Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2024/June

< Wikipedia:Media copyright questions


R.S. Yeoman

I've looked for years for a free image of Yeoman for the article, but I havent been able to find any, so I added a nonfree image. After reading through the policy I believe this is an appropriate use. Coingeek (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

File:RSYeoman.jpeg Coingeek (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

You need to add a non-free usage rationale to the file description at File:RSYeoman.jpeg, and it should be cropped to show only the subject of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Coingeek, you also need to correct several things on the nonfree rationale. For example, you list "Coingeek" as the author and source, which is you. If you are actually the photographer, you can just release it under a free license yourself. If you are not, you need to change the "Author" field to say who the photographer was, and the "Source" field to reflect where you found the photograph. Also, the "Respect for commercial opportunities" field just says "No". You need to fill that out with an explanation of how our use of the photograph does not impede or interfere with any commercial use the photo may potentially have. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, you list "CoinWeek" as author and source, not Coingeek, so I got a bit confused there. Still, without any kind of URL or anything, that doesn't tell the reader the answer to the question "Where is this photo originally from"?. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Repeated addition of a new, allegedly infringing version of a coat of arms

The user SecretSquirrel78 (talk · contribs) uploaded a new rendition of the coat of arms of Singapore at File:Singapore_coat_of_arms.svg, replacing File:Coat Arms of Singapore 1965.png at Singapore and File:Singapore_coat_of_arms.svg at Coat of arms of Singapore. It was repeatedly reverted by Vif12vf (talk · contribs), who alleges that the rendition by SecretSquirrel78 is a derivative work of a copyrighted official rendition. I've also nominated SecretSquirrel78's version for deletion at Commons. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Alright. The same treatment should be applied across to all. Pls delete the version at UK's page which is declared as his "own work", Malaysia's page, Indian's page as well. SecretSquirrel78 (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded to Commons need to be discussed or otherwise sorted out on Commons; so, there's no much anyone can do about them here.
When it comes to coats-of-arms and Commons, there's some guidance provided at c:COM:COA, but most discussions basically resolve around the copyright status of the blazon and the emblazon. The blazon is the written definition that describes the elements of a coat-of-arms and how they all fit together; the emblazon, on the other hand, is someone's visual representation of the blazon. In most cases, the blazon isn't considered eligible for copyright protection, but in many cases an emblazon is because it represents someone's creative interpretation of the blazon; so, there can be many different eblazons for one blazon, Commons does host many coat-of-arm files for which the emblazon has been released under an acceptable free license by it's creator; in other words, some reads the blazon and creates their own version of it and then releases it under a free license. However, Commons won't host emblazons that aren't 100% the uploader's "own work" (e.g. uploads of emblazons created by third-parties found online that are not released under an acceptable license) or emblazons that are just slavish reproductions of someone else's copyrighted work or are recreations that are so close to someone else's copyrighted emblazon that they're practially identical.
Finally, for reference, how files are used in Wikipedia articles isn't really a concern of Commons since Commons is mainly concerned with the copyright status of the files it hosts; however, being OK for Commons doesn't automatically mean OK for Wikipedia. The use of a file (like text content) in an article is subject to WP:CONSENSUS which often depends on the encyclopedic relevance of the file to the article's readers. Disagreements over this relevance probably need to be resolved on the relevant article's talk page to see whether a consensus can be established either way. If article talk page discussion has been tried but hasn't gotten anywhere, seeking input at the WikiProject level (e.g. WP:HERALDRY) sometimes helps sort things out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Adding book cover to book page

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this but I made a page about a book (Whalefall (novel)). I had added the book cover to the page but someone took it down and said it wasn't a legit use of non-free media. I had thought book covers were ok to use, since most pages for a book have the book cover? Is there a better way to add the book cover? Or maybe because it's not a very famous book it doesn't get a book cover photo? Thanks for your help, sorry I'm new at this. Whatsabar (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Cover art of books is often allowed under our fair use guidelines. In this case, the issue seems to be that your fair use rationale failed to set the "Article" field correctly and so did not link to the article in which the image was used. That lack of a link caused the image to be removed by a bot. It was all automatic. I think I have fixed it now. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Publication in Poland

