Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2023/June

Fair Use of a photo of a 1940 WPA mural

I want to upload a photo of a 1940 WPA mural in a U.S. Post Office for an article about the artist of the mural. Does this qualify as fair use? Lyons BlueMountain (talk) 03:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Works Progress Administration art work is Public Domain because the US Federal Government hired the artists as employees of the government to create the works. The image can be uploaded to Commons under the license {{PD-USGov-WPA}} or it may already be there. Check the files in c:Category:Works Progress Administration. -- Whpq (talk) 03:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Per the discussion at the link below, the USPS restricts the use of WPA murals to small, low resolution images. Not sure if I can upload a high res picture.

https://www.techdirt.com/2010/04/01/can-the-usps-really-restrict-what-you-do-with-photographs-of-wpa-murals/

I'm editing the page for the artist Carlos Lopez.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Lopez_(artist) Lyons BlueMountain (talk) 04:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Lyons BlueMountain. You might want to ask about the resolution matter at c:COM:VPC because that techdirt.com discussion mightn't be 100% correct, at least for Commons purposes. The extra restriction impossed by the USPS might be considered c:COM:NCR for Commons purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

File:MusicBrainz homepage.png

The original creator also brought this up on the talk page in 2006: This is a screenshot of a GPLv2+ licensed website COPYING.md but the cover art from the cover art archive at the bottom of the site is clearly not free. So if the screenshot was updated to not include the "Recent additions" section would it be fine to transfer to commons? - nathanielcwm (talk) 03:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Looking at archive.org the 2011 revision of the file doesn't appear to have the Recent additions section on the website. So would that also be alowed to be restored? - nathanielcwm (talk) 04:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I've uploaded a version of the homepage with the cover art removed to commons under: c:File:MusicBrainz homepage 2023.png - nathanielcwm (talk) 05:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Rosewood, Florida historical marker (2).jpg

Would the text and graphic elements on File:Rosewood, Florida historical marker (2).jpg be covered under Template:PD-FLGov? The marker seems to date back to 2004, and historical markers, noticeboards, information markers, etc. are often eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:CB#Noticenboards and signs not just for their graphic elements but also for their text. This one, however, is installed in Florida and Florida is one of the few states for works created by official state, country, municipal and other governmental bodies are considered to be within the public domain per statute. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Image copyright tag query

Would you please advise which copyright tag to use for an image that has been provided for public use?

Plastic Free July has provided a library of digital images to help promote its plastic reduction campaign.

I uploaded one of these images onto the Plastic Free July page but need guidance about which copyright tag to use.

Thank you in advance for your help. Willow106 (talk) 06:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Willow106. It looks like they provided the images free of charge but not free (or at least not free enough) from copyright protection based on the copyright notice at the bottom of their homepage and this Brand Rules page, and it's the latter that matters the most when it comes to Wikipedia. Unless there's something on that website that specfically states that those particular images are released under a free license acceptable for Wikipedia'a purposes, the images are most likely going to need to be treated as non-free content by Wikipedia. This doesn't mean they still can't be uploaded and used, but they will need to be used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, which is highly restrictive. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

After looking at Plastic Free July, you probably could upload the organization's primary turtle logo to use at the top of the article as non-free content, but the three files you've already uploaded and added to the article most likely need to go since there's no real justification for their non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Marchjuly.

I'll remove those images for now at least, get a copy of the logo and post this instead.

I'll also refer to the non-free content use policy. Thank you for providing the link. Willow106 (talk) 03:47, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Postage stamps (fair use question)

Summary of question first posed on general Help desk: May I include an image of a postage stamp in an article that mentions the existence of said stamp? I want to show the stamp itself to validate this claim (and also highlight the design of the stamp). If one reads the WP:NFCI section 3. to the letter, then this should be a case of "identification of the stamp". (Please see original thread as there is some additional nuance.) Thank you, Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• @Cl3phact0: For starters, an image of a stamp cannot be used as a proof of anything nontrivial (that the stamp exists, that it was designed by such person, on date D, etc.). That would be a misuse of a WP:PRIMARY source. That being said, the question remains.

The main barrier here is WP:NFCC #8, "contextual significance". A mere mention ("designer X produced stamp Y on date D") would not justify having an image of the stamp. On the other hand, if the stamp’s design is discussed at length, that would qualify.

Here’s an example. File:Jean Moulin with a scarf and fedora by Marcel Bernard.jpg is a very famous image, but still under copyright. The page has a long template describing how each of the non-free criteria are met. NFCC#8 would not be met without the paragraph I added in Jean_Moulin#Legacy to discuss the picture and its history. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 15:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Tigraan. I'll study the Jean Moulin example and the other helpful links you have kindly shared. I have struggled with these aspects of the wiki-verse in the past, so I'll also proceed with great care. (On Commons, I've been able to make some useful contributions, but the only direct special uploads I've attempted on en:wp were summarily (and I still believe unjustly) deleted (as, alas, were the lengthy discussions about the matter).

Also, I'm not sure that I understand your statement about WP:PRIMARY and proof of nontrivial information. Please refer to the links included in the first paragraph of the original thread on Wikipedia:Help desk. These sources would seem to be acceptable (WP:RELIABLE) and pertinent. I would have thought that it follows that WP:FAIRUSE applies to the images of the stamps too – again, I will refer to your example to see whether I am able to determine if indeed this is the case (and what, if any, amendments may be required to the text of the articles in order to be compliant with NFCC#8, etc.). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Cl3phact0: You may cite sources such as this one to say that the stamp was designed in such-and-such year and so on; I agree a Federal Ministry source would usually be reliable. But you can do that without reproducing the stamp, nor the text of the source. (Well, there’s some nitpicking due to WP:NONENG: if challenged using a non-English source, you should provide the exact quote, original and translated, that supports the Wikipedia text.)

The test for NFCC#8 is whether having the image in the Wikipedia article, next to the text, adds significant context that the reader lacks otherwise. It is generally agreed that for the article on topic X, a visual element identifying topic X is needed (typically, the article about a film will have a poster of the film as a lead image). When the article is about something else (such as an image of a stamp in the article about the designer), you essentially need to prove that the reader needs the image. It’s not a super-hard threshold to pass, but it is still one. I would say, if all you’re saying is that the stamp was designed in such-and-such year, that doesn’t really need an image. On the other hand, if you’re referring to visual elements of the stamp, the reader probably needs to see the image. If you are not referring to visual elements, but you’re spending ten lines talking about the stamp, an image might be needed too.

