the response that Wikipedia gave him more than three months ago.
Sincerely,
Alberto Díaz Añel
Communication and Press of the Multidisciplinary Institute of Plant Biology, Córdoba, Argentina
https://imbiv.conicet.unc.edu.ar/diaz-anel-alberto/
Dr. Sandra Myrna Díaz website:Sandra Díaz (ecologist)
Image with copyright released: https://imbiv.conicet.unc.edu.ar/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2020/09/Sandra-Diaz2.jpg
copied VTRS correspondence
|
|---|
|
Message from Dr. Daniel Cáceres to Wikipedia: 08/28/2023 21:56 (Asia/Dhaka) - Daniel M. Caceres wrote: I hereby affirm that I am /Daniel Mario Cáceres/, the creator of the exclusive copyright of the media work as shown here: https://imbiv.conicet.unc.edu.ar/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2020 /09/Sandra-Diaz2.jpg <https://imbiv.conicet.unc.edu.ar/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2020/09/Sandra-Diaz2.jpg> and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work. I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.^[5] <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates#cite_note-5> I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the chosen license. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. /Daniel Mario Cáceres/ /Copyright holder/// / 28 August 2023/ Wikipedia answer: Subject: Re: [Ticket#2023082810008418] photo credits Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2023 21:42:30 +0000 From: Permissions - Wikimedia Commons Organization: Wikimedia To: Daniel M. Caceres Dear Daniel M. Caceres, Thank you for your permission to use media file(s) on Wikimedia Commons. For us to process your contribution(s), we need to know the specific name or link to the page(s) on Wikimedia Commons to which you have uploaded them. If you have not yet uploaded, please continue to upload the file(s) and let us know when done. If the file(s) were deleted, please do not attempt to re-upload them; they will be automatically restored by an administrator upon successful confirmation of permission. Yours sincerely, Muhammad Yahya |
Adiazanel (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Adiazanel: Did you ever respond to the request for more information contained in the email? commons:File:Sandra Diaz 2023.jpg was deleted as nobody managed to tie the photo with the email. If you reply to the email giving the url for the photo [1]] then someone can tie the two pieces of information together and restore the photo. Nthep (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Non-free use question
I recently created the article John Steinbeck bibliography and was wondering why some of the images for the novels got taken down. A bot took them down for being non free use, but only some of the images. Since all of these images are on Wikipedia/wikimedia and already being use on the pages for each novel, I was not sure why I couldn't use them. DynaGuy00 (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- Generally speaking, a nonfree image of a work's cover is permitted on the article specifically about the work. But only an article specifically about the work. Those types of images shouldn't normally be used in bibliography, discography, or other list type articles, so the use there is inappropriate. I've gone ahead and removed the rest of them as well. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Seraphimblade: I'm not sure the licensing of the files you re-added to the bibliography are, however, correctly licensed for Commons, and have asked about them at c:COM:VPC#John Steinbeck book covers. If it turns out they're not and end up deleted from Commons, would the now-deleted non-free files (e.g. File:JohnSteinbeck TheGrapesOfWrath.jpg) that were replaced by the Commons files in each of the stand-alone articles about the various books be able to be restored for use in those articles or would they need to be re-uploaded again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- If it turns out they're erroneously labeled as free and are in fact not, then certainly here, a nonfree image uploaded locally of the cover would be permitted in the article about each novel per common practice and no alternative being available. But they still wouldn't be okay in the bibliography article. It's even possible, based upon what we determine there, that more of the covers/dust jackets may turn out to now be in the public domain, but hopefully someone familiar with that particular nuance will comment at the Commons discussion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help all. Makes sense. Though do let me know if we realize they are able to be used. One of the reasons I styled the bibliography with images was because I like how it was done over on the Great American Novel page. Maybe that is not right either...
