Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2021/May

Flag question

Is there a reason why File:Flag of the Commissioners of Irish Lights.gif is subject to copyright when many other flags are not? What makes it different to File:Trinity House Ensign (pre-1937).svg, for example? Mjroots (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Is Trinity House part of the British government? The file name suggests that File:Trinity House Ensign (pre-1937).svg is from before 1937 and in that case it is {{PD-UKGov}}. Even if it isn't a government work, it could still have expired due to age.

According to Commissioners of Irish Lights#Flags, a different flag was used until 1970, so the current flag can't have been created until then. The flag enters the public domain in the UK 70 years after the death of the flag designer. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Trinity House has a royal charter but is not a part of the UK government so PD-UKGov isn't applicable. The Commissioners of Irish Lights is both a British and an Irish body. I have to say that I don't think either rationale for File:Flag of the Commissioners of Irish Lights.gif. In the article on CIL it's not fulfilling the function stated in the NFUR and the other article it is used in it is inaccurate as it isn't the right timeframe. Nthep (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I've removed the flag from the shipwreck list and it's NFUR from the image. I've also challenged the assertion that all parts of NFUR are not met, giving my rationale for that at talk. Mjroots (talk) 05:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

"link=" CC-BY files

As far as I know, doing this is a violation of the license, because it doesn't provide any attribution. The same guidance is also at Wikipedia:Extended_image_syntax#Link and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility/Alternative_text_for_images#Decorative_images which says to only do this on CC0/public domain images and not CC-BY/GFDL. However quite a few experienced editors and even admins do this, so I'd rather confirm that it would be correct to remove the "|link=]]" syntax before going around and editing people's user pages. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 14:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

If the file is not in the public domain but licensed under a free licence, then usually the licence requires attribution and a reference to the licence in one way or another. As I see it, if you make it impossible to click on the image, then this information has to be provided in the image caption (or some similar location) or else the licence terms are violated. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 16:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Image on Wikipedia - is it correctly licensed?

I was reading up on the North American Numbering Plan just now and noticed that the article uses an image of the front cover of an area code handbook from 1962 published by the Telephone Company of Pennsylvania, which seems to be Verizon Pennsylvania these days. The image was uploaded to Wikipedia by User:Kbrose, who claims to hold the copyright to the image.

That isn’t right, is it? Either Bell renewed the copyright to the original, in which case its successor still holds the copyright, or it didn’t, in which case the image is in the public domain. Given that the image on Wikipedia's servers is a faithful representation of a two-dimensional image, I can't see how Kbrose can own the copyright of that image.

I looked over his file history and he has uploaded a couple of similar images, some of which are old enough to be indisputably in the public domain (and correctly labelled as such) but at least one other not.

What if anything should be done about this? Thanks. 24.76.103.169 (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The uploader might hold the neighbouring right to the photographic image in countries where there is a neighbouring right for photographic images, such as the Nordic countries, Germany and Italy. The uploader is unlikely to hold any rights to the image in countries where there is no such neighbouring right, such as the United States.

The original front cover is either in the public domain in the United States (if it was published without notice and/or without renewal) or copyrighted by the phone company if published with notice and with renewal. The original front cover is copyrighted in France and possibly other countries because of a ruling in the French supreme court which says that the Berne Convention's ban on copyright formalities trumps the Berne Convention's right to use the rule of the shorter term. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll bring it up with the uploader. 24.76.103.169 (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Jay Hennick Head Shot.png has been marked as a possible copyright violation.

Hello,

This is an image of my Company's CEO from our corporate site. How do i get it undeleted/properly attributed so we can use his headshot on the Jay Hennick Wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CowPowMonly (talk • contribs) 16:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

​​(Non-administrator comment) Hi CowPowMonly. You've pretty much asked the same question over at User talk:Hut 8.5#File:Jay Hennick Head Shot.png. Hut 8.5 is an administrator and perhaps they will respond in more detail there, but basically you will need to follow instructions given either at User talk:CowPowMonly#Speedy deletion nomination of File:Jay Hennick Head Shot.png or c:User talk:CowPowMonly#File:Jay Hennick Head Shot.png. What is needed is a formal verification of the intent of the copyright holder to release the image under a copyright license that Wikimedia Commons accepts. You've tried to upload the same file twice (once to Wikipedia as File:Jay Hennick Head Shot.png and once to Wikimedia Commons as c:File:Jay Hennick Head Shot.png) and its been deleted each time by an administrator for the same reason; so, please don't re-upload the file again to either Wikipedia or Commons without addressing this issue because it's only likely going to only end up deleted again. For what it's worth, a deleted file isn't gone forever and can be restored by an administrator once the issue which led to its deletion has been resolved. You need to get in touch with the copyright holder of the image and ask them to email their consent to Wikimedia OTRS so that it can be verified. Verbal or written permission given only to you is insufficient for either Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. You can find out more about this at c:Commons:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder.