Working through files with unclear URAA status, I came across File:Gela Seksztajn - photo.jpg. As far as I can tell, this image would be public domain in the US only if it can be considered "published" by Polish standards of the time, and either was published without a copyright notice or anonymously, or by a photographer who died in 1943 or earlier. The author given on the file page is in fact the subject, which is implausible as the photographer. Does anyone know what we or Commons usually do with such photos from Poland that come from an archive? Pinging Jarekt and Piotrus for their familiarity with Polish copyright law. Felix QW (talk) 07:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Masur may know. See also my commons:User:Piotrus/PolishCopyright guide. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Felix QW I do not think the copyright status of this image depend on Polish law. I agree that the "author" field is probably incorrect and the photo is de-facto anonymous. Most old anonymous images on Commons use c:template:PD-anon-70-EU license, which states that "work was made available to the public". Since we do not know anything about this photo, it is hard to establish if that statement is true, but that is probably true for most photographs using that license. --Jarekt (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I am just not entirely convinced both that it has been made available to the public in the sense of European law and that it is actually anonymous - after all, the archive could well have information that we don't. The only issue that relates this to Poland is that the argument of being public domain in 1996 relies on copyright to have expired under Poland's then-50-year term. Felix QW (talk) 13:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Film depictions of Andromeda (mythology)

I created screenshots of the character Andromeda (based on the mythology) from Clash of the Titans (2010) and Wrath of the Titans (2012), but I've yet to upload suitable ones. I have been assuming that free pics of actresses at Andromeda (mythology)#In film would suffice, but one editor would seem happier to use non-free screenshots instead. I honestly have doubts about screenshots' compliance with NFCC.

Re-reading the passage, as I figured, most readers would already recognize what the passage is describing without non-free content. Furthermore, the "Analysis" section would be already clear to most readers without non-free screenshots. I could be wrong, nonetheless. (I don't wanna say what exact matter is, but I hope it is figured out without me naming or describing exact issue.) The same matter about (portrayal and depiction of) Andromeda herself was discussed at FFD discussion. George Ho (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Pikachu virus

Advice requested for whether to use a fair use image at Talk:Pikachu virus § Infobox image. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 18:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Mercury Drug LED screen

Hello. Is there any potential derivative work problem for Patrickroque01's File:Plaza Miranda Mercury LED billboard (Quezon Blvd., Quiapo, Manila)(2017-12-31).jpg? It is an LED screen that (in ordinary days) broadcasts promotional material and adverts of Mercury Drug found at Plaza Miranda. Unsure if this is OK to be locally hosted here, as U.S. law (which English Wikipedia solely respects) is typically more restrictive in terms of foreign non-architectural works (foreign, that is, non-U.S. works), though I am only familiar with longer U.S. copyright terms for artistic works like public monuments (95+1 years from publication for pre-1978, 70 years after sculptor's death since 1978). I'm not sure for the U.S. copyright terms of non-U.S. audio-visual works like the thing that the LED screen broadcasts). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Centers of Disease Control and Prevention

Hello together,

I found some good images for Wikipedia, such as those on the pulmonary atresia page. I read their disclaimer about the use of Agency Material and learned that most, but not all, of their images are public domain. I'm a bit confused and would appreciate help in determining whether I am allowed to upload these and other images from the CDC to Commons and if I may crop them so that the logo isn't visible anymore. –Tobias (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't be quite as sure about the photos, but the diagrams are clearly attributed to a CDC and should therefore be uploadable (ideally to Commons) under Template:PD-USGov-HHS-CDC or its identically-named Commons equivalent. You are free to crop the logo, since the file is in the public domain. Felix QW (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, that was everything I needed. –Tobias (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Teto Kasane / Utau#Cultural_impact

The bot deleted the Teto image i put on the 1st article, however its on the 2nd article. This isnt fair? really? Snipertron12 [|User|Talk|Cont|] 13:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Snipertron12 Per en-WP-rules Wikipedia:Non-free content, you can have a non-free pic of Kasane Teto as a WP:LEADIMAGE in the Kasane Teto article. Nowhere else, so it should be removed from the Utau article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Martin Schlegel (economist)

Would his image from https://www.snb.ch/en/media/photos-board be acceptable? I don't know how NFCC applies to it. Nobody (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