- DynaGuy00 (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- WP:NFLISTS applies here. Such uses of non-free images in discographies, bibliographies, etc. is generally not permitted. On the Great American Novel page, all of the images are free licensed (and a casual review seems to indicate they are legitimately so). Thus, that's not a very good comparison. I seriously appreciate you asking! Too many editors try very hard to fight this, reinstating non-free images and insisting the guidelines don't apply (when in reality they do). --Hammersoft (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- If it turns out they're erroneously labeled as free and are in fact not, then certainly here, a nonfree image uploaded locally of the cover would be permitted in the article about each novel per common practice and no alternative being available. But they still wouldn't be okay in the bibliography article. It's even possible, based upon what we determine there, that more of the covers/dust jackets may turn out to now be in the public domain, but hopefully someone familiar with that particular nuance will comment at the Commons discussion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Seraphimblade: I'm not sure the licensing of the files you re-added to the bibliography are, however, correctly licensed for Commons, and have asked about them at c:COM:VPC#John Steinbeck book covers. If it turns out they're not and end up deleted from Commons, would the now-deleted non-free files (e.g. File:JohnSteinbeck TheGrapesOfWrath.jpg) that were replaced by the Commons files in each of the stand-alone articles about the various books be able to be restored for use in those articles or would they need to be re-uploaded again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Is this logo free or non-free?
I recently uploaded File:DART Silver Line.svg, which is a vector logo for a public transit project. The logo is mostly text but contains an icon. It is currently in use on one page (Silver Line (Dallas Area Rapid Transit)) and one template (Template:Cotton Belt). In both instances, it was replacing an outdated free logo (File:DART Cotton Belt Logo.png).
When I initially uploaded the file, I marked it as non-copyrighted under the not-original-enough doctrine. I picked this under the reasoning that the icon was "geometric" and thus qualified under the "only consists of typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes" rule. Upon reflection, however, I'm not sure if the icon actually qualifies under that rule, since it resembles an abstracted Stadler FLIRT train (which is the rolling stock that the line will use).
Does the icon qualify as non-copyrightable? And if not, since it's an SVG, do I need to use any copyright template other than or in addition to Template:Non-free logo?
LazyCat256 (talk) 03:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- I think what you're looking for is Commons:Threshold of originality. To me, this image falls below the threshold, and is not copyrightable. Encumbered with trademarks, yes. But copyright? I don't think so. If it weren't for the round part on the right side, it'd just be a couple of straight lines. The round part is hardly original. See also File:Amtrak logo.svg, considered below the threshold. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Music recording copyright in the USA
I asked a question at Talk:CLASSICS_Act#100_years about which music recordings are going to enter the PD on Jan 1, 2024. Those from 1923? 1924? The wording is confusing, and sources are not explicit. It seems important that we be really clear and sure on this point. -- GreenC 16:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- The Hirtle Chart is a good resource for figuring out these types of questions. (WP:HIRTLE, or more directly c:Commons:Hirtle chart). Recordings made in 1923 will enter the public domain in 2024. -- Whpq (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thank. Hirtle says "100 years from publication". The LOC says "Recordings first published between 1923-1946 are protected for 100 years." For example, a music recording published on Jan 1 1923 would be protected for 100 years which is Jan. 1 1923->Dec. 31 1932 (10 years) + Jan.1 1933-> Dec. 31 1942 (10 years) ... Jan. 1 2013-> Dec. 31 2022. Thus, entering the public domain on Jan 1, 2023, which is 100 years + 1 day after publication. Thus simply calculated 1923+100 = 2023. For works published mid-year, like June 1 1923, they would be June 1 2023. Does this sound right? -- GreenC 19:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- The copyright expires on 1 January in the year after the copyright expires. So any music recording that was 100 years old during 2023 becomes public domain on 1 January 2024 regardless of the original date of publication in 1923. It doesn't matter if it was 1 January 1923 or 31 December 1923, neither becomes PD until 1 January 2024. Nthep (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- "the year after the copyright expires".. a very key point, thank you. Ultimately, I'm trying to update Public Domain Day with what is about to happen in 2024. -- GreenC 21:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- The copyright expires on 1 January in the year after the copyright expires. So any music recording that was 100 years old during 2023 becomes public domain on 1 January 2024 regardless of the original date of publication in 1923. It doesn't matter if it was 1 January 1923 or 31 December 1923, neither becomes PD until 1 January 2024. Nthep (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thank. Hirtle says "100 years from publication". The LOC says "Recordings first published between 1923-1946 are protected for 100 years." For example, a music recording published on Jan 1 1923 would be protected for 100 years which is Jan. 1 1923->Dec. 31 1932 (10 years) + Jan.1 1933-> Dec. 31 1942 (10 years) ... Jan. 1 2013-> Dec. 31 2022. Thus, entering the public domain on Jan 1, 2023, which is 100 years + 1 day after publication. Thus simply calculated 1923+100 = 2023. For works published mid-year, like June 1 1923, they would be June 1 2023. Does this sound right? -- GreenC 19:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Is The Amazing Digital Circus logo non-free, or is it copyrighted free use?