Finally, I posted some information about Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure on your user talk page for reference; such things aren't really related to the file licensing issues you're having, but those pages provide information that you may find helpful if you intend to continue editing content on Wikipedia related to Jay S. Hennick -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Public domain question

In your opinion(s), is File:CommentaryOnTheGeneralPrologueToTheCanterburyTales.jpg simple enough to be public domain due to failure to reach the threshold of originality? Thanks in advance-- Therapyisgood (talk) 02:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd say no, not simple enough to be PD in US. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:SoFi Stadium December 2020.jpg

The file that i used is File:SoFi Stadium December 2020.jpg replecable, but i think that it that the file it self cannot be repleacable. Im from Mexico, so i dont know how wikipedia in the USA works, but definetly this file is unreplacebale. if i put this {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}, the file will not be removed or what? -contribs) 12:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I.Ovalle: Using that template will not help you at all and will not save the image. The reason is because the stadium still exists and has not been demolished, so it is possible for someone to go to the stadium, sometime in the future and make a photo they can release freely. That is why it IS replaceable, though maybe not by you, or immediately, but it is certainly replaceable, so we can't keep that image. There are a couple of freely licensed images on Flickr [1]. They may not be quite as nice as the one you found but they are available and can replace your upload. ww2censor (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Logos in the Colleges of the University of Santo Tomas

Hi! They were removed, like before.. unfortunately. What can I do so the logos can be included in the article of Colleges of the University of Santo Tomas? I just patterned the article with the Colleges of the University of Cambridge. Thanks! Pampi1010 (talk) 04:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Pampi1010! I believe that the logos must be uploaded under the fair use rationale if they are creative; see WP:NFCC. Is it possible for you to link specific files you want to use/provide more information? This is a bit difficult to answer with the little information I have. Sennecaster (What now?) 03:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Pampi1010. Just a couple of general comments. First while it can sometimes be helpful to look at other articles for reference purposes, this can sometimes be a tricky thing to do when it comes to image use as explained here. How an image may be used in a Wikipedia article often is largely dependent upon how it is licensed. Freely licensed and public domain images (i.e. "free images") are much easier to use in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines than are non-free images. In this case, the individual college logos used in Colleges of the University of Cambridge all seem to be public domain images uploaded to Commons whereas the ones you're trying to add to Colleges of the University of Santo Tomas are all non-free logos uploading locally to Wikipedia. So, trying to compare the two is like trying to compare an apple to an orange since non-free images are subject to the additional restrictions found in Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, but public domain images are not. The bot is removing the files because their use doesn't comply with non-free content use policy; more specifically, the bot it removing the files because they lack the separate, specific non-free use rationale required by non-free content use cirterion 10c for that particular article.

You could stop the bot from removing the files by adding the required rationale for use in that particular article to each individual page, but I'm afraid that wouldn't really solve the more fundamental problems with this type of use as explained here. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is quite restrictive and is set up to try and minimize non-free content use as much as possible. Since a single use of a non-free file is in and of itself already considered an exception to relevant policy (an acceptable one under certain conditions, but still an exception none the less), any additional uses of the file are going to be considered even more exceptional and require an even stronger justification for their non-free use. Using non-free images in tables or in lists articles/list sections is a type of non-free use that is considered WP:DECORATIVE and thus not satisfying non-free content use criterion #8. Looking at the way you were trying to use the logos in Colleges of the University of Santo Tomas#Present colleges, I think it would be pretty impossible to justify their non-free use which means there's not much that can be done to get them in that article. You can add the missing rationales and give it a try, but I don't think you'll have much success in establishing a consensus to do so if the files end up for discussion at WP:FFD without doing a lot more than just adding a column of logos to a table. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Is Pokémon Go Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge.jpg actually non-free?

Pikachu on the side of a plane, marked as CC0 and available on Commons

File:Pokémon Go Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge.jpg is currently marked as a non-free poster, but there's nothing in the file that could be construed as a poster. Indeed, the only copyrighted media present in the photograph is the Pikachu, which is why I'm here. Here's a full size version of the image. The use of Pikachu is not the main attraction of the image, it's the blue sign in its entirety (with more emphasis on the text than the yellow Pokemon). Would the Pikachu count as de minimis here in the same way that the Pikachu on the side of the plane has been determined as being de minimis? If not, would we be able to edit the file, censor the Pikachu, and reupload it? It's not much use in the Pokemon Go article if the readers can't read the text. Anarchyte (talk • work) 14:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment that this is probably a case of c:COM:DM regarding the Pikachu image. The file was most likely uploaded in good faith by an editor who was just tying to be cautious. However, I think the image is of questionable encyclopedic value even if its licensing is converted to PD for the reasons you give; moreover, it clearly fails WP:NFCC#8 (in my opinion) if it needs to be kept as is, but changed to a different non-free license. As for blowing up the sign and removing or bluring the Pikachu imagery, such a thing might work but the Pikachu is wearing a cap which I’m assuming is connected to the facility; so, the connection between the sign’s text and Pikachu imagery might be deeper than it appears in that particular Flickr photo. There might also be an issue with the sign’s text per c:COM:CB#Noticeboards and signs even without Pikachu if the sign itself isn’t PD since the text itself could possibly be protected by copyright. My guess though is that the photo and sign are both c:Template:PD-USGov-Interior-FWS since the United States Fish and Wildlife Service is the US government agency in charge of the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and the photo is attributed to an employee of the USFWS. I’m not sure of the quality you could get from such a blown-up image or whether there would really be much encyclopedic value in doing so. Perhaps someone at WP:GL/P could do a good job with that, but it seem better to just try and get a cleaner image of the sign minus the Pikachu imagery since the photo would likely be ineligible for copyright per c:COM:2D copying if the sign is PD. — Marchjuly (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Marchjuly. I'll respond in more detail later, but you're not alone in your NFCC concerns. That was the initial reason I brought this up. Anarchyte (talk • work) 16:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Right, apologies for the delay Marchjuly. As I understand from your response, it would be okay to upload this to Commons as long as we tagged it with {{PD-USGov-FWS}} and either noted the de minimis or blurred the Pikachu. As we're more interested in the sign itself, mainly the "Welcome, Trainers, to your National Wildlife Refuge!" I don't mind what we do. As for the value it has in the article, the non-free one has been there since 2016 so the editors of that article seem to believe that this adds educational value. It'd be a decision they'd have to make. Also, I found this photo on their Flickr. I personally see no educational value in such a low quality image (then again, we are hosting this), but it could be a possible replacement. Anarchyte (talk • work) 07:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Anarchyte The speed of my response doesn't mean I'm stalking you; I just happened to be editing at the moment and saw your ping. With respect to As for the value it has in the article, the non-free one has been there since 2016 so the editors of that article seem to believe that this adds educational value., the only things I can say is WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED, WP:EDUCATIONAL and WP:NFC#CS. Lots of people who add non-free images to articles probably do so because they think there some "educational value" to be attained, but WP:NFCC is quite restrictive and I don't really see how this one meets WP:NFCC#8. Try removing that particular image from the article (not literally but figuratively) and then see how it affects your understanding of that particular section. The only mention of the sign is in the caption (there's no corresponding sourced commentary anywhere in body of the article about the sign) which means that its use is primarily decorative, which is type of non-free use that's not allowed.