He appears to be living so we cannot use NFCC. And the site you link allows only non-commercial use of its content, not sufficiently broad to upload here without NFCC. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
@1AmNobody24: David Eppstein is correct in that a non-free image of Schlegel wouldn't be allowed per WP:NFCC#1 given that he's still living and there's no reasonable reason to expect that a freely licensed equivalent image of him could neither be created (i.e. a new photo of him taken and released under an acceptable free license) or found (i.e. an existing photo which is already released under a free license or which can be converted to an acceptable licence), Moreover, given that it's highly unlikely that Schlegel's Wikipedia notability has anything to do with his physical appearance, he would be near impossible that an exception should be made per item WP:NFC#UUI. You could try reaching out to him, his representatives or any copyright holders of images you might find of him per WP:PERMISSION since some users have had success procurring free equivalent images by asking for them; however, there's no image being used in Schlegel's corresponding German Wikipedia article, which could be others have tried this and have been unsuccessful.
Are you translating content from the German Wikipedia article into English and then adding it to the English Wikipedia article? Just asking out of curiosity. It's OK to do such a thing, but you need to make sure you properly attribute the original source of the content as explained in WP:PATT and WP:TFOLWP.
Lastly, if, by chance, you're connected to Schlegel in some personal or professional way and are able to use that connection to obtain a free equivalent image, then you could upload that to Commons if you can ensure it meets c:COM:L. Such an image could be used by German Wikipedia too. However, if you do have such a connection, you should carefully read through WP:COI and WP:PAID to make sure you're complying with relevant English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding such things. This doesn't really matter when it comes to Commons, but it does matter quite a lot with respect to English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC); edited 07:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC); [Note: Last paragraph stricken out by Marchjuly per below. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)]
@Marchjuly The article started as a translation but those edits were revdeld due to other copyright problems. My edits after that weren't translations. I also don't have a PAID or COI with him. Also please don't accuse experienced editors of that unless you have proof.
I'll probably reach out to the SNB then, to see if they can release a cc-licensed picture of him. Nobody (talk) 06:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
​I wasn't accusing you of anything, I was just asking if, by chance you had such a connection. It was a good-faith enquiry, but I apologize if it seemed otherwise. Maybe, you could've assume that a "more experienced" editor wasn't acting in bad faith by asking such a thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I wasn't assuming bad faith. I just believe you should never ask that an experienced editors without reason, no matter how experienced you are. If you disagree then that's fine for me. But asking about wrongdoing without proof didn't even work for Jimbo. Nobody (talk) 06:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't think my question and what you've linked to above are 100% equivalent (trying to somehow equate that they are seems a bit of a stretch) since I wasn't going to purse the matter any further and just provided links for reference. You can of course seek formal sanction if you feel what I did rises to same level of what was discussed that in that particular ArbCom case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
It wasn't exactly the same but similar enough for a reference. Since I know you asked in good faith I don't have any intention of seeking any sanction. That doesn't change the fact that asking me that leaves a sour taste behind. Nobody (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Not even close to being "similar enough" even if only for reference in my opinion, but I've stricken the paragraph in question. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

La Blouse Roumaine

Hi there! I'm looking to upload an image for La Blouse Roumaine and I found one listed under Public Domain here. However, when I go to upload the image the only option for Creative Commons 1.0 license is one stating I own the image (which I do not). Am I missing something here? Wormbug (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Wormbug. There might be a problem with the licensing of that Flickr file per c:COM:2D copying and c:COM:LL if the photographed painting itself isn't in the public domain. When someone takes a photo like this of someone else's painting, there is usually not enough creativity involved for a new copyright to be established for the photo itself and, therefore, it's really only the copyright of the painting that matters when it comes to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. Even if the photo was to be considered a WP:Derivative work (i.e. creative enough to establish a new copyright for the photo), the copyright status of the photographed painting would still need to be taken into acocunt. So, I would probably hold off on trying to upload this photo to Commons or Wikipedia until you've been able to clarify the copyright status of the painting at c:COM:VPC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Matisse died in 1954, so life+70 years would be 2024, meaning it should become PD next January but is still under copyright now. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
fantastic, thanks yall! Wormbug (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
The only issue would be that, depending on its exhibition or publication history, it may still be copyrighted in the United States until 95 years after publication, so possibly until the beginning of 2036. This is important since Wikimedia's servers are located in the US and therefore the English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons follows US copyright law (in addition to that of the source country, in the case of Wikimedia Commons). Felix QW (talk) 07:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Mugshot/ police images in Australia

Hello, I came across this image (File:Goussis.jpg) and used the same rationale to upload File:Matthew Charles Johnson.webp. Just wondering if this fair-use rationale is appropriate or not. GMH Melbourne (talk) 06:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Red square for book cover

File:Conduct An Introduction to Moral Philosophy.jpg seems to be nothing more than a red/reddish square, even according to its source. Is there something wrong with the file? It doesn't seem to be anything that would be need to be treated as non-free; however, this could be the same book. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