Apparently, according to Gooseworx, fans can do whatever they want with The Amazing Digital Circus. I wanted to change the license of File:Amazing_Digital_Circus_logo.png to copyrighted free use, but I am not sure if that is allowed on Wikipedia. EJPPhilippines (talk) 07:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Independence Monument, Aşgabat
The two images used at Independence Monument, Ashgabat are not under fair use tags. Is it really a "building" complying U.S. FoP? It does not seem to be an architectural work, mainly a sculptural work, but I hope others may comment regarding this. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
File:The Old is Dying and the New Cannot Be Born book cover.jpg
I'm not sure File:The Old is Dying and the New Cannot Be Born book cover.jpg needs to be licensed as non-free per c:COM:TOO US since it's nothing but text on a three-colored background. Any reasons why this shouldn't be converted to either {{PD-logo}} or {{PD-simple}}? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed, I'll fix it. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 05:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
question about ufc posters, for wikipedia spanish
Hello, I am a user of Wikipedia in Spanish, and I translate the pages into Spanish, I wanted to know if there are ways to add the images of the UFC posters to the page in Spanish, without copyright or if they authorize me. Leon332Z (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- As this questions is really about the Spanish Wikipedia's policy, you should post there to get a definiteive answer. However, based on my machine translated reading of the Spanish Wikipedia's Image Use Policy, uploads are done on Commons. That would preclude the use of any copyrighted images including UFC posters. But you really need to confirm that at the Spanish Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Pinocchio's Christmas logo.jpg Public domain?
Do you think File:Pinocchio's Christmas logo.jpg qualifies for {{PD-Text}}? The Quirky Kitty (talk) 08:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- Converted and imported to Commons. — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Paysera LT, UAB.png
File:Paysera LT, UAB.png was originally uploaded as "Non-free logo" but coverted to "PD-textlogo" by the uploader shortly thereafter. There's no information about Lithuania's TOO given in c:COM:Threshold of originality/Europe#Lithuania, but this might be OK as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} per c:COM:TOO United States. Any opinions either way? If this does need to be treated as non-free, then it's going to end up being deleted per WP:F5 if a valid use for it can't be found. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- c:File:Paysera logo 2022.png is on Commons and in in use at the article Paysera LT. There is no use for this image so I would suggest PRODding the file as an unused image. -- Whpq (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Flag of Lancaster County, Nebraska.gif
File:Flag of Lancaster County, Nebraska.gif
So - I know that flags can sometime be a topic of issue on Wikipedia... the image in question is the flag of Lancaster County, Nebraska, United States. It was used on the Lancaster County, Nebraska Wikipedia page under fair use, but a bot removed it. Is the copyright tag wrong or am I missing something as to why it was removed (copyright can be such a pain)? Thanks much in advance! Hanyou23 (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- Fair use images can only be used in the article (singular) specified in the fair use rationale (FUR), the bot will remove images from other pages. The FUR for this flag gives the article as Lincoln, Nebraska even though it's not used in that article. If you amend the FUR to Lancaster County then the issue should go away. Nthep (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
How can I use author's explicit permission in English Wikipedia
Hi,
Recently, I've contacted one of my favourite illustrator (Turkish: tr:Bartu Bölükbaşı) to use its illustrations in Turkish Wikipedia. Explicitly, he gave a permission to use illustrations in 2 of his books, also illustrations he shared on twitter, instagram accounts, limited by Vikipedi (Turkish Wikipedia).
I would like to upload some of them into the articles like Sheikh Bedreddin as I think they will contribute to the article in English Wikipedia. I can ask the author to give or send an email to Wikipedia to use them on English Wikipedia with full resolution.
My questions about picking right licence:
- I am looking for a non-commercial, restricted to use in only Wikipedia licence. I don't want to ask author to lose out from his rights to commercial usage. I think CC-BY-NC fits in this definition? I would like to ask it to confirm, is there something that I miss or wrong?
- or I can proceed with Non-free fair use 2D art, as I think that it satisfied those criterias.