Finally: "fair use" is a legal US doctrine. Almost any reasonable use of images in Wikipedia would qualify as fair use, including the one you suggest. That is because Wikipedia is mostly non-commercial and has a significant educative purpose (factors that weigh in favor of fair use). However, readers of Wikipedia would not be able to rely on that doctrine to reuse the material in other contexts. Because Wikipedia tries to be a free encyclopedia ("free" as in "free speech", not "free beer"), it is not a good thing to have articles contain non-free material. For that reason, some language Wikipedias forbid non-free material entirely; on en-wp, non-free material is allowed, but under a guideline (NFCC) that is intentionally more restrictive than fair use. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 11:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Tigraan. Lucid, to the point, and very helpful. I will keep the above handy for reference (along with a few other must-read gems). If I do decide to proceed and add images, I may circle back and ask you to have a glance, if no objection. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Monno Medical College night view

Monno Medical College night view in front of the mosque Md. Atikuzzaman (talk) 04:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Md. Atikuzzaman: The image File:Monno Medical College night view.jpg says "shot on OnePlus" byt ATIC. Are you sure this is your own work? If so can you upload your original photo with original exif data and no watermark/text? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett Yes this photo was captured on my own hand by using my One Plus phone. If you have problem with any watermark, I can re-upload this image after removing watermark by editing. Thank u Md. Atikuzzaman (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Md. Atikuzzaman: Images with watermarks are usually retouched to remove them so if you can supply on original unwatermarked version it will always look better then a retouched version. Please do that. ww2censor (talk) 09:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett Ok now I have uploaded watermark free version of this image. Thanks you Md. Atikuzzaman (talk) 09:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@Md. Atikuzzaman: If this is truly your own work, it would be better for you to upload it to Commons since that will make it much easier for other Wikimedia Foundation projects to use. Files uploaded to English Wikipedia are "local" files in the sense that they can only be used on English Wikipedia; on the other hand files uploaded to Commons are "global" files in the sens that other language Wikipedias and other WMF projects can also use them. In addition, it's much better for you to upload your own photos with their original EXIF data since this can help in verifying your copyright ownership. Photos that have been scanned or otherwise processed through software like Photoshop or Picasa can be harder to verify and you may need to provide some type of further verification. Similarly, some of the other photos you've uploaded to Commons have EXIF data that indicates the photo probably came from a Facebook account. If you uploaded you're photos originally to social media and then downloaded them to reupload them to Commons or Wikipedia, it often can be helpful if you can provide a link to where they can be seen online because this can also aid in verifying your copyright ownership. In some cases when photos are published somewhere prior to being uploaded to Commons or Wikipedia, you may be asked to provide further verification of copyright ownership. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Non-free 2D art question

I uploaded a low resolution version of a drawing, with permission of the copyright holder, and I believe that I included enough information and fully filled out the template for 2D art that is under copyright but not licensed by any of the standard licensing mechanisms. The image has been removed, and I'm not sure what else I need to do to make it possible for it to stay. Here is the image page: File:CapitolColumnComingOutofMold.jpeg, and here is the page where I originally posted the illustration: Robert Poole (industrialist).

Carrie CBW23 (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi CBW23. The bot that removed the file per WP:NFCC#10c did so because of it wasn't able to find a non-free use rationale for the file's use in Robert Poole (industrialist) on the file's page because the rationale you tried to add was malformed. It looks like you were trying to copy and paste the template syntax for the rationale onto the file's page, but you only copied part of the syntax; so, the template wasn't functioning like you expected to function. The bot is unable to figure such things out when it checks for a rationale, but I tried to clean up the template's syntax for you. Now, having posted that, I don't think there's real strong justification for the drawing's non-free use in the article per WP:NFCC#8 because the drawing itself isn't the subject of sourced critical commentary as is typically required per WP:NFC#CS, and the paragraph about the columns is quite understandable without seeing this particular drawing. It would be different, perhaps if this was an actual photograph or design drawing created at the time (though such things would be long within the public domain by now), but this is a more modern representation of the process which means someone else could probably make a similar drawing and release it under a free license per WP:FREER. If the Marchesi drawing itself was the subject of sourced critical commentary in the article, then that might strengthen any argument in favor of its non-free use, but otherwise it seems (at least in my opinion) like it's going to be hard to establish a consensus in favor of using it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your prompt response and helpful reply. I will look for another image that may serve the purpose. But I do wonder if there's any way of documenting that the museum that holds the copyright for this drawing has given permission for its use in this article.

Carrie CBW23 (talk) 12:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems strange to me that the museum would hold the copyright — I would have expected it to remain with the artist, who is still alive. Felix QW (talk) 06:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is unusual. A whole series of illustrations on the subject of the Poole and Hunt ironworks was done for hire, with the copyright specifically, by contract, held by the person who paid the artist to do the work. Then that person donated the entire set of drawings to the museum. A copyright attorney handled the transfer of copyright from the original owner to the museum. I am a friend of the original owner, and we asked the museum for permission to post one drawing, at low resolution. They readily agreed. We believe the drawing helps underscore Robert Poole's innovation and creativity in solving difficult technical problems, and also shows his men at work. There are no photographs from the 19th century showing the work inside an iron foundry, and this set of drawings was created only after extensive historical research, jointly done by the artist and the person who commissioned the drawings. So these drawings seem especially useful in illustrating what Poole and his foundrymen did. However, given the comments here about the difficulty of getting a consensus over use of the work, we are not inclined to struggle with this issue. I do greatly appreciate all the help and interest, and I'm learning a lot about how Wikipedia works. Thank you for your interest. CBW23 (talk) 12:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Copyright permission only really matters when the file is being uploaded under a free license: copyright permission isn't necessary for non-free use. Whether the non-free use of the file meets all ten criteria required by Wikipedia's non-free use might depend on who you ask. You could try and upload the file under a non-free license and then see what happens. If a community consensus is established in favor of the file's non-free use at. for example, WP:FFD, it will be OK; if not, it won't. One other thing you should also be aware of is that because you've stated that you're a friend of the original owner, that could be seen by some as possibly being a WP:COI in some way regarding the subject of the article. Of course, this once again depends on who the owner is and the specific circumstances of you're relationship with them, but it's probably something you should also be aware of. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you again for further insights into this situation. I really don't think COI applies here, but it is not worth the trouble of trying to work around the default assumptions and policies, and the licensing situation is just more complicated than I want to have to deal with. The article can be useful and the subject matter understood without that particular drawing. CBW23 (talk) 13:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Is the inclusion of the following photograph in the Samuel Dash page permitted?