As for the rest of your post, I agree with your assessment; you might want to check over at c:COM:VPC for other opinions though if you decide to argue "de minimis" just to see what some others might think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Ah, I don't think I was clear enough when I mentioned that no one removed the image. I completely agree that it fails NFC; the image should not have been on Wikipedia for five years with that tag. WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED in my interpretation is about when we nominate a copyrighted file for deletion and people use the excuse of "well the copyright holder didn't ask for deletion so we should keep it". That's not what I was going for; apologies for the ambiguity. WP:EDUCATIONAL also won't matter if we prove on Commons that it has plausible educational value because we'll no longer be restrained by the fair-use policy. I'll drop a line on COM:VPC to figure out whether I should remove the Pikachu before posting. Anarchyte (talk • work) 08:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Done. Posted at c:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Remove_copyrighted_work_or_tag_as_de_minimis?. Anarchyte (talk • work) 08:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

​ The third paragraph of NOBODYCOMPLAINED deals specifically with non-free files, which is what I was focusing on. In addtion, my mentioning of EDUCATIONAL was simply related to the file's non-free use. If you upload the file to Commons or convert the non-free's licensing to PD, then those two things would no longer be relevant. I thought I was clear on this point since the first paragraph of my post was only related to the file's non-free use, but my apologies if I caused any confusion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

D12's The Underground E.P. Cover

Hello, I recvently uploaded a file consisting of the cover of "The Underground EP" by D12. I lowered the resolution and is only used in 1 article about D12's discography in order to abide by the "limited use" rules. Still, it says it does not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content (see my talk page). I am a bit lost and would like some help in this regard. Germenfer (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Germenfer. Please take a look at this for more details. In general, non-free album cover art is considered OK to upload and use for primary identification purposes either in the main infobox or at the top of stand-alone articles about the album in question, but other types of non-free use are much harder to justify and almost never allowed. So, if you were using this file in a stand-alone article about the EP, then it would probably be fine; however, using it in that discography article is going to be seen as a decorative type of non-free use that isn't allowed. Just for reference, there's been a long-standing consensus against this type of non-free use in discographies (either in stand-alone discography articles or embedded discography sections) which means there's going to have to be a really strong justification for non-free use for the image to stay in that article. If you feel you can provide such a justification, you should do so at File talk:The Underground EP - D12 (CD Cover).png. An administrator will review what you post and decide what should be done next. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand, thanks! I will remove it then as there is no individual articlejust dedicated to the EP. Kind regards. Germenfer (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Misguidance of information 020198evil (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The picture visible on the cover is not of the same person about whom this biography is. I would request you to look into it as soon as possible. Thank you.020198evil (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@020198evil: you need to say which image you are talking about. Nthep (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Fair Use?

Hello! I am currently working on creating an article for the biologist Sharlene Santana. I am looking to upload an image of Santana to Wikipedia, to place in the article's infobox. Her university webpage has an image that I would like to use: https://www.biology.washington.edu/people/profile/sharlene-santana Can I upload the image from this webpage directly to Wikipedia under fair use, with appropriate rationale? I know that it can't be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Isobel.Isobel (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

As she is still alive, no this cannot be used. We (specifically the WMF) disallow the use of non-free/fair use images of living persons given that a free image should be possible to obtain. You may want to see if there are ways of asking her directly if she has images that she can provide under a free license. --Masem (t) 23:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm actually meeting with her tomorrow (over Zoom) and I'm in contact with her regularly over email. If I ask her directly for an image (like, images that she has taken of herself), could I upload those? In that case, would I upload them to Wikipedia directly or would I upload them to Wikimedia Commons? Isobel.Isobel (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Isobel.Isobel. Files uploaded under a free license by their copyright holders are, in my opinion, preferred over those uploaded by third-parties on behalf of copyright holders because there's one less link in verification chain (so to speak) that needs to be examined. Things tend to be much easier to sort out when a copyright holder unploads a file of their "own work" an is able to provide a link or some other information like this because the copyright holder doesn't really need to ask themselves for permission to upload the file. However, some people for whatever reason would just rather have someone else upload the file for them and that's perfectly OK; just make sure that Ms. Santana understands what that means and that there's no going back and changing her mind after the fact. The first thing she needs to understand is that the copyright holder of a photo is generally considered to be the photographer who takes the photo, and not the subject of the photo. There might be cases in which there's a copyright transfer agreement in place, but being the subject of a photo doesn't mean there's an automatic transfer of copyright; there may be other rights involved unrelated to copyright, but these aren't so relevant to Wikipedia or Commons.

The next thing that she should understand is that by releasing her work under a free license like the ones listed here, she is just making it easier for others to use a particular version of the work. She's sort of giving others advance permission to use her work to eliminate the necessity of someone having to contact her and asking for permission each time they want to do so. She's not transferring her copyirght ownership to Wikipedia, Commons or anyone else, but is just establishing the terms under which people may reuse or modify her work. The licenses accepted by Wikipedia and Commons are, however, quite liberal compared to some other more restrictive types of licenses; so, she should understand that she's basically going to be agreeing to allow anyone anywhere in the world to download the work at anytime and use for any purpose (including commercial and derivative use). This means that there's always a chance that someone may use the work in a way that she doesn't approve, but they can do so as long as they comply with the terms of the license the work is released under. Licenses such as "for educational use only", "for Wikipedia use only", "for non-commercial use only" are not accepted by Wikipedia or Commons; so, she shouldn't upload the work if she's worried about those things.

Finally, she can upload the file to either Wikipedia or Commons. Commons is a global project and files uploaded to it can be used on any Wikimedia Foundation project; Wikipedia, on the other hand, is a local project and files uploaded to it can only be used on it. There are many different language Wikipedia and many articles are translated into other languages; so, uploading freely licensed files to Commmons makes it much easier to use the file on these other language Wikipedias. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for all of the information! Isobel.Isobel (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Public domain question (2)

In your opinion, is File:The Vanity Fair Diaries.jpg simple enough to be public domain in the US? Thanks. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure! It depends if it was only registered in the US for copyright if it's PD-US or not; I'd need a little bit more info. Specifically, was it published outside of the US and registered for copyright? Also, a similar threshold of originality was established earlier, so NFCC is always a safe bet :) Sennecaster (What now?) 01:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Therapyisgood: someone off-wiki said that this is published in the UK where they have an extremely low ToO, and should be kept with the fair use rationale. Sennecaster (What now?) 16:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Tampa Bay Lightning Logo 2011.svg

Any opinions on whether this logo needs to be licensed as non-free per c:COM:TOO United States? The same file exists on Commons as c:File:Tampa Bay Lightning 2011.svg; so, one of the two files is licensed incorrectly. The local non-free version was uploaded before the Commons one and it might've just been uploaded as non-free as a precaution. The Commons version was transferred from German Wikipedia, but was originally uploaded there as PD-logo. My guess is that someone wanted to use local English Wikipedia file on German Wikipedia, but couldn't because it was a local file. So, they uploaded a local version for use on German Wikipedia and licensed it as PD; the file then got subsequently transferred to Commons. Regardless, the two files are identical and a local non-free version isn't needed if the Commons version is OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: the TOO in the US is extremely high, and that is definitely below TOO. There is no special shading and is just a simple arrangement of shapes. The Commons version is OK I believe! Sennecaster (What now?) 16:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

c:File:Fischer-Spassky1972.jpg

This image has been linked into World Chess Championship 1972 by User:Blockhouse321. I suspected that a copyright violation might be involved, since it is a photograph of a signed work of art that is not in the public domain. Am I justified in my suspicion? Some discussion of the provenance of the image can be found here: Talk:World Chess Championship 1972#Fischer-Spassky1972.jpg. I removed the link [2], but my remove was reverted [3]. Thanks. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

It is a recent piece of work still in copyright. The file has been deleted from Commons. Nthep (talk) 08:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

If User:Blockhouse321 is able verify they are the copyright holder, as claimed in their reinsertion summary, they will have to provide a permission statement through the Volunteer Response Team for it to be restored. ww2censor (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

There are many camera taken images of paintings at Wikipedia|WikiCommons. This image is no different. I took the picture with my camera and I control the copyright of the image. END OF STORY! Blockhouse321 (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

As I said at your talk page, you control the copyright of your photo but you do not control the copyright of the picture in it. As the painter only died in 2017 and copyright in Iceland lasts for 70 years after death (see c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Iceland) the painting you took a photo of is still in copyright. Nthep (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Blockhouse321: As Nthep says the picture, which you took a photo of, has it's own copyright. Your photo is a derivative work (also see WP:DW) and requires two permissions, that of the original artist AND that of the photographer. If you can't obtain both then the image will not be restored until you do or 70 years after the death of the original artist. Sorry but, NO, you do not have complete "control the copyright of the image". ww2censor (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Blockhouse. Based upon what you posted above about taking a picture of a painting, you might want to take a look at c:Commons:2D copying and c:Commons:PD-Art because you might find them helpful. As you point out above, there are lots of pictures of paintings uploaded to Commons, but usually that is only allowed when the painting itself is, for whatever reason, not/no longer considered to be protected by copyright or has been released under free license by its copyright holder (i.e. the artist who painted it). In some cases, you as a photographer may be able to claim a new copyright over a photo you take of the painting as explained in Wikipedia:Derivative works and c:Commons:Derivative works, but that would only be if your photo is something more than just a slavish (i.e. simple) reproduction of the original work. If the painting you photograph is still protected by copyright, then taking a photo of it doesn't void that copyright or transfer that copyright to the photographer, and the original copyright still needs to be taken into account.

Anyway, The file you uploaded to Commons was deleted by a Commons administrator named c:User:DMacks. Commons and Wikipedia are separate projects which means there's not much that anyone can do about that here except to try and explain why the file was deleted. If you think the file was deleted in error, you can ask DMacks for clarification by posting a message at c:User talk:DMacks or you otherwise follow the instructions given in c:Commons:Undeletion requests. For what it's worth, I'm not a Commons administrator so I can't see the file that was deleted; however, based upon what's been posted above, it does seem like you might be misunderstanding an important thing about c:Commons:Licensing.

Finally, perhaps you could, if you tried, find a similar file uploaded by someone else with pretty much the same issue which has yet to be deleted; that, however, wouldn't really prove anything really. Lots of files are uploaded every day to Commons, and they're not vetted in any way. Many files uploaded ultimately end up being deleted as "copyright violations" as they are found and assessed, but that sometimes can take quite a bit of time. The people uploading these files aren't necessarily bad people, and in most cases they are simply people unfamiliar with Commons policy regarding image licensing who made a good faith mistake. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Image found on Blogger

This blog post contains two images which are the original work of the blogger, hosted by Blogger which seems to be a Google service. I cannot work out what the legal status of those images would be; I haven't done this before and don't know how to find out. --Paracelsus888 (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Paracelsus888: I presume you are asking about the Baldwin Market Building images: they are copyright to the photographer. The post is attributed to Randy Nishimura so if you contact him, he might be willing to release them under a free licence we accept. Otherwise you need to find a different source, get someone to take a new photo or take it yourself. 19:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Copyright of a signature

Hello. I have in my posession a signature of a person who has a wikipedia page. The signature was written in 1920's. I was wondering, since i know that in order for an unpublished image to be considered public domain it has to be 120 years old; is it the same with a handwritten signature? I would guess not since it is written with a pencil by the person himself. But i want to be sure before i add it to the page. I am the great-grandson of given person. E-Hakim96 (talk) 04:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi E-Hakim96, the time of copyright depends on the country. What country is it? In the United States, signatures can be in the public domain depending on their originality. See {{PD-signature}} — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey Berrely, thank you for the answer. The country in question is Finland. The signature is in its most original form, unaltered text written by the person himself. E-Hakim96 (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@E-Hakim96 I suggest reading c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Finland for information on Finland's copyright laws. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 17:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Good idea Berrely - thank you for your time. E-Hakim96 (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

License of Pictures from Snapchat Stories

I don't know how to classify this image, is it really available for licensing under CC BY-SA 4.0 if it is an image from a snapchat story, what are the regulations there? (From Snapchat, personal rights or Commons) --asozialebohne (talk) 10:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Asozialebohne no, the images are copyrighted unless it's specifically published under that license by the copyright owner (in this case,
the person in the picture.) Ahmetlii (talk) 10:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Ye Ethiopia Lijoch TV.jpeg

Can File:Ye Ethiopia Lijoch TV.jpeg move to Wikimedia Commons for threshold of originality? The Supermind (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi The Supermind. For Commons to accept such a logo it would need to be too simple for copyright protection in both the United States and the country of origin. It seems to be close if not above the threshold of originality for the United States per c:COM:TOO United States even if the copyright law of Ethiopia isn't so clear. You could try asking about this at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright, but my opinion is that this probably is too complex of a logo to be considered public domain. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Officejavadiam.png

Any chance of File:Officejavadiam.png being converted to {{PD-signature}} per c:COM:Signature? Is there an artistic quality to it (like you might find in some non-Latin scripts) which would mean this should be treated as non-free. I don't think the Persian language (which I'm assuming this is) uses pictograph-like characters in the same way that Chinese and Japanese do, but there is calligraphic feel to it (i.e. it's not a romanized signature). Even though this being used in the main infobox of Abdollah Javadi-Amoli, it doesn't really seem to meet WP:NFCC#8 since there's nothing in the body of the article which even mentions the signature, which means it's probably can't be kept if it needs to remain as non-free. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

File:SportsShoesLogo.png

File:SportsShoesLogo.png was uploaded as non-free and it probably is per c:COM:TOO United Kingdom which means it can't really be moved to Commons. It does, on the other hand, seem to be too simple for copyright protection per c:COM:TOO United States which makes me wonder whether this should be converted to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} for local use on Wikipedia. I don't see how the way this logo is being used in Bruce Bannister meets WP:NFCC#8; the file was originally used in Sportsshoes.com, but that was merged into the Bannister article per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sportsshoes.com (2nd nomination). Not surprisingly, the AfD for the article didn't even consider the non-free use of the logo (which seems to happen alot with merges and redirects); so, the image was moved to the Bannister article as well by default. Converting this to "PD-ineligible-USonly" would allow the image to be kept, but the licensing shouldn't be converted for that reason alone. Anyone feel that this shouldn't be "PD-inelgible-USonly"? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Marchjuly: I agree with your reasoning but the logo really adds nothing significant to the section of the article it is now in. ww2censor (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Image Copyright taken by a German in the Netherlands during World War

Hi Folks!! A question, regarding this image: [4] This was taken by a German soldier at the end of 1944 or early 1945 (I've only just started the article). It was taken in the Netherlands, as that was where the radio team was based. There are hardly any images of this type. I've been looking for about three years and seen never anything like it, or even one of them, hence the reason for the question. Is it possible it is in some kind of public domain as it was taken by a member of the German army? I have no idea, really. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 23:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Scope creep: it's not PD; WP:PD#German World War II images explains that 70-year copyright was restored in 1995, and this would be out of copyright in 2025 at the latest in Germany, and 2040 in the US. You have an NFUR on it, so it's fine as is. The image is also not PD-Netherlands; Netherlands has had long-standing 70-year copyright even in the middle of World War II. Hope this helped, Sennecaster (What now?) 12:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sennecaster: I thought it would be something like that. Can the image be used in more than one article. I would like to use it in the Red Orchestra as it is the top most article. scope_creep^Talk 12:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, you'd just have to expand the NFUR for it I believe. Real shame that it's copyrighted, but that is how it is :/ Sennecaster (What now?) 03:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Scope creep: I don’t see how this meets WP:NFCC#8 at alliance as it’s currently used because neither the photo of the radio itself nor the radio itself is really the subject of sourced critical commentary in the article where the file is being used. You can “expand the NFUR” all you like, but the NFUR should reflect how the image is currently being used, not how it could possibly be used, and the image is clearly not fine as it is per WP:JUSTONE. — Marchjuly (talk) 07:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: The article is barely started. That is one of these articles where all the sources are in Dutch, and it was a secret organisation, so I am still at the getting the books together stage. It will probably take a year to write it since I don't speak nor read dutch, but it will get done. The subject at the start of the work, worked with Soviet Intelligence (again secret) so there are not many pictures of these transmitters. I plan to move it to the Red Orchestra page where it is more salient. It is mentioned quite heavily in there. I plan also to possibly create an article on the procedures for use i.e. the cyphers used and method. In that instance would it be generally ok to use it in three places? I could put a section, on his work with radio at the Daan Galoouze article. Would it be ok to use it in three locations, assuming it has content to support it? Is that how it works? I'm assuming by expanding the nfur that's what it means. scope_creep^Talk 10:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

​ I've don't really know what "expanding the nfur" is intended to mean, but a NFUR is supposed to accurately reflect how a file is being used and clarify how that use meets all ten non-free content use criteria listed at WP:NFCCP. A non-free photo of the radio transmitter that Goulooze used is not really needed for the reader to understand that his main duty was "to maintain on-going radio contact with Soviet intelligence"; so, right away there are WP:FREER and WP:NFC#CS issues with the file's non-free use. You could add as much information to the NFUR (i.e. expand) as you want, but that won't change anything since the file is going to be assessed on how it's being used and not on how elaborate or detailed the NFUR is. The article may be, as you state, "barely started", but that's not generally considered to a valid justification for non-free use. There may be potential to use the image someday, but the same could probably be said about many non-free images with respect to many articles. It's better to wait until there's a pretty strong contextual justification for non-free use in an article before adding corresponding non-free images; if you try "putting the cart before the horse" (i.e. add the images first and then the corresponding contextual content later), the usage is going to have a strongly WP:DECORATIVE feel to it and be at risk of being tagged or otherwise nominated for deletion.

One of the ten non-free content use criteria is WP:NFCC#7, which states that a non-free image must be used in at least one article; so, non-free images not being used in one article can be speedily deleted per WP:F5. There is, however, no non-free content use crtierion that states a non-free image can be used in only one article. It's important to understand though that non-free content use is by definition already an "exemption" or "exception" from WP:COPY and we are expected to try and keep such use as minimal as possible whenever possible. A single use of a non-free file is already rather "exceptional" so to speak, which means that additional uses of the same file are typically going to require a stronger justification for such uses. For example, if you were to create a Wikipedia article about this particular radio device, then it would most likely be OK to use this non-free image for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of such an article. Trying to use the file in other ways or in other articles, however, is likely going to be much harder to justify. Try reading the Goulooze article as is with the image and assess how actually seeing it improves your understanding of what he did or the radio itself. Then, try reading the article without the image and assess whether your understanding significantly changes in detrimental way. In other words, try to assess how the image contextually improves the general reader's understanding of the article content and whether removing the image is going to be really detrimental to that understanding. If removing it isn't really detrimental to the reader's understanding, then the image probably shouldn't be there in the first place. The file has been tagged with {{Di-fails NFCC}} by another editor. If you can find sourced commentary either about the physical appearance of the radio itself or some other aspect of it that makes seeing what it looks like contextually important to the reader of the article, then there will be a much stronger justification for the file's non-free use if you add that content to the Goulooze article, and the chances of keeping it in that article will increase. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: That is a pretty decent explanation of the current state. I found out in the interim the image, wasn't what I thought it was. I contacted the Crypto Museum and they came and told me that the radio transmitter, in the image, looked homemade, which confirmed several facts I knew about but couldn't link them together, prior to identifying it. Up until that point, it was background info, So I'm planning to just let the image be deleted. It is not of any real use to me. The Crypto Museum doesn't have an image of this device either. Apparently, the ww2 transmitters are very rare, so the discussion is moot. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 13:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Youtube

I'm trying to add the {{YouTube CC-BY}} license header on both File:Rowdyrebel2021.PNG and File:Queen Naija in 2018.PNG. All it brings up is "Error:No page id specified on YouTube". How do I fix this? You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

en.wiki does not have these templates, but Commons does. You may want to export those images to Commons (it should be a top level menu option on the file pages) so that you get that template. --Masem (t) 00:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Use of a non-free image in a list

I've been advised by the people over at The Teahouse to bring up this matter here. File:Inspiration4.png, a copyrighted mission insignia, is currently being used in a cell to represent a crewed mission in the List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters list article, and provide a fancy way to link to the Inspiration4 article. I want to pose a similar question to the one I posed to The Teahouse; is this fair use per WP:NFCC and WP:NFLISTS? I personally don't believe it is, and the only opposing argument I've gotten is that it's fair-use because it's displayed at a minimal resolution. Is there any validity to that argument? — Molly Brown (talk) 04:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi The Unsinkable Molly Brown. It's fair use in the sense that the file could be used in such a way that it most likely wouldn't be considered a copyright violation under US copyright law, but Wikipedia makes a distinction between fair use and non-free content as explained here and here; so, in terms of Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, the way that file is currently being used isn't really permitted per WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 and in my opinion should be removed from the article. It's hard to argue that this type of non-free use is not WP:DECORATIVE, and we don't use non-free files to illustrate list articles simply because the same list article might also be using some freely licensed or public domain images in a similar fashion. Whether the other file should be removed might be open to interpretation, but non-free file use is subject to more restrictions than other types of files as explained here. FWIW, the file's use in the list article also currently fails WP:NFCC#10c and it can be removed per WP:NFCCE for that reason alone. If then someone provides a non-free use rationale for the list article, then that would be insufficient per WP:JUSTONE. In that case, the file could be tagged with {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} or discussed at WP:FFD as needed, but once again this type of non-free use is clearly (at least in my opinion) not NFCC compliant which means a valid rationale cannot be written for it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thank you very much for the well-researched explanation. I'll be sure to read up on all these policies you've linked as well! — Molly Brown (talk) 08:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Uploading new truck image to page

Hi, I'd like to upload a new picture of the truck Cleanaway uses for their Wikipedia page (full disclosure: I am an employee of Cleanaway and am paid to monitor the page). The current photo was taken in 2009 and is in a country we no longer operate in. I understand that the image should ideally be under a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License. When looking for similar images I have noted that most are either copyrighted or unavailable for use under Wikipedia's requirements.

My question is: If I receive the image through email and would like to upload it, how do I tag and mention that the copyright belongs to the company who has released it under the license instead of me, the uploader? Thanks in advance, and let me know if this is something that I should not be doing, seeing as I do have Conflict of Interest due to my employment. Pce1984 (talk) 07:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Pce1984. Is the image you want to uploaded significantly different from File:Cleanaway 2001 Volvo FM7 Phoenix refuse truck, 25 January 2009.jpg because you could just make an edit request at Talk:Cleanaway or at WP:COIN simply explaining the above and asking them to change the caption? If, however, the company's trucks have significntly changed since 2009, then perhaps the best thing to do would to simply ask someone at the company to take a photo of one of its trucks and then upload it directly to Wikimedia Commons themselves instead of asking you to do so. That would avoid you having to deal with either c:COM:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS? or c:COM:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder. The only real issue with such a photo would be whether the company's logo is prominently displayed or the truck has a really distinct paint job. Most vehicle shapes are considered to be too utilitarian to be eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:VEHICLE on their own; so, it's really only the "packaging" (i.e. the paint job or any other identifying branding) so to speak that might be of a copyright concern. If someone from the compnay takes the photo and then someone who represents the company and has some authority uploads the photo to Commons using the interactive release generator, then both the copyright of the photo and any branding that's not deemed to be de minimis should be covered. Once the image is uploaded, you would just need to request that someone replace the one currently in the article with the new image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarity! I'll see if one of my colleagues can do that. Main reason why we want to update the image is because in this context we're using mainly the front and side lift trucks, like this one (this image is all rights reserved, hence unsuitable) Pce1984 (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

There's an old photo here from 2007 of a Cleanaway landfill that might come in handy as the article is expanded, although I cannot upload it as an IP. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Also managed to find this image of an old Transpacific truck from before the name change that would be right at home in the history section. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Pce1984, sometimes the easiest thing is just to go take a photo yourself and upload it at Wikimedia Commons. (Or if the truck you want to photograph is in a different location, have someone at that location photograph the truck and then upload the photo themselves.) That way you don't have to go through the OTRS process. This is why Wikipedia has so many selfies and photographs of people standing at podiums . —valereee (talk) 13:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Boyds animals.jpg

Seems to me that date on the file File:Boyds animals.jpg - June 1922 - indicates that it is in the public domain, if I'm not mistaken. Is it possible to revert the bot downsize and to change the template to a public domain? Thanks. --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Sleeps-Darkly: It seem to me that the {{PD-New Zealand}} rule of 50 years applies and having been published pre-1926 it is PD in the US too. ww2censor (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Using Album Cover on Artist's Page

I've added a number of images of cover art from the existing images in the Wikipedia repository to an article about the artist that created them. Various editors have deleted them indicating that there is no justification for their use. If it is acceptable to use the art on the album's page, it would seem that it would also work on the artist's page. The original art work is going to be A3 or A2 size, the level of detail is such that anyone wanting to really look at the image is going to have to purchase either the album or a print of the images. Use of a thumb nail of a commercial art piece as a representation of their style and genre would be considered fair use. The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 13:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Aggie80: Unfortunately album covers that are copyright are allowed under our strict non-free policy, which is stricter than fair use, as identification in the infobox of an article about that specific album. Use elsewhere is not allowed unless as critical commentary about the artist's style and it must be supported by independent third-party published reliable sources. Even then, as a copyright image only a low resolution file is allowed which does no suit your purpose. Any such use must comply with all 10 WP:NFCC policy requirements. ww2censor (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Re Category:Joan Baez album covers

So, Category:Joan Baez album covers points to 13 image files (that is, 13 image files have "Category:Joan Baez album covers" written at the bottom of their page).

The images are allowed on the Wikipedia, but under fair use, specifically the exception for album covers, which requires use in only a narrow context: only to be used one time in the Wikipedia in one article (almost always), at the top of the article, so serve as visual identification, and other things.

The images themselves don't violate that. But Category:Joan Baez album covers gives an easy and easy-to-find way to look at them out of context. But then, you can do that also by clicking on the image from within the article. But only that way. So hmmm.

I know we couldn't use say File:Baez10Yrs.jpg in a gallery section in article "List of album covers featuring women" (or "...of 1970" or whatever), unless there's text about that that particular image. But... could we include links in such articles? That is, rather than a gallery showing the images, could we have a list of links ("Click the links below to see album covers featuring women"), then have a list with links like "*File:Baez10Yrs.jpg" and many similar. Different thing, or same thing?

Well Category:Joan Baez album covers is in essence doing this, it serves the purpose of a list. Lots of times there are debates of the manner "Should we make a category for these items, or a list article?" They are somewhat related things.

So anyway, asking if this is OK or not. I would think not. Herostratus (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

From the strict NFCC standpoint, we're not showing the images in the category, and as such, there's no NFC violations. The question is that in mainspace is it reasonable or proper to ever link to a colon-linked image page or to a category of image links in any context? And I want to say that is "no" as those are mostly the backend stuff "behind the scenes" necessary to support WP and for editors, but not necessary to present to the reader. (it is different from wanting to present Commons/reusable images via those links, to encourage reuse). I would definitely be inclined that if someone made a section in mainspace that listed the colon-linked album covers (as to not display them) to delete that as just not appropriate; a list of the albums themselves where the covers are used would be fair, though. --Masem (t) 18:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

So, Category:Joan Baez album covers should be depopulated then? It serves really closely the same function as a simple list article ("Here's a list of Joan Baez album covers, with links, in an easy-to-access-en-masse-out-of-context grouping"). And really no other purpose. It's a bottom-level category and not very useful for navigating around. Depopulate? Herostratus (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

photo of my grandmother violates copyright

File:Nettie Murray 1910.jpg shows a photo of my grandmother's family.

The Wikipedia webpage above says "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1926."

The photo was taken before 1926 but it was not published until the source website was created which was not until the internet was invented. At the top of the source web page: http://www.genjourney.net/KurzKatherinePage.htm

The source website says all the material is copyrighted. The wikipedia contributor (user name Shyamal) does not have permission to publish this photo on wikipedia. I can't figure out how to contact her. Thanks,

Mforests Mforests (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Mforests: US unpublished works are copyright for 120 years per the hirtle chart. 1926 refers to published works and claims made on several websites, including even some museums are incorrect; claiming copyright of public domain works is called copyfraud. As far as I can determine, in this case the work is still in copyright until 2031. You can contact Shyamal by using their talk page User talk:Shyamal. ww2censor (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Mforests, the picture will soon be deleted. However, it could be restored to just the English Wikipedia under fair use. We do use copyrighted photos of deceased persons here often enough under fair use (and there's a cropped version that doesn't show anyone except your grandmother). I'll make a note on the article's talk page that you don't want that, and you should be OK. (Of course, other grandchildren might be delighted to see your grandmother's picture here, but squeaky wheel, and fine.)

Just as unsolicited personal advice, if you have an objection to pictures on your family page being used elsewhere under fair use, and considering that they show a famous person that is possible and not just here, you might want to password-protect the page that they're one. This will also prevent random passerby from pawing thru the material. My family did this. Herostratus (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:FFD § Delsort tags revisted

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:FFD § Delsort tags revisted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Concord Regional Airport Logo.jpg

I'm not sure File:Concord Regional Airport Logo.jpg needs to be licensed as {{Non-free logo}}. It's basically a text-logo with the word "Concord" written in some sort of cursive style. The country of origin is the US and I don't believe US copyright law treat simple cursive logos as being eligible for copyright protection since it's basically a type of c:COM:FONT. Is there any reason why this shouldn't be converted to {{PD-logo}} and tagged for a move to Commons? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I think it's fine under {{PD-logo}} and moving to Commons, but I would probably get a .svg uploaded to Commons with the same name and just PROD it here for the sake of quality and SVG superiority for logos in general. Sennecaster (What now?) 02:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

That's probably a good way to go about it, but I don't create vector versions of logos. I'll see if someone at the c:COM:GL/I wants to give it a try. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)