If you look carfully there are two dings near the top right corner. However I would say that this is too simple for copyright, and if it is the cover, it is not that useful for illustrating the book. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm suspicious that this is just one copy of the book, given a new plain cover by some academic library (perhaps after the original cover was damaged), and not representative of anything in particular about the book. An image search for the book title finds more-informative covers. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
@Graeme Bartlett and David Eppstein: Thanks for taking a look at this. The file was uploaded in January 2023, and the uploader hasn't edited since that time as well; so, it's unlikely they will be able to clarify why they've decided to upload this. Regardless of the file's licensing, its encylopedic value seem to be zero to reader's, and it probably should be removed. Is there any other cover that would be better as a replacement? In addition to the one I found above, I also found this and this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
The first link in your latest post is the title page, not the cover. Your second link looks like the cover images I saw, except faded and a little battered. I think your earlier "this could be the same book" link is a better scan of the same image. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

how to shrink the size

Hello! A file I uploaded, File:NASCAR_Cup_Series_closest_finish_2024.png got flagged for being to big, how can I shrink the size without getting into further trouble? 45BearsFan (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

As the banner says, "In most cases, this reduction will occur automatically: simply wait a while and a bot will resize the image file". —David Eppstein (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Adding a cover for I Think I

Hello everyone, a few weeks ago I created "I Think I", a single by South Korean boy band Super Junior. Usually there's a person that adds the cover of the singles to the infobox but apparently it hasn't been added yet, hence why I am thinking of trying to upload the image cover myself.

Is this qualifies under fair use and would it be safe for me to add? https://superjunior-jp.net/en/news/detail.php?id=1077758

I have previously never uploaded a non-free image before and I'm unsure and nervous about the whole copyrights stuff. Ghazlan-airplanes (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ghazlan-airplanes. If that particular cover is specific to the single (which seems to be the case), you should be able to upload it per item 1 of WP:NFCI, as long as it's only going to be used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox of the stand-alone article about the single.
You will need to download the file to your computer or some other device first, and then upload it to Wikipedia. You can use the WP:UPLOADWIZARD to do the latter. I don't know the exact wording the wizard uses, but you should upload this as non-free content. If given the option, you should use the template {{Non-free album cover}} for the file's copyright license and template {{Non-free use rationale album cover}} for file's non-free use rationale; there are instructions on how to use each template on its respective documentation page. If, however, you're not given the option to use these templates, use whatever standard non-free license and non-free use rationale the wizard allows and simply replace them with ones more specific to album cover art after the file has been uploaded.
If you're not still sure how to do all of this after reading all of the relevant pages, you can try asking for help at WP:FFU or WT:SONGS. If you want to see some examples of how others have done this type of thing, take a look at the licenses and rationales provided for the infobox images of the articles in Category:Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles. In principle, things should be the same for those files, with perhaps only a few minor differences. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Cylotron Project.jpg

Is this photo valid for use in Wikipedia? Newpaper photo from 1938 or 1939 published in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (no longer in print, currently on-line only.) No other information about the picture is available. Photo is copied from a newspaper clipping in a family scrapbook. JHMoyer (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@JHMoyer, you state 1928 or 1929 on the file page, which is it? This goes for US: "Works published before 1929 are in the public domain. For works first published before 1964, copyright lasts 28 years after publication, and is therefore currently expired unless the owner filed for renewal during the window between 27 and 28 years after publication." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I think you might have misread the OP's post. What you posted is correct, but the OP posted Newpaper photo from 1938 or 1939 .... -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
@Marchjuly Yes, but like I said, at File:Cylotron Project.jpg OP says the other thing. "Which is it" meant 1938 or 1939 or 1928 or 1929, that wasn't very clear. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
My apologies Gråbergs Gråa Sång. I guess today's been kind of a bad day for me. I hope nobody takes my picture. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
The caption says the two people are "Dr. Donald H. Loughridge (right) and Burton Moyer". Donald Holt Loughridge (Q102115511) was Burton J. Moyer's PhD advisor, and the apparatus in this photo is likely related to that graduate work prior to his 1939 degree (note only Loughridge is titled 'Dr.' here). All of that is more consistent with a 1938/1939 photo than 1928/1929 (Moyer looks more like 27 years old than 17). DMacks (talk) 09:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for mislabeling. The correct date for the photo is 1938 or 1939, just before Moyer was granted his PhD in 1939. Thank you for your help with this issue. JHMoyer (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
My mistake. Sorry. Picture is from about 1938-1939.
JHMoyer (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
@JHMoyer: For future reference, it's generally better to ask questions before uploading any files whose provenance you're not sure of. Files need two things: a description and a copyright license. Uploading a file without either of the two (particularly without a copyright license) almost ensures that the file is going to be tagged (perhaps almost immediately) for speedy deletion. Moreover, the burden typically falls upon the person uploading the file to provide these two things (at least to their best of their knowledge) and not just hope that someone else will do so later. Given that you seem to be sure the file comes from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, it would be really helpful if you can clarify the date of the issue in which it was published. If you can do that, then perhaps someone else can work out which copyright license is needed.
In addition, to expand on what Gråbergs Gråa Sång has already posted above, photos appearing in newspaper articles from that particular period of time weren't required to have individual copyright notices but instead were covered under the copyright of the publication itself (which almost always had some notice somewhere in the issue). The file is attributed to a "Post-Intelligencer Staff Photographer" which means it's a "work-for-hire" and the paper would own any copyright over it. If the photo was taken prior to January 1, 1929, it would be within the public domain and OK to license as {{PD-US}} under US copyright law; if it was taken between January 1, 1929, but before January 1, 1963, it could still be within the public domain as {{PD-US-not renewed}} or {{PD-US-no notice}}, but more information about the issue it appeared in would be needed. You mentioned that the newspaper is currently available online; so, if you can find a link which shows the photo published in the paper (perhaps in the paper's archives or newspapers.com), then perhaps someone can help figure out its copyright status. Whether the paper no longer exist isn't really relevant when it comes to intellectual property rights since such rights are assets that can be sold or otherwise transferred to other parties. Whether a copyright notice can be found or whether copyright was renewed though does matter a lot because US copyright law at that time was different back then, and it required formalities that are no longer required today. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
The UPenn database at least states that issues of the Seattle PI have not been renewed, although some individual contributions have. Felix QW (talk) 09:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I fixed the date in the image. So is {{PD-US-not renewed}} the appropriate tag? DMacks (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Individual contributions that are renewed are almost never daily news stories by staff journalists with accompanying photographs, so I would consider it very unlikely that copyright in this image has been renewed. I have also skimmed 1966/7 periodicals renewals myself for anything that looks pertinent, and could not find anything. In my mind, this puts it beyond reasonable doubt, but perhaps others have higher standards. Felix QW (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
I tagged it accordingly. DMacks (talk) 02:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Texas Water Development Board