Samuel Dash attended Central High School in Philadelphia, and I recently stumbled upon a photograph of him in that high school's June 2, 1942 edition of the school's newspaper. I found a handful of these newspapers when looking through my grandfather's old things. The photograph is a black and white portrait of Samuel Dash in a suit along with a short article about him titled "Dash and ILSA Move To Aid in War Effort". The high school newspaper was called the "The Centralizer", and the photograph in question was in the Vol. XXXIX No. 10 June 2, 1942 edition of the newspaper. No copyright identifiers or indications are contained anywhere in the newspaper.

My question is, would it be permissible to include this photograph in the Samuel Dash article? Would this pose any copyright issues? Since the newspaper didn't show any copyright notice anywhere in the newspaper wouldn't that make it not covered by copyright (I thought this was the case prior to 1989) or is it still possible its considered copyrighted even though there is no notice in the newspaper? And, would this pose any privacy related issues? As the person in the photo presumably intended for the photo to be in the paper, but may not have necessarily intended it to be in a wikipedia page. Hmoon9 (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@Hmoon9: Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Based on your description, the photograph is almost certainly free from copyright protection (the only case I can think of in which it would not would be if the newspaper's use of the photograph was itself copyright infringement, but that seems exceptionally unlikely for a high school newspaper in the 1940s). Going forward, the Hirtle Chart is a nifty tool that can help guide these sorts of cases.

With respect to potential privacy issues, Dash has been dead for almost 20 years, so I don't see any personal privacy issues that would arise under Wikipedia or Commons policies. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Old grainy photo of Bob Farrell

I have written an article called Market Rules to Remember that are by a well-known retired Wall Street analyst called Bob Farrell who used to work for Merrill Lynch. There are almost no photos (free or otherwise) of this person, except for this one in Medium that looks like him at his desk in Merrill Lynch circa 1960/70s. This photo does get repeated on other investing sites like Business Insider, but never with attribution/clarification of copyright etc.

Is there any way/grounds that I could use this image in the Wikipedia article? I would love to preserve it in Wikipedia, and it doesn't feel like it is claimed/wanted by any source (it is very grainy). Aszx5000 (talk) 12:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@Aszx5000:

I'm doing a little bit of research into the history of the photograph. A medium-quality version of the photograph appears on Business Insider's website, but this article attributes that photograph to The Drunkensian, a Portuguese-language blogspot blog. That's about as far as I can get, though. If the photograph was taken from an old newspaper before it got posted there, then it would likely be copyrighted if it were first published after 1963 (see: the hirtle chart for more info).

Getting back to the question of Is there any way/grounds that I could use this image in the Wikipedia article, the answer is that you probably can't at this point because the photo is of unclear copyright status and Farrell is alive. Farrell is notable and probably could get his own article (see: [1] [2] [3]), and almost all portraits of living notable individuals that are non-free are not suitable for upload on Wikimedia projects. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that Red-tailed hawk. Much appreciated. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The New York Red Book by G.A. Mitchell (1987-1988)

is an authorized publication of the New York State government. Full title: "The New York Red Book Eighty-Ninth Edition 1987-1988 An Illustrated Yearbook of Authentic Information Concerning New York State, Its Departments and Political Subdivisions and the Officials Who Administer Its Affairs".

It does have a copyright page, stating only: "Copyright 1987-1988 by Williams Press, INC."

My question, however, is this: This book contains several dozen (if not 100+) biographical images of all sorts of individuals that worked in the NYS government during 1987-1988. Are any of these in the public domain? I'm aware that images of dead individuals may be fair use, but for those who are still alive, what's the legal status? Alexcs114 :) 17:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Alexcs114. Assuming that the author of the photos is known, the photos were taken sometime in 1987 and 1988, and they were first published in that 89th edition, then a quick assessment would be that they're all covered by the copyright on the book. Per c:COM:HIRTLE, this would mean that they are likely protected until 95 years after the book's publication (2084 at the earliest) as a published work with a known author and a copyright notice. If some of the individual photos were published separately in other publications, then their copyright status could depend on the copyright status of that publication. Generally, works first published in the US from January 1, 1978, up to but excluding March 1, 1989, no longer required a visible copyright notice but still required copyright registration within five years of publication if first published without a notice to be considered protected. However, photos incorporated into print publications were generally covered by the copyright notice of said publication unless clearly indicated or shown to be otherwise; in other words, such photos weren't required to have individual visible copyright notices. So, if the photos in the book look like they were specifically taken for that book (i.e. like a yearbook photo), then most likely they would be treated as non-free content for Wikipedia's purposes. If, on the other hand, the photos look like they were taken from other sources and just used in the book, and their provenance can be narrowed down, then they could be within the public domain if they were first published without a copyright notice and registration was never made. Since Creative Commons licenses didn't exist at that time, I be leery of any examples of the photos you might find online under such licenses as well as of people claiming to be the authors or copyright owners of such photos; however, any examples you might find in old newspapers or other print publications from that same period might help clarify their provenance. Finally, being an "authorized publication" does not (I believe) matter much because under US copyright law works created by state, country, municipal government employees as part of their official duties aren't automatically within the public domain. Works created by US federal government employees are, but not works created by other government employees. Some states have statutes that make the official works of their employees public domain, but New York doesn't seem to be such a state. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

oof, alright then. Thanks @Marchjuly! Alexcs114 :) 01:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Re-publishing material from Geological Society of London copyright

The copyright webpage of the Geological Society of London states "Anyone may use up to three items (text extracts of 100 words or less, figures or tables) from GSL published material without permission or charge provided that a proper acknowledgement of source is made." Assuming proper attribution, is this still outside the scope of the free content policy? Many thanks. Epsilon.Prota (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Use without charge is not the same as a free license. That material is not compatible with Wikipedia's free licensing. -- Whpq (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, good to know. Epsilon.Prota (talk) 04:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

US Olympic Committee photos

According to United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee, the USOPC doesn't seem to be under the direct control of the US government; so, i'm wondering whether a file like File:MasterEdithOlympian.JPG is really OK to license as {{PD-USGov}} since USOPC employees don't seem to be considered US federal government employees. If it is, then it would seem that files like File:United States Olympic Team.svg would also be "PD-USGov". -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Let me know what you decide. The photo in question was marked USOC, United States Olympic Committee...............I'm sorry I uploaded something that was not OK. But you might note that Edith Master is no longer living and I could upload the photo as a non-free file. Let me know. I may have loaded a few more photos with USOC marked on them. I hope this resolves quickly. Thanks,................ Dcw2003 (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

You could also delete Hilda Gurney, and Dorothy Morkis's photos as they fall under the same situation...............The photo said USOC and was used as their Olympic photo. Please let me know how this resovles itself. Thanks!!!! IF the photo was distributed by the USOC, as I believe might be the case, perhaps some government branch was responsible for the distribution of the photo. ThanksDcw2003 (talk)