TarantaBabu (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- en:Wikipedia doesn't really do Wikipedia-only permissions - if files are uploaded under a non-free licence like that then it will need a full non-free justification, whether or not it has the creators permission for use on Wikipedia.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Ok then quick question on CC-BY-NC: If author makes it available for Wikipedia, can he at some point in future, retract the licence by emailing to Wikipedia? TarantaBabu (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- CC-BY-NC is not considered "free" by Wikipedia. Except for images under a non-free-use justification, Wikipedia only accepts images that are free for reuse by others, including for commercial use. Since these licenses grant permission to anyone to use the images, they are not revocable. CapitalSasha ~ talk 20:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. Follow-up question: Then what makes for my request, is to test whether my upload satisfies Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. TarantaBabu (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Can you provide a link to the image you would like to use in Sheikh Bedreddin and briefly explain where in the article you would be using it? I don't see anything in the "Sheikh Bedreddin" article that immediately cries out "a non-free image is really needed here to help the reader truly understand this part of the article", other than perhaps an image of subject of the article. However, meeting the WP:FREER and WP:NFC#CS conditions for even the non-free use of an image of Bedreddin might be pretty hard given that he died in 1420 AD. Obviously, photography didn't exist at that time so there would be no photos of him; there might, though, be some old paintings of him that are now within the public domain that could be used instead of a more recent creative representation of how someone "thinks" Bedreddin looked. Someone's recent illustration of Bedreddin seems like a form of fan art or WP:IMAGEOR, two things which probably should be avoided in biographies about historical figures, in principle, unless they're are recognized by relevant reliable sources as being really accurate representations and have been discussed as such. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- For example, this illustration of Sheikh Bedreddin that I would like to use it. Bartu Bölükbaşı is widely known in Turkey for his research of making accurate representations of historical figures and mythology. He is awarded by prominent organization in the related field. When it comes to Sheikh Bedreddin, I couldn't find any painting of Sheikh Bedreddin for various reasons that I understand why there is none. The drawings of his appearance that you can find in the Google is not known with their author. In this particular case, we have a permission from the copyright holder, we know his specialization for the field. As he gave permission to use them in the Wikipedia, I don't want to miss this chance to make it available for everybody.
- I think it satisfies requirements of uploading this illustration, the reason I continue to ask and looking for understanding rules, is about I don't want to make a mistake. TarantaBabu (talk) 08:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- My personal opinion is that particular illustration doesn't really seem appropriate for Wikipedia's purposes, but others might disagree. However, the images that the illustrator based his work could possibly be better suited for Wikipedia. Perhaps you could find out what they were and one of them would be within the public domain and could be used instead. Finally, I don't think that the image you want to use would meet all WP:NFCCP, particularly the WP:FREER required by WP:NFCC#1 because if one person could create such an illustration than another probably could do so as well and also choose to release it under a Creative Commons license that doesn't place any restrictions on commercial or derivative re-use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Can you provide a link to the image you would like to use in Sheikh Bedreddin and briefly explain where in the article you would be using it? I don't see anything in the "Sheikh Bedreddin" article that immediately cries out "a non-free image is really needed here to help the reader truly understand this part of the article", other than perhaps an image of subject of the article. However, meeting the WP:FREER and WP:NFC#CS conditions for even the non-free use of an image of Bedreddin might be pretty hard given that he died in 1420 AD. Obviously, photography didn't exist at that time so there would be no photos of him; there might, though, be some old paintings of him that are now within the public domain that could be used instead of a more recent creative representation of how someone "thinks" Bedreddin looked. Someone's recent illustration of Bedreddin seems like a form of fan art or WP:IMAGEOR, two things which probably should be avoided in biographies about historical figures, in principle, unless they're are recognized by relevant reliable sources as being really accurate representations and have been discussed as such. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. Follow-up question: Then what makes for my request, is to test whether my upload satisfies Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. TarantaBabu (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- CC-BY-NC is not considered "free" by Wikipedia. Except for images under a non-free-use justification, Wikipedia only accepts images that are free for reuse by others, including for commercial use. Since these licenses grant permission to anyone to use the images, they are not revocable. CapitalSasha ~ talk 20:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Ok then quick question on CC-BY-NC: If author makes it available for Wikipedia, can he at some point in future, retract the licence by emailing to Wikipedia? TarantaBabu (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
What counts as an "author" for the purposes of copyright (with regard to film)?
The director? The cinematographer? The director in this case died in 1929 (it is a German film from 1920), and the cinematographer died in 1969. Or does it belong to the company?