The Texas Water Development Board has the following statement on its website ([1]):

The Texas Water Development Board freely grants permission to copy and distribute its materials. The agency would appreciate acknowledgment.

Should I read it as a statement of placing all agency works (including the commissioned ones) into public domain. Results of some cursory checks:

  1. The materials typically do not carry any copyrights, similar to the works made for the US Federal Government;
  2. Few images on Wikimedia sites treat the license as public domain.

Викидим (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Викидим, you might have to clarify with them whether they also grant permission to modify the works. That statement of license does not, but it's possible they would be fine with that and be willing to say so. If not, though, that's essentially a "no derivatives" license, which is not a free license. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Have question about specific older image ? Should I upload to my file directory . . . ?

I'm hoping to upload a picture of a historic image of a sunken ship. I'd like to show the image for questioning. Should I upload the image to my file directory first in reference or should I link the page the image is on or direct link to image, etc. ?

WindowColorCenter (talk) 03:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Link the page the image is on should be fine to start with. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Sure thing. There are a few images on this page: https://www.naval.com.br/ngb/I/I044/I044.htm
Sorry for my late response, and thank you for the time. WindowColorCenter (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Kenya Finance Bill protests Images

Please, evaluate these images found on Zuma Press. I intend to use them on the article. Are they copyright free per the restrictions Wår (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Basically all of the images, if you hover over them, have the © symbol on them. Even if they didn't, the fact they're released on a press sourcing site means that the presumption is they are copyrighted and require a specific licensing agreement to use. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Essentially, the images are free but must be attributed to them. Take a look at how this news platform used them. You are going to be helpful in uploading it to commons. Wår (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons cannot just take your word for it. Furthermore, the mere fact others have used the images does not necessarily mean they are free. For all you and I know, DW has a license to use images from that source overall, or they may have specifically licensed this one image. Because the website they appear on has a copyright notice at the bottom, and each image itself has a copyright notice on its hover, the presumption is that they are copyrighted and not freely licensed until proven otherwise. For images like this, the photographer may hold the copyright, but they also may have taken it as part of their job and copyright may rest with the organization that directed them to create it. Regardless, until and unless the copyright holder (whether photographer or Zuma Press themselves depending which holds copyright) either updates their website to reflect the images' availability under a free license, or they email confirmation that they're willing to release under a free license. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Got you. Just took time now and read allover and I understand better now. So, I must write them to their email or call them with contact details provided under the "Interested in licensing this photo?".
This is damn complicated and I give up. I am just a volunteer on Wikipedia and I don't have any fee to pay them to release any image. I'm not even Kenyan. I let it go forever until affected Kenyans may wish to upload it directly to the Wikimedia commons, then I use it on Wikipedia. Wår (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Recently added a product pic for article but got error

Hello! I recently uploaded a product pic under non-free use rationale but I got error msg it will get deleted within few days. Can anyone please explain what I need to do to the file to not get deleted? File:Orrb device by Lee McCormack.jpg Does this file doesnot fall under non-free use or I can upload this pic in commons please suggest and help urgently.

Thanks in advance. Techy.Sap (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Techy.Sap. The reason the file was tagged for deletion is given in the {{di-disputed non-free use rationale}} template that was added to file's page. The person who's disputing the file's non-free use rationale is Mdann52. If you want further clarification you can start a discussion about the matter at File talk:Orrb device by Lee McCormack.jpg (the link is WP:RED because the talk page hasn't been created yet), but it appears that the main problem has to do with WP:FREER and whether the photographed orrb is a 3D work of art or simply some kind of a utility object. So, I wouldn't upload any photos of this "orrb" that you didn't take yourself to Commons without first getting the c:COM:CONSENT of the person who did take the photo, and not until you sort out whether this is a 3D work of art. If it's a 3D work of art, then whether even a freely licensed photo of it can be uploaded to Commons is going to depend on whether the design of the orrb is eligible for copyright protection and the concept of freedom of panorama. Photos of 3D works of art are typically considered WP:Derivative works, and Commons only accepts them if both the photo and the photographed work are released under an acceptable free license or are in the public domain for some reason. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes its not 3D artwork, its commercial product pic. So I need to email the person and get Consent from the real photo taken by the person and then I need to upload in Commons again? Techy.Sap (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
​ If you didn't take the photo yourself, you can't upload it to Commons without the consent of the person who did or without being able to clearly show the person who did take the photo has released it under a free license that Commons accepts. If you want to try an contact that person to ask for their consent, there are some examples as to how to do this in WP:PERMISSION.
The description you provided for the file doesn't provide any source for the image other than "Orrb". I assuming that means you got the image from www.orrb.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/orrb-by-lee-mccormack-contact-us.webp. If that's the case, you would need to contact Orrb and ask them to either email their CONSENT to Wikimedia VRT or make this particular image or another image of their choosing available under a acceptable free license.
If Orrb is unwilling to do either of those things, Commons most certainly can't host this photo and Wikipedia most likely can't too unless you can establish it satisfies Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. The latter seems unlikely unless you able to convince others that the Orrb's design is eligible for copyright protection. However, given that Orrb is based out of the UK and that there's freedom of panorama for 3D works in the UK, it seems like it would be hard to argue that somebody in the UK couldn't take a photo of this and release it under an acceptable free license even if it's considered to be more of an artistic work than a ultility object, which means non-free use isn't going to be allowed and you're back to trying to find a freely licensed equivalent photo to use instead.-- Marchjuly (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your brief description solution. Can I take Orrb picture from these website: https://leefeda.myportfolio.com/orrb-prototype-2016 or Behance account of Founder? Is it possible to use the pic like this and can i upload under free license then under Designer name and upload in Commons? Please suggest. Techy.Sap (talk) 07:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
The copyright holder is generally considered to be the person who takes the photo, and the copyright holder is the only person who can release their photo under an acceptable free license. So, unless you yourself took the photos you want to upload and use, you can't upload them to either Wikipedia or Commons without the copyright holder's WP:CONSENT; otherwise, they will need to treated as non-free content, which is almost certainly not going to be allowed per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy as already pointed out in this discussion. The same would apply to pretty much any photo of the orrb that you might find online that isn't already clearly released under an acceptable free license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
ok I will check and go through the process on how to reach out to them for releasing the photo via email examples for free license use to realease under Commons . Thanks Techy.Sap (talk) 07:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Techy.Sap: the issue here is that, as the object is a physical product that presumably still exists and/or is sold, there's nothing stopping someone taking a new image of one (either that they own or that is being demonstrated etc), and releasing it under a free licence, so WP:NFCC#1 isn't met. If this isn't the case, I'll happily reconsider. it's the same reason we use actual photos of cars, rather than promotional photos of them. Mdann52 (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

yes Its a physical product and is sold commercially and being used in organizations. So I will export it to Commons. please confirm. Thanks Techy.Sap (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
There still seems to be a misunderstanding. You cannot export a non-free photo to Commons. Someone should go find an Orrb and take a photo themselves. Because that is generally possible, we also cannot accept the non-free photo here locally. Does that make sense? Felix QW (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
okay Techy.Sap (talk) 07:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Confirm if fair use is applicable and help tag appropriately

First time uploading a fair use image and I believe I may have done it incorrectly. The file is available here: [2] Traumnovelle (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Traumnovelle, afraid not. Since it is a real and still-existent condition, the creation of a freely licensed image is possible, so that would fail NFCC #1. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Is the possibility just a theoretical one? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
It need only be a theoretical possibility to prevent our use of NFCC. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
In that case I'll tag it for an admin. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Are the images on p. 1556 of this paper of any use for your purposes? They are explicitly under a CC-BY license, and could therefore be uploaded to Commons. Felix QW (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I get an invalid link trying to open that. What's the doi? Traumnovelle (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, here it is: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00439-021-02259-2 Felix QW (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I would be able to use these thank you. I just do not know how to take images out of a PDF. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Let me know which one(s) you'd like to use. I'd be happy to extract them and upload to Commons. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I'll use B and C, thanks! Traumnovelle (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
They're also directly at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00439-021-02259-2/figures/1 if that makes life a little easier. I'm also happy to do the uploading, of course. Felix QW (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
If you're good with editing images I'd appreciate you separating them. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
That's no problem. I'll do it now. Felix QW (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Done! The files are at File:Karelian Bear Dogs with canine pituitary dwarfism B.webp and File:Karelian Bear Dogs with canine pituitary dwarfism C.webp. Felix QW (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there a general rule when a logo is copyrighted and may not be used, especially concerning the threshold of originality? Also, when might I infringe a potential patent? There are a quite a few logos like ARD, Google, or Steam online. More specifically, I'm thinking about the Parookaville logo, whether it is 1.0 or CC0 (public domain) in general and may I upload it to Commons? –Tobias (talk) 09:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The website publishing this logo, does not appear to be the company that owns the trademark. So you would have to check if the copyright release is genuine or copyfraud. But the logo would be too simple for copyright in the US. If it is a US logo then it could go onto commons, but if from another country, then it would have to be public domain in that country too, before it could go on commons. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Was looking up info about the movie and there was a few issues with the article, I fixed some, but I noticed that this is licensed as CC-BY-SA. This can't be correct unless the movie's copyright holder uploaded this them self. The file it's self was uploaded by CAPTAIN MEDUSA. However they also created the article which it is used on which is Antrum (film). This leads to either two possible scenarios: 1. Article was written by the movie's author. (Undisclosed, although highly unlikely) 2. The person who uploaded it probably doesn't have the rights to upload it.

However given it is just text, it might not qualify for copyright. Would appreciate some clarification on this because right now the copyright might on the image is very likely incorrect. I've not dealt with this type of issue before, and I've been away from Wikipedia for quite some time, so some help with this would be greatly appreciated! :) — Félix Wolf (talk | contribs) 23:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

That file is on Commons, not here. I'm not sure that actual legal disclaimers are copyrightable, as they are essentially functional (though I'm also not sure that they're not), but since this is part of the film's actual storyline and not really a "real" legal notice, I would say it would qualify as part of the film as a creative work and is copyrightable. That said, it's on Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. I'll look into it a little, but will probably nominate it for deletion over there. (The "own work" claim is, at best, highly implausible; that would need VRT confirmation and I don't see any.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I've nominated it for deletion on Commons. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Photo of a building in a state it no longer exists in fair use?

I understand existing building photos cannot be fair use due to the fact that it's possible to take a new photo. But would this: https://www.times.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/heritage_art.jpg be able to be uploaded as fair use? Not as a photo of the building but as a photo of the arson. The building is now restored and thus it would be impossible to create a free use image of the arson of the building. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Traumnovelle. It appears you're asking about Guy's Homestead, right? There are a couple things to be aware of when it comes to non-free image use and that article.
  1. Fair use/Fair dealing and non-free content use are not exactly equivalent when it comes to Wikipedia. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy has actually be set up to be more restrictive than fair use/fair dealing, and non-free content use is assessed in terms of Wikipedia policy.
  2. Freely licensed photos of buildings aren't automatically OK just because they're "free". Where the building is located and the concept of freedom of panorama also need to be considered. Under US copyright law, there is freedom of panorama for buildings and other habitable structures per c:COM:FOP US, but other countries do things differently. New Zealand also seems to allow freedom of panorama for buildings per c:COM:FOP NZ; so, a current freely-licensed image of the structure would almost certainly be possible per WP:FREER, which would make any non-free image of the current structure unaccpetable.
  3. While you could possibly argue that the photo you want to use meets non-free content use criterion #1 as not being replaceable non-free use (though text is considered and acceptable alternative to non-free image use), there are ten non-free content use crtieria that each use of non-free content needs to satisfy. Based on what I read in the article, I don't see how the file you want to use would satisfy non-free content use criterion #8 per WP:NFC#CS. This particular itself isn't really the subject of any sourced critical commentary anywhere in the article; so, it's not clear why this photo and not some other photo of the burnt out bulding couldn't be used instead. In addition, there doesn't seem to be any content about the arson incident in the article that requires this or any other non-free photo be seen to be understood. Would adding this image to the article improve the general reader's understand of what's written about the arson to such a degree that not seeing the photo be detrimental to the understanding of said content? That is how this file is unlikely going to be assessed in terms of criterion #8.
This is just my own rough assessment in terms of relevant Wikipedia policy, and perhaps others will feel differently. However, you should be prepared to justify the file's use in terms of relevant policy if you do decide to upload it, and find its non-free use being subsequently challenged by someone else. Don't just assume that an image of an historic event is automatically OK per relevant policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
I think you are right with NFCC#8, thank you. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Film poster

Shotru (2011) poster Master of all cinemalovers (talk) 05:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@Master of all cinemalovers: Please take a look at what I posted on your user talk page at User talk:Master of all cinemalovers#File uploads. All of the files you've uploaded so far have been flagged for one issue or another; some of these have been cleaned up by others, but some haven't. Uploading files without a copyright license and other required information is not a good thing at all, but repeatedly doing it over and over again might be an indication that you lack even the most basic knowledge relatred to files. So, you might want to stop uploading files until you gain a better understanding of what's expected of you as the uploader. If you keep uploading files without the required information, an administrator might decide enough is enough and take formal action against your account. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Theodor Siebs

I found an image here licensed under a PDM 1.0 Universal Deed license. The photographer is listed as unknown as is the date of the image, but Siebs himself died over 80 years ago. Is this enough information to upload the image to the Commons? ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi ThaesOfereode. You might want to ask about this at c:COM:VPC. Commons only accepts files that are OK to uploaded under the copyright law of the United States and the copyright law of the country of first publication because Commons files are global files that can be used by any of the Wikimedia Foundation projects in addition to non-WMF-reated third-parties. In addition, the death of the subject of a photo is usually not relevant to its copyright status; the death of the author/photgrapher of the photo, however, can quite relevant be depending on the copyright laws covering the photo. In the case of anonymous works or works with an unknown author which have been published under US copyright law, for example, the work can remain under copyright protection for up to 95 years after being first published or 120 years after creation, whichever is shorter, depending on when it specific circumstances. The particular file you want to use seems to be public domain, and it should be OK for Commons (unless there's significant doubt about the accuracy of the license). You might, however, want to check on Commons first just to play it safe. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Apparently the photograph was first published in a 1932-3 Festschrift in honour of the subject; see the bottom of this page. Felix QW (talk) 12:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Nigeria, We Hail Thee needs modifications on commons

The audio file needs modifications on the title, source as well as the Author. The title specifically needs Copy editing.

I wanted to nominate it for deletion but then I thought of asking for its modification here first. Kindly help in the alterations. Wår (talk) 06:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@War Term: Commons files need to taken care of on Commons. You should be able to make most of the changes you feel are needed yourself simply by editing the file's page, but you will need to follow c:COM:RENAME and have an administrator or some other user with file naming rights change the name of the file. If you're not sure how to make the changes yourself, you can ask at c:COM:HD.
However, there might be issues with the licensing of c:File:Nigeria_national_anthem_Nigeria,_We_hail_thee_midi.mid related to c:COM:NETCOPYVIO that need to be resolved first to make sure the file is OK for Commons to host. The file's description states the "author of the file is unknown", but then the file was uploaded under a {{cc-by-2.5}}. Only the author (i.e. the copyright holder) can upload the works they create under such a CC license; my guess is that the uploader didn't realize this and mistakenly thought that the file simply being available on meant it was OK to upload to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Seems like it. The source has no indication of a free license as far as I can tell, and a footer labelled For Educational Use Only. All Rights Reserved. Felix QW (talk) 08:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I'd be happy to tag it; However, since it may just be a MIDI file automatically synthesised from the sheet music score and I don't know if those are eligible for copyright, maybe one should file a Commons deletion request instead? There does not seem to be any copyright exception for the national anthem in Nigerian law, and it is not even 70 years old itself, so presumably it would evebtually have to be deleted on those grounds alone. Felix QW (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I strongly believe that deleting the file is the best way to go. And then, re-upload it in the right way. Wår (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
There's no "right way" to upload a file to Commons if its licensing doesn't conform to c:COM:L. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2024/June&oldid=1234480594"