I've deleted these photos from their wiki pages for now, but I would have rather waited until the issue has been resolved. Thanks!!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcw2003 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I've created a new photo File Page for Edith Master which lists her photo as a non-free historic image as she died 15 years ago. I've linked Edith Master to this new photo File. Lots of work for me...................Please resolve this issue if you can guys.........Thanks!!! Thanks for your discussion and consideration!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcw2003 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@Dcw2003: A photo isn't necessarily an historic photo just because it's of a now deceased person and was taken so many years ago, at least not in a Wikipedia non-free content use sense. Furthermore, a non-free photo isn't automatically OK to use just because someone has died. Assuming reasonable search for a free equivalent photo that could serve essentially the same encyclopedic purpose as any non-free one is carried out, a non-free photo of a deceased one is often allowed per item 10 of WP:NFCI; such a photo, however, still would need to satisfy all of the non-free content use criteria listed in WP:NFCCP. Finally, there was no need for you to File:MasterEdithOlympicNewFile.JPG when its seems to be exactly the same photo as File:MasterEdithOlympian.JPG. All that really need to be done was to change the copyright licensing of the latter to a non-free license and then replace Template:Information with an appropriate non-free use rationale. Now, there are two different files of basically the same image that have conflicting copyright information. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I would have kept the original copyright information but someone else complained that a USOC photo is not necessarily a government photo and therefore public domain. So I opted for a fair use non-free liscense tag as the person in question has been dead a long time, is not particularly famous, and the photo most certainly describes the person being described in the article. If you have skills finding public domain photos of olympians, than feel free to share them and I would be most appreciative of the information. Thank-you for your help. Dcw2003 (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Unlike most other nations, the United States government does not have a Ministry of Sports and does not fund its Olympic Committee. This is in part due to the taboo of mixing sports and politics in the U.S. The USOPC was reorganized by the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, originally enacted in 1978. It is a federally chartered nonprofit corporation and does not receive federal financial support (other than for select Paralympic military programs). Pursuant to the Act, the USOPC has the exclusive right to use and authorize the use of Olympic-related marks, images and terminology in the United States. The USOPC licenses that right to sponsors as a means of generating revenue in support of its mission. Dcw2003 (talk) 13:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Dcw2003: When you wrote someone else complained, did you forget I am that someone else? The reason I asked (not complained but "asked") about the photo's licensing is because you originally uploaded it under a claim of public domain because you seemed to assume as much because it came from an official US Olympic website. Even though that assumption was, I believe, mistaken, that's OK; fixing things, however, didn't require the uploading of same file again. The public domain licensing of the first file you uploaded could've been replaced by a non-free license and the file's description could have been replaced by a non-free use rationale simply be editing the file's page. A file's page can be edited if necessary after it has been created just like pretty much any other Wikipedia page can be edited. Of course, doing certain things (e.g. moving a file page) may require special permissions, but most things can be done by any editor. You don't need to create a new file page to make a change on an existing file page. As for finding free photos of Olympians, it depends on which Olympics you're asking about but sometimes you can find photos of such people (particularly from recent Olympics) on sites like Flickr that have already been released under an acceptable free license. For older athletes, sometimes you can find images on sites like eBay (signed photos perhaps) that either never were or are no longer eligible for copyright protection for some reason. You can find out some more examples of how to possibly find free media (at least free enough for Wikipedia's purposes) at c:Commons:Free media resources or Wikipedia:Finding images tutorial. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I will follow your reccommendations for finding public domain photos. Thanks again, dcw2003 Dcw2003 (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I did change the image to a non-free liscense, as you suggested, but had forgotten or was unaware I could do this without creating another file. Thanks for your input, particularly your help obtaining public domain photos. I am grateful, if a bit vexed by the range of knowledge required to do things like obtain photos, without having prior training in wikipedia. I'm sure you understand. You seem knowledgeale and helpful. Thanks again!!! Dcw2003 (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Pre-1978 US mug shots and booking photos

Would US mug shots and booking photos taken at the sub-federal level after 1928 but before 1978 be subject to the same copyright formalities as other US photos taken during that same time period? In other words, anything taken prior to 1964 would be required to have a visible copyright notice and also a renewal registration and anything taken from 1964 to 1978 (exclusive) would require a visible copyright notice. If this is the case, then I'm wondering whether it would affect the non-free licensing of photos like File:Sharon Kinee (criminal).png. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you're right in that state governments don't get any special privileges. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International?

Can an image be uploaded to Wikimedia commons with the license "Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International"? The image of concern is one I just uploaded. Thanks ~ HAL333 14:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, at least not as free content. In fact, the answer to the question immediately above this one shows that such files are eligible to be speedily deleted. Felix QW (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, since it was asked here, I assumed the question was about Wikipedia Files. As to Wikimedia Commons, there is non-free use and so sadly there is no way to keep such images. Felix QW (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, no worries - copyright has always been by greatest weakness. Do you how I might go about uploading it as a fair use image? ~ HAL333 15:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

HAL333: this is the page you need to consult w:Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria but any such use MUST comply with all 10 of the enwiki's NFCC policy criteria. It will be deleted here. ww2censor (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe the image adheres to those criteria. But how do I actually upload it as a "Wikipedia File"? ~ HAL333 15:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

It's so simple, just click on the "upload file" link on the left side of every enwiki page and follow the links. ww2censor (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I've been around for half a decade and never knew... Thanks! ~ HAL333 16:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Using image obtained from email

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.

---

After the deletion of the non-free image at David E. Nichols, I asked Nichols for a free image through email and obtained a photograph from him. Asking about the type of CC license, he stated that he is willing to publish the license under CC BY-NC 4.0, but he seems to be unsure about licensing.

(1) Should I ask him if he wishes to publish the photograph under CC BY 4.0? (as Commons only seems to accept 7 types of CC licenses when uploading).

(2) What should I provide under the "source" section when uploading it to Commons? Can I simply write "obtained through email communication"?