Since it's before 1928 it's good for America but it comes from a country that has life of the author + 70. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- @PARAKANYAA it may vary from country to country but for the UK it would be pma+70 for whoever died last of these:
- the director (main director if more than one)
- the writer of the screenplay
- the author of the dialogue
- the composer of any music specially created for the film (if applicable)
- For silent films, the composer would not apply if you were using the film without a later added soundtrack. Nthep (talk) 07:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Nthep What would it be if it was just a still from the film? No dialogue or audio. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license
The Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia [2] says content on the site is Creative Commons. Does this allow for bots to scrape data from the site on a regular basis, like from this page, host it on Wikimedia somewhere, such as in JSON on Wikicommons, then templates could display the most up-to-date data in articles? Exoplanet ouvre on Wikipedia is a mass of data points that change based on revised discoveries and so it gets outdated and not maintained. As of Dec 20, 2023 there are only 5,575 planets, it doesn't seem impossible to consider something like this (but over time, there might be "billions and billions" of planets). -- GreenC 02:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- From a licensing perspective, assuming the data is not part of "Except where otherwise noted", then that would be okay. I have no idea whether the source site would be okay with a bot scraping the data or what the best way to host the scraped data would be. -- Whpq (talk) 14:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Ok thanks, I don't see anything about the data being excepted.
- Technology wise I've done something like this before with
{{NUMBEROF}}. A bot queries the Wikimedia API for statistics data, uploads it to commons in JSON format ie. here, then the NUMBEROF Lua module reads that data and displays it on-screen like this{{NUMBEROF|articles|fr}}= 2611623. The bot retrieves the data every few hours. The same structure could be built for just about anything. Since the data is hosted on Commons, it's available to all Wiki projects and the Lua module can be copied to other projects. - The problem I see is in articles like List of exoplanets discovered in 2020, which contain a ton of data that is very hard for humans to keep accurate. -- GreenC 18:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Is this image a copyright violation?
I found this image "File:How_heterosexual_couples_have_met,_data_from_2009_and_2017.png" which looks like it might be a copyright violation. It comes from this paper , which is publicly available online, but I can't find any evidence of an open license. Of the universe (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- File:How_heterosexual_couples_have_met,_data_from_2009_and_2017.png was uploaded to Commons and Commons files, in principle, need to resolved on Commons. For reference, the file has been nominated for deletion at Commons by another user and it's being discussed at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:How heterosexual couples have met, data from 2009 and 2017.png. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
United logo 2010-present reverted on history of United airlines tab
Hello how is it going hope you’re having a safe holiday? I want to ask a quick question if you don’t mind. How come the United globe logo from 2010-present day on the history of United airlines tab was erased? I thought it was rational because I think it next to the logo brands throughout its history and people want to know about their history and it was used in at least one other article and was considered encyclopedic. I didn’t mean any harm when posting it so I’d like to ask what exactly went wrong and what can we do to work something out and get it published again a different way in a way that makes sure all requirements are fulfilled? I think it would be good to do so because so people know both the history and the current identity but at the same time I want to do it right. Thanks for your hard work and contributions 2600:1007:B032:51CD:686C:8758:1284:F8EA (talk) 23:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Each use of non-free content needs to satisfy all ten non-free content use criteria listed here, and the bot that removed that particular file from that particular article has been tasked to find non-free content that doesn't comply with non-free content use criteria #9 and non-free content use criteria #10c. In this case, the bot removed the file for #10c reasons because the file didn't have a non-free use for that particular article. As explained here, which the bot linked to in the edit summary it left when it removed the file, non-free content is required to have two things: a non-free copyright license and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the file. In pretty much all cases, only one non-free copyright license is needed regardless of how many times a non-free file is being used; however, not all non-free uses are equivalent (even though they might seem similar) as explained here, and this means a separate non-free use rationale specific to the way the content is being used needs to be added to the file's page for each use. In other words, this file had such a rationale for its use in the main "United Airlines" article, but it didn't have one for the "History of United Airlines" article; so, the bot removed it. The way to stop the bot from removing the file would be to add a rationale for that particular article to the file's page and then re-add the file to the article; however, as mentioned above, providing a rationale is only one (more specifically, only part of one) of the ten criteria that need to be satisfied as explained in here, and failing any of the other nine criteria makes the non-free use invalid. In general, non-free logos aren't allowed to be displayed in image galleries or in an image gallery like arrangement, which is how the file was being used in the "History" article because of WP:NFG, WP:DECORATIVE, MOS:LOGO and WP:NFC#CS reasons. So, before trying to re-add that file again (even after adding a rationale to its page), you're going to need to clearly establish how the file's use in the article satisfies all ten non-free content use criteria. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Got it thank you. Obviously I don’t want to do anything that violates anything. I want to do things right. How do I add a rationale put of curiosity? I ask cause I think it is important to show the current identity next to the old ones but like I said I want to do it right. Any help or tips on how to do that process whether it is on here or on a website would be greatly appreciated and merry Christmas to all of you. 2601:40D:8281:F3C0:8D10:8C8A:878A:AD26 (talk) 03:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- There are essentially two ways to add a non-free rationale to a file's page; you can either use one of the templates that have been created over the years for certain types of non-free use or you can add your own rationale that provides all of the needed information. In other words, the format of the rationale isn't as important as the information it's supposed to contain. Anyway, there are brief explanations on how to do both given in WP:FUR. As posted above, however, adding a rationale doesn't automatically make a non-free use policy compliant. Providing a rationale is just one of the criteria that needs to be met and a rationale that doesn't meet all of the criteria is considered to be invalid. Opinions on whether a non-free use doesn't meet the criteria can vary so sometimes a WP:CONSENSUS needs to be established at WP:FFD when there's disagreement. For reference, when it comes to non-free logos, it's generally considered OK to use the logo in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the organization, company, team or whatever the logo represents for primary identification purposes like is done in United Airlines and United Airlines Holdings. Relevant Wikipedia policy, however, strongly encourages us to minimize non-free use as much as possible and use free alternatives (e.g. Wikilinks, text, free images) whenever possible because a single use of non-free content is already considered to be quite an exception to WP:COPYOTHERS; so, for this reason, the single use of such a file in the main page about the organization is, in most cases, deemed sufficient for Wikipedia purposes. An additional use of the same logo is another articles or in another way in the same article is considered to be even more of an exceptional case requiring an even stronger justification per policy; so, while not impossible, it tends much much harder to justify. Since the file is already being used in two separate articles for primary identification purposes, trying to squeeze one more use out of it might be considered as being too much. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- Got it thank you sm for the cooperation and support and specifics. We’ll see what happens whether it is me or someone else but either way we all want things to be executed the right way. Is there a template I can use to copy and paste that link? Because all it’s giving me is the template format like how do I use that template format to copy and paste it in there to try and get approval? 2601:40D:8281:F3C0:2CA4:7121:262C:C911 (talk) 01:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- There are essentially two ways to add a non-free rationale to a file's page; you can either use one of the templates that have been created over the years for certain types of non-free use or you can add your own rationale that provides all of the needed information. In other words, the format of the rationale isn't as important as the information it's supposed to contain. Anyway, there are brief explanations on how to do both given in WP:FUR. As posted above, however, adding a rationale doesn't automatically make a non-free use policy compliant. Providing a rationale is just one of the criteria that needs to be met and a rationale that doesn't meet all of the criteria is considered to be invalid. Opinions on whether a non-free use doesn't meet the criteria can vary so sometimes a WP:CONSENSUS needs to be established at WP:FFD when there's disagreement. For reference, when it comes to non-free logos, it's generally considered OK to use the logo in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the organization, company, team or whatever the logo represents for primary identification purposes like is done in United Airlines and United Airlines Holdings. Relevant Wikipedia policy, however, strongly encourages us to minimize non-free use as much as possible and use free alternatives (e.g. Wikilinks, text, free images) whenever possible because a single use of non-free content is already considered to be quite an exception to WP:COPYOTHERS; so, for this reason, the single use of such a file in the main page about the organization is, in most cases, deemed sufficient for Wikipedia purposes. An additional use of the same logo is another articles or in another way in the same article is considered to be even more of an exceptional case requiring an even stronger justification per policy; so, while not impossible, it tends much much harder to justify. Since the file is already being used in two separate articles for primary identification purposes, trying to squeeze one more use out of it might be considered as being too much. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- Got it thank you. Obviously I don’t want to do anything that violates anything. I want to do things right. How do I add a rationale put of curiosity? I ask cause I think it is important to show the current identity next to the old ones but like I said I want to do it right. Any help or tips on how to do that process whether it is on here or on a website would be greatly appreciated and merry Christmas to all of you. 2601:40D:8281:F3C0:8D10:8C8A:878A:AD26 (talk) 03:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
RD1 for fake song lyrics attributed to Lady Gaga
An edit posted by Tools4$ale (talk · contribs) at Song in November 2022 purportedly contains the lyrics of an unnamed Lady Gaga song about the war of the currents, but a search result suggests that the lyrics likely made-up.