(3) Do I need to ask him to send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with one of the email templates about his official consent to release the work under the stated license? Do I need to ask him to send the template email after I upload the picture to Commons or before? Sorry, I'm new to this. --WikiLinuz {talk} 20:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)This is obsolete. --WikiLinuz {talk} 19:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi WikiLinuz. Any license that places restrictions in commercial or derivative reuse (e.g. NC, ND, NC-ND) aren't free enough for either Wikipedia or Commons for the reasons given in c:COM:LJ. Any file uploaded under such a license will be deleted from Commons and treated as non-free content if uploaded locally to Wikipedia. Since Nichols is still living, a non-free image if him almost certainly will not be allowed. If Nichols is the copyright holder of the photo (i.e. the person who took the photo) but doesn't want to give their WP:CONSENT, there's not much that can be done. For reference, a copyright holder releasing their works under a CC license doesn't mean they are transfering their copyright to another party; it just means they're making it easier for others to reuse their work under the terms of the license they choose without needing to seek permission each time. The copyright on the work is still owned by the copyright holder. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

So if he agrees to CC BY 4.0, how exactly should I proceed then?
Should I then upload it to Commons under CC BY 4.0 and place {{subst:OP}} tag, and then ask him to send the templated consent text to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with a URL linking to the uploaded file? (I mean inside [exact URL of the file uploaded on Wikimedia Commons] of the template) --WikiLinuz {talk} 22:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

If the subject of the photo is also the copyright holder of the photo (this is not automatically the case), then ideally the best thing for them to do would be to upload the file themselves to Commons as "own work" under whichever acceptable license they want to release the photo under. Assuming that the file has never been published prior to it being uploaded to Commons, they shouldn't really need to deal with VRT as long as they upload the photo in as high of a resolution as is possible with the original EXIF data if possible. They can find more details on how to do this at c:Commons:First steps/Quality and description. Low-resolution images uploaded by new users which look like they've been scanned or cropped from some other image are prevented from being uploaded by the Commons Abuse Filter or quickly get tagged for review. The uploader can also use c:COM:RELGEN to generate an "electronic release" if they want to make it clear they're the copyright holder. If the photo has been previously published somewhere prior to being uploaded to Commons, then what should be done depends on how much control the copyright holder has over the medium in which the photo was published. If the file was published under a non-acceptable license that the copyright holder can change to being an acceptable one, then all they need to do is upload the file and provide a some way of verifying the file's license (i.e. a link) as explained here. If the license was an unacceptable one that cannot be changed to an acceptable, the copyright holder will either need to use RELGEN or email VRT as explained here. If anyone but the copyright holder uploads the file, that person will need to provide some way of verifying that the copyright holder has given their c:COM:CONSENT as explained here. This can be by either providing a link showing that the photo has been released under an acceptable free license or by asking the copyright holder to email VRT. Finally, before the copyright holder uploads or agrees to anything, it would probably be a good idea to ask them to take a look at c:COM:LRV, c:COM:REUSE and c:COM:ENFORCE to make sure they understand what it means to release their work under a free license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

That’s the correct and official answer, but the chances that anyone but the copyright wonks of MCQ will read any of those licensing pages is close to zero.

When sending a request for image license, I usually give a quick summary of the license: Would you agree with licensing it under CC-BY-SA? This means, roughly speaking, that anyone can reuse the image for any purpose (not just Wikipedia), provided they give appropriate credit, and do not claim that you endorse their use. You remain free to use the picture for your purposes and/or license it to other people as you wish.

Also (this was said above but it is worth mentioning) if the photograph was taken by the subject's wife, then we need consent from the wife, not the subject. I suppose that we could take the subject's word for it that the wife agrees (it’s not strictly correct but what are the odds it goes wrong?). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 11:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I asked if he wished to release it under CC BY 4.0, and he agreed. He couldn't care less about this licensing - he doesn't care if the picture gets used in a commercial or other context.

If the photograph was taken by the subject's wife, then we need consent from the wife, not the subject - Let us not get anal about this. He and his wife live together, and I'm pretty sure his wife wasn't going to sue Wikimedia Foundation for using a "copyrighted" photo of her husband. The subject in question owns the copyright, and his consent is what matters (it's nothing more than just a selfie, so it's not some corporate copyrighted media). --WikiLinuz {talk} 19:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

It may seem anal, but Commons has its c:COM:PCP. As posted above by Tigraan, nobody will probably care as long as other issues don't start popping up. Personally, the easiest thing to do would to simply ask the subject to have their wife create an account, upload the photo, and in the description state she took it of her husband. As long as the photo hasn't been published before, is of a fairly decent resolution, doesn't look like its been scanned or cropped to death, doesn't have lots of other potentially copyrightable elements in the background, or look too much like a professionally taken photograph (e.g. watermarked, posed, official website type of photo), then the wife should be able to upload the photo and it should be fine without even needing to worry about VRT. Selfies tend to have a distinct feel to them (at least many people think they do) and anything that looks too different from that might get flagged for review. If the wife has a Flickr, Twitter, Facebook or Instagram account, they can upload the photo to that, add an acceptable CC license, and that too should be fine without needing to worry about VRT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

The reason he said the photograph was taken by my wife so it doesn't require licensing is because he believed I was asking about licensing info because I thought the photograph was taken by some media company that has no ties to him (for example, he was interviewed by Vice News and other media because he's a pretty famous personality in the psychedelic research community). --WikiLinuz {talk} 21:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

You've got to try and remember that Commons is a 100% volunteer project like Wikipedia. Commons adminstrators have been selected as such by the Commons community because that community believes them to be familiar enough and capable enough to properly assess whether a file complies with relevant Commons policies and guidelines. It's not like the WMF has gone out and hired a bunch of international intellectual property rights experts to oversee things on Commons. The same can be said about VRT members; they are also all volunteers with varying degrees of experience. So, anytime you upload something to Commons, you're sort of rolling the dice. Outside of obvious copyright violations, most uploaders seem to be given the benefit of the doubt at first; however, if they start establish a pattern of questionable uploads or otherwise exhibit very little understanding of things like c:COM:L, then their uploads may start to be scrutinized more. So, if you upload a file to Commons, there's no 100% guarantee that someone will never challenge it at some point. All you can do if that happens is to try and address those concerns in a way that satisfies relevant Commons policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The point is, people are busy IRL and have lives, and we cannot trouble them too much to the point where they get frustrated or ignore the request. Academics like Nichols already have a bunch of things to deal with, and I cannot ask him to make his wife hop onto a computer, create a Flickr account, upload the photo, and email me once done. Remember, he does not have to answer any of my emails.

If you ask for a favor from someone who already has a busy life and they agree to the request and provide what you asked for, I have to make sure that I do most of the work to minimize the time and effort they have to spend. I'm the one making the request therefore I have to be polite and not demand that they do this or they do that.

Sending a statement of consent (which, btw something I wrote from the template such that he can simply copy-paste the text) to VRT is the easiest from his point of view.

This is not about asking someone not to challenge the uploads, rather being polite to the copyright holder and basic human decency.

If a statement of consent through VRT satisfies the Commons licensing policy, then that's all it matters and it's the easiest from their POV. --WikiLinuz {talk} 00:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@WikiLinuz: I think you missed the point. Quoting from a page I recently created: Wikipedia tries hard to obey copyright law. If you think it leads to weird requests, blame the people who made copyright law so stringent, not us. I suggested to ask Nichols by email to confirm his wife is OK, precisely to minimize the work asked of Nichols while still getting something that could pass as a valid license. Yes, that’s already more pain that a layman person would expect to upload a basic photo to Wikipedia; but the fault lies in copyright law, not in us.

The copyright holder of the photo in that case is Nichols' wife, not Nichols. There is absolutely no legal argument that Nichols' agreement would suffice. Hence, the lawyer-proof way is to have Nichols’ wife do the upload, which is a giant pain in the butt for everyone involved (as you, I, and everyone else reading this already knows). If it was my personal website, I would take a calculated risk, upload the photo and stop worrying about it. Tough luck, Commons isn’t my personal website; the rules are to get a license release form signed by the right person and Nichols ain’t that person.

You might say to hell with this, let’s just relax the upload rules, what are the chances she (or her estate) will sue? Maybe 0.01% of non-professional photographers would complain if they found one of their images on Commons; maybe 0.1% of those would sue even after we took down the images on request.

The problem is that it creates incentives for adversarial actors. There’s already a burgeoning legal industry of uploading a CC-BY image, with the fine print requiring a specific form of attribution, and then suing to get money when someone else reuses the image without the exact attribution. If Commons starts to let through a bunch of shadily-licensed images, those actors will be able to trap the WMF and get copyright settlements. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 15:21, 13 June 2023 (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 propose deletion for an image under CC-BY-NC or similar licenses?

There are multiple avenues for deleting files that aren't free content. CSD, PROD, and FfD. What's the best way to mark it for deletion? The Quirky Kitty (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:F3 -- Whpq (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I nominated a couple for speedy deletion using F10, but I see the right one is F3. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Richter window Cologne Cathedral.jpg

File:Richter window Cologne Cathedral.jpg seems to have been uploaded as non-free because there appears to be no freedom of panorama for church interiors in Germany where the Cologne Cathedral is located per c:COM:FOP Germany even though the photo was uploaded to Flickr under an acceptable free license. However, the way the file is currently being used and the fact that an FOP OK external shot of the same window exists as File:Kölner Dom - Richterfenster an der Südseite bei Nacht (7264-66).jpg makes wonder whether it meets WP:FREER and WP:NFC#CS, particularly since the non-free file isn't being used in Cologne Cathedral Window. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Given that FOP for exterior is okay, the non-free image would be replaceable unless there is a specific reason that an interior image is required which I don't see in this case. -- Whpq (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

File:25th Engineer Group TRF.png

File:25th Engineer Group TRF.png is under Crown copyright but pretty simple. Can we give it {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}? The Quirky Kitty (talk) 09:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that looks right. It's too simple for the US but probably copyrighted in the UK. -- Whpq (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I'll change it. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 13:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

UK Government open licence

Are images that are usable under UK Government licence, which now covers quite a lot of interesting images, acceptable for uploading and use on Wikipedia? If so, would any particular procedure be required? Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

They can indeed be used on Wikipedia! The best way to upload them would be to Wikimedia Commons, where you can then tag them with the appropriate license template. That way, they can be used on all Wikis, not just the English Wikipedia. Felix QW (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I shall. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

File:1972 Shimla Agreement.jpg

Could someone help in finding a replacement for this file? The context is Simla Agreement. The file is originally from AP. The PD rationale and the source are incorrect and should be converted to non-free if no free substitute is found. Thanks! Pinging uploader @Starkex — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 18:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

It's unlikely this can be converted to non-free per WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFCC#8. A non-free photo showing two persons shaking hands even at a historic moment is likely going to be considered a case of WP:ITSHISTORIC absent any sourced critical commentary specific to the photo itself. The reader doesn't need really need to see a photo of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Indira Ghandi shaking hands to know they shook hands, which makes its justification for non-free use pretty weak per WP:FREER and WP:NFC#CS. Moreover, photos sourced to commercial image companies or new agencies are almost always going to be considered to fail NFCC#2 per WP:F7 and item 7 of WP:NFC#UUI; so, if this file is truly mislicensed, it's most likely going to need to be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

My Lai massacre related non-free files

While doing some minor cleanup in Ronald L. Haeberle, I saw File:Cleveland Plain Dealer Front Page Nov 20 1969.jpg is being used in the article in addition to two other photos. It's uploaded as non-free which seems at first glance to have been the thing to do, but the photo appearing on the front page of that issue is essentially File:My Lai massacre.jpg, which already exists on Commons as PD. Assuming licensing on the photo is OK, then it seems that only copyrightable elements to worry about for the paper's image are the headlines and other text shown. The question then is whether such things are still protected by copyright. If they are, then the next question is whether there's enough there to justify a non-free use of the file per WP:FREER and WP:NFC#CS. Similarly, it's not clear whether the additional text added to File:And babies (anti-Vietnam War poster).jpg used in And babies is sufficient to treat it as non-free as a WP:Derivative work if the photo used is PD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Starting with the second question, the Smithsonian identifies the poster as copyright 1970 to the artists from AWC. [4]. Analytically, this seems sound even if the underlying photograph is public domain. The addition of the specific interview question and answer in a blood red, dripping typeface evinces enough creativity to create a copyright in the composition. Whether keeping the non-free image satisfies WP:FREER is a question better answered by others, though I do think that the poster image is sufficiently different so as to provide important, additional context to readers. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The typeface in the And babies poster is copy-pasted from the New York Times. They took it straight from the newspaper interview. This is discussed and sourced in the article. The artists added the blood red color. -- GreenC 22:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I do not see anything about the text being "copy-pasted" in the article. While, the source of the text was from the NYT account of the CBS television interview, the artists added the color and, if one looks at the higher resolution Smithsonian image linked above, created a pooling and dripping appearance in the typeface. I remain of the opinion that the Smithsonian's copyright designation to the artists is correct. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

In the lead section, last sentence of the first paragraph, did you read that source? Of course it doesn't say "copy pasted" that was a term of convenience I used here since we all known what it means, the point in now-so-many-words is the artists took the text including typeface from the NYT article and put it into the poster with added red coloring. Now examine the original NYT document: [5], the And babies quote is bottom of the third column, then press + magnifying glass (lower right side) blow it up as large as possible. Imperfect artifacts emerge in the letters which indeed look "drippy" and "pooling", likely because they used letter press with ink on news paper which has that effect. I'm not saying you are wrong they modified the typeface, but this is not mentioned in the cited source which only says they used the lettering from the NYT article. As for it being a copyright poster, it probably is for a number of reasons. -- GreenC 17:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Is this image allowed to be used?

I would greatly appreciate any guidance on whether the following image is allowed to be used:

thumb|Nick Keig before the 1980 OSTAR Single-Handed Trans-Atlantic race

Author: Jean Guichard

Source: Getty Images URL: https://www.gettyimages.no/detail/news-photo/british-sailor-nick-keig-before-the-ostar-single-handed-news-photo/594371570

"This image is intended for Editorial use (e.g. news articles)." I believe the tag should be "cc-by-2.5"?. Verification from a more experienced editor would be appreciated. Samuel Keig (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Samuel Keig this is a copyrighted image with no indication that it is covered by any Creative Commons licence such as cc-by-2.5, so it's use on Wikipedia is a no-no. Wikipedia licencing policy requires image to be free for all use; including commercial reuse, even though Wikipedia itself is not a commercial website. Nthep (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

That is a copyrighted image and is not under any sort of Creative Commons license. -- Whpq (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Licensed-PD-US Copyright tag

Sifting through the files with disputed copyright information, I stumbled on File:KingOfAtlantisEJ.jpg, which is hosted on the English Wikipedia with the rationale that its subject is out of copyright in the US (but not in its home country Iceland). This makes sense. However, I couldn't find a decent tag for this situation, where the image itself is license freely, but is derivative of a public domain work. Commons has template:Licensed-PD, but it seems like there is no equivalent on enwiki? Felix QW (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Felix QW: I believe {{PD-US-expired-abroad}} is sometimes used for photos like this. See, for example, File:Copenhagen - the little mermaid statue - 2013.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply! I am not too keen on any tag though that assert "This image is in the public domain in the US" when the image is very much copyrighted and merely licensed under a CC license.

In fact, this combination suggests to me that the image is not copyrighted in the US, but abroad, and that therefore the license is provided for use in countries outside the US. Not ideal. Felix QW (talk) 12:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Nobel prize winner images

We are hosting a large number of image of Nobel prize winners such as under the assumption that they were first published in Sweden, which had a 25-year copyright term for images created before 1969.

However, on the source website https://www.nobelprize.org/ they are merely credited to the "Nobel Foundation Archive", and in at least one case, File:Karl Landsteiner nobel.jpg, the image has originally been published by the NY Times, who credit it to Bachrach Studios.

Does this mean that we should doubt the Swedish origin on the remaining images as well? Felix QW (talk) 09:14, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The user who uploaded the Landsteiner file is an administrator named Materialscientist. Perhaps, MS remembers why they uploaded the file as such. As for the other images, I guess if you can find them published in other media with attribution given to someone other than the "Nobel Foundation Archive", then their licensing might need to be re-assessed. It's possible in that case the images could still be PD, but just for a different reasons. How many of such images are there? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I think in principle the idea that a credit line to the "Nobel Foundation Archive" implies original publication in Sweden is sensible, absent evidence to the contrary. Also, Bachrach does not seem to have renewed copyright in any of their images, so this one seems fine. My question was really whether the fact that we know it to be wrong in one case is enough to doubt the assumption in general.

The series of Nobel winners make up 25 of 26 images in Category:PD-Sweden images with unknown US copyright status, which I was working through. Felix QW (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Photo of CIL IV 8623/22a-b

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.

---

I have a black and white photo taken in 1937 on an Italian government excavation, of a sator square that is cataloged as CIL IV 8623/22a-b. My understanding is that Italian state copyright only lasts 20 years after publishing. The photo appears in this noted French academic paper, titled Le "carré magique" à Conimbriga, by noted author, Robert Etienne, as Figure 2 (and footnoted to the 1937 publishing date). Etienne credits and thanks the "Archaeological Superintendency of Pompeii", which is the Italian government department that oversees excavations, per here, for the photo in Figure 2. Is it therefore okay for me to upload this to Wikipedia? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

In my eyes, it should be no problem as long as it was created before 1976. The reason for that number is that the URAA gave American law copyright to any image which was still in copyright in Italy on 1 January 1996. As a "simple photograph", the image certainly had a 20 year copyright period from creation, so if it was created before 1976, it was out of copyright at the restoration date. Felix QW (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Excellent. It is definitely pre 1976 and Italian (and photographed by an Italian). Thank you so much. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Felix QW - what kind of copyright tag would I apply to the file in commons? I uploaded it to "File:Sator Square Palestra Pompeii (CIL 8623 & 8622a-b).jpg". thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually someone has just tagged it properly on commons using the "PD-1996" tag. thanks again for your help. Really delighted to be able to add that image to the Sator Square article, as it is the oldest known one. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Very glad to see that everything has been resolved. Thank you for the image, and thank you for asking about it here! It's a very nice article, by the way, and clearly a difficult topic to write on. Felix QW (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I have been dying to add that image for ages (the oldest sator square) and trawling the internet regarding copyright, but only recently did it dawn on me to ask on this board. You made my day on that one! thanks again. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2023 (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.

Use of a US ad from 1985

I wrote an article called Market Rules to Remember that are associated with a famous Merrill Lynch analyst called Bob Farrell (he could probably have his own BLP, but I think his 10-rules are even more famous, so they would be merged). I would love to get some kind of image of him into the article. I have found a 1985 ad by Merrill Lynch here that features Bob. It is copyrighted (on the ad), but I am wondering if there is any basis that I could use this as a thumbnail in the article (i.e. some non-free use rationale). My fear is that, with time, this ad will disappear, and there will be nothing of him to show. Would Merrill Lynch care about a 38-year old ad? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

FYI, I previously asked about another old photo of Bob I found, but that was not considered suitable. See Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2023/June#Old grainy photo of Bob Farrell. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not really relevant to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy as to whether Merrill Lynch cares about how their intellectual property is reused. Non-free photos of still-living persons are pretty much never allowed per WP:FREER and item #1 of WP:NFC#UUI because a free equivalent is generally considered reasonable to expect. If the advert itself was somehow the subject of sourced critical commentary in reliable sources at the time or in the years since, and such commentary about it could be added to an article, then it might be possible to argue in favor of its non-free use. However, just adding the advert to show Farrell is almost certainly going to be considered WP:DECORATIVE and not allowed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Understand, and thank you for your very helpful response. Aszx5000 (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Fenerbahçe Football Branch New Logo

As it is known, at the ordinary financial general assembly meeting held in the past days, Fenerbahçe Sports Club, the football branch of the club, Fenerbahçe Futbol A.Ş. announced that a new 5-star logo has been registered and put into use. Related to this issue, the club did not share the new logo in PNG format on its website or anywhere else. I personally brought the image I took in JPG format to PNG format and uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons. The image I uploaded was removed a few days ago on the grounds that it was blocking Wikipedia media copyrights. The club made the necessary explanations for the new logo to be spread on all digital media. I'm new to this. Can you help to have the logo of Fenerbahçe football team?

File in question: File:FenerbahçeNewLogo.png Fatihoztrk950 (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Fatihoztrk950. There are a couple of problems with the file you uploaded to Commons. The first is that you uploaded the file as your "own work" when it almost certainly is not as explained here. "Own work" has a very particular meaning when it comes to image copyright matters: it basically means that you're the original creator of the work and therefore you're also the copyright holder of the work. I'm assuming that neither of those things are true in this case, unless you created the logo for Fenerbahçe or otherwise are an official representative of the team . If either of those things are true, please clarify. The next problem is that there's no indication that the copyright holder of the logo (Fenerbahçe) has released it under the "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International" you used when uploading the file. Only the copyright holder of a work can release it under such a license and there's nothing on Fenerbahçe's official website official website the indicates they have done so. Wikimedia Commons only accepts content that is either considered to be within the public domain (i.e. is no longer or never was eligible for copyright protection for some reason) or has been released by its copyright holder under an acceptable free license in accordance with c:Commons:Licensing. Unless it can be clearly shown that Fenerbahçe has released their new logo under the license your trying to use, the file can't be kept. Now, it's possible that the file can be uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content, but Commons doesn't accept non-free content of any type. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, first of all, thank you for your feedback. The reason why I said that the file I uploaded to wikimedia commons about the new logo usage of Fenerbahçe football branch is my own work is that the first and only image shared on the official website is in JPG format. I named it "my own work" because I converted and uploaded it from JPG format to PNG format. The link of the image shared by the club to all press and broadcasting organizations based on the subject on the official site: https://fenerbahce.org/haberler/futbol/2022/7/bes-yildizli-logo-kullanimi-hakkinda . I am enlightened with the installation conditions and information you provided. In the light of this information, I will pay attention to my next uploads. Fatihoztrk950 (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Even though you made mistake when it comes to "own work", it's a common mistake that many make and you should have no problems over at Commons as long as you don't keep repeating that mistake. For reference, Commns and English Wikipedia are separate projects with their own policies and guidelines, but simply changing the file format of an image doesn't typically seem to be a sufficient enough change to generate a new copyright (at least not under US copyright law) for your version as explained here. As for the link you provided above, while it's true that the club has made its new logo available for the media and others to use, it didn't make it available to use free of copyright restrictions, and it didn't make the logo available under the license you used when uploading the file to Commons. The file you uploaded to Commons has been deleted and I don't suggest you try an re-upload it to Commons because it will most likely end up being deleted again absent some formal way of verifying copyright holder consent. One thing you could do, however, is to ask User:Alex43223 who created the non-free vector version of File:Fenerbahçe.svg to try and update that local file with a new vector version of the new logo; updating the file means that the new version will automatically replace the old version in Fenerbahçe S.K. Another thing you could do is to upload the png version you created locally to Wikipedia as a non-free file using WP:UPLOAD and then manually replace the old file with the new file in "Fenerbahçe S.K." -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Non-free use for sealioning article

There is a short 6-panel comic strip article involving a talking sealion that was published by David Malki in his Wondermark series in 2014, which became the source for the term (or meme) of sealioning. I notice in places like Know Your Meme, that they have one of the key panels of the strip that illustrates the why it became the source for the term. Do you think that a Non-Free Use case could be made to include one of the strip panels (or even the whole 6-panel strip) in the Wikipedia article? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

As long as that strip can be confirmed by RSes (KYM is not an RS), then using the comic to support the irigin if the term is absolutely reasonable use within NFC. Masem (t) 13:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that - very helpful. This is an example of an RS that uses it ‘Sealioning’ is the word that sums up why Twitter discussion is so unbearable from MacLean's. Would I upload this to WikiCommons or just via File (or does it matter), and what kind of "tag" would I need to apply to cover NFC use? thanks again. Aszx5000 (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I think when Masem wrote RSes, the intended meaning was that multiple reliable sources have separately and independently attributed the comic as the origin of the term. If there's only one source or multiple sources bascially just repeating what one source has said, then that could be considered WP:UNDUE and make not only the justification for non-free use hard but also any attempt to attributed the origin of the term to comic as text hard. As to where to upload the file, you shouldn't uploaded to Commons unless you can clearly demonstrate the the cominc strip itself is within the public domain or has otherwise been released under an acceptable free license by its creator/copyright owner. For reference, being freely available to see online doesn't mean that something is free from copyright protection. Commons doesn't accept non-free content of any type as explained here; so, you would need to upload the file locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that Marchjuly. Yes, there are several other good RSes that cover the comic as the source of the term, such as The Independent, and even its dictionary entry in the Macmillan Dictionary covers it. Understand your point re Commons, and thank you again for your helpful advice. Aszx5000 (talk) 07:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

You can also use Merriam-Webster as well as scholarly works like "Shagun Jhaver, Sucheta Ghoshal, Amy Bruckman, and Eric Gilbert. 2018. Online Harassment and Content Moderation: ‘e Case of Blocklists. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 25, 2, Article 12 (March 2018), 33 pages." [6]

I am confident we can says, via RSes, that the sealioning term came from the comic, based on a quick search. So using the comic via NFC to support that is fine, just make sure these RSes are in there to support it. (and probably include one or two in the NFC rationale to help) Masem (t) 12:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Great - thank you so much for that Masem! will do. Aszx5000 (talk) 07:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

A claim of public domain would be very far-fetched even for the single panel. From what I gather, Wondermark uses collages of old, out-of-copyright images, but even the juxtaposition of the sealion into a dinner scene seems to constitute an original work with its own copyright protection. With the accompanying text, it’s clear to me that the comic panel is copyrighted.

As for NFC use, a single low-resolution panel probably qualifies. I am less sure about the whole comic, it probably does not pass WP:NFCCP §3.b. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 08:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

As the comic was distributed as one whole piece of several panels, and is part of a series, using the whole single comic would be fine. If editors feel they can trim the essential to one or two panels of the comic, that's great, and more to them, but in other situations we'd not require that. What we don't want editors doing is stitching together multiple different comics distributed at different times and claim that's one NFC use (but that doesn't seem to be the intent here) Masem (t) 12:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I have uploaded it now to sealioning and attached several references (per above), so hopefully that works. Thanks again for all your help on this. I think it is a worthwhile addition to the article. Aszx5000 (talk) 08:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)