The question remains: Should we RD1 content that is purported to be a copyvio, but is obviously fake? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Is Paraphrasing scientific description copyright infringement
Duplicate discussion. See Wikipedia:Help desk#Is Paraphrasing scientific description copyright infringement?
|
|---|
|
I have been working on describing plants, fungi, and animals. The edits include facts which consist of description of measurements or where an plant is found and I have made similar publications in published scientific journals with no issues. But here I ran into issues with several users claiming copyright infringement on my content. In this edit I spent time paraphrasing the description from this source and I added attribution. Also I copied a list of synonyms from kew and added attribution. On this page I had my edits of a single sentence of 18 words stricken from the history because my statement of the facts are too similar to the source material where they made the description. I thought these list of information was allowed based on the supreme court opinion from Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. case where:
It is my understanding that using paraphrasing to represent facts is fine because of the Feist opinion where "This inevitably means that the copyright in a factual compilation is thin. Notwithstanding a valid copyright, a subsequent compiler remains free to use the facts contained in another's publication to aid in preparing a competing work, so long as the competing work does not feature the same selection and arrangement." (Id at 349) Here is a link to the Feist case. Is there a reason this is not allowed on wikipedia? or am I misinterpreting the supreme court ruling here or are the other users misinterpreting the copyright law? Please advise --Cs california (talk) 08:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
|
Disputed Fair Use on Requested File
Hello, I am a reviewer at files for upload, a place where users can request files be uploaded for them if they are unable to do so. This thread requested that this file be uploaded under {{Non-free promotional}}, however it is unclear if the subject's talent agency counts as promotional to the subject. Additionally, it is unclear if the file fails the first fair use rationale, as the subject is living and a free image could replace the file at some point, but currently there does not appear to be a free file that can replace it right now. Thanks, -- LemonSlushie 🍋 (talk) (edits) 04:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- It clearly fails WP:NFCC#1 as an image of a living person. A free image could be created even if one currently does not exist. From WP:NFC:
Non-free content should not be used when a freely licensed file that serves the same purpose can reasonably be expected to be uploaded, as is the case for almost all portraits of living people.
-- Whpq (talk) 04:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)- Noted, thanks. -- LemonSlushie 🍋 (talk) (edits) 04:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Fair use on English Wikipedia
Hello. I'm working on an the article of Sandra Honoré. I'm not sure whether images such as this would be classified as free use (after abiding by image resolution rules) as WP:NFCI #9 and WP:NFC#UUI #1 seem to be somewhat contradictory as the image would both be the portrait of an alive person & could be used for the subject article. Thanks Timmy2512 (talk) 05:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Timmy2512 Your link doesn't work for me, is this [3] the image? I don't see from there how "Images that are themselves subject of commentary." would apply here. As a rule of thumb, living people are almost never acceptable as free use on en-WP. One possibility is to contact the subject and ask them to "donate" a selfie on Commons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Your link worked now, btw. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Copyright of images on Bill Buchanan (computer scientist)
Hi, I'm trying to do some clean-up on Bill Buchanan (computer scientist). I'm looking at the 19 or so images uploaded to Commons in December 2023 by Billatnapier (talk · contribs) and then added to the article by IP editors. These have been tagged by Billatnapier as own work. Whilst trying to WP:AGF, it is difficult to conclude that these images, mostly of Buchanan giving presentations, are all the own work of an editor whose username suggests they may be the subject of the article. There is a template relating to CoI on Billatnapier's Talk page from 2012, and a mention of possible CoI editing by Billatnapier and IP editors on the article's Talk page.
I can remove the images from the article, but do I need to do anything further about their copyright status on Commons? I see the response to a question above that issues on Commons need to be resolved on Commons. Do I request deletion of those images there, or would this need more investigation first about whether Billatnapier is in fact the creator of the images?
Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- You will need to deal with Commons images on Commons. Since the name of the uploader indicates they are the subject of the photos, you could just tag each one as lacking evidence of permission. Or you can start a deletion request for all of the photos. There is a mass deletion tool on Commons that can create a deletion request for multiple images to make things simpler. -- Whpq (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC)