Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2021/March

Amazon Copyright issue

This movie advertisement link is from Amazon/IMDb.

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BYWZjNzJiZjQtODE3OC00MmVlLTk1ZjUtOGU1ZTA5ZWIzYjdlXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjA5MTAzODY@._V1_.jpg

The movie is Doctor Neighbor completed in 1916. Even though it is an Amazon image, can I upload a copy of the poster to Wikipedia commons claiming the copyright has expired since it was created before 1926?

This is not original art, but a copy of a page from a movie fan magazine. I understand if I find the magazine where the original ad was placed - problem solved, but I having problems locating the Ad.

The Wikipedia: Help desk referred me to you.

Thanks

Michael Jannetta (talk) 05:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Could I use a non-free image to illustrate a section of an article about the comic's creator?

Chris Crosby (comics) is an article on a comic writer and artist, best known for his comic Superocity. There is a section in the article on Superocity in that article, and I would like it to include an image of the comic or some other image illustrating the art style, as it is remarkable and important for understanding the work.

Under what circumstances, if any, could I use a non-free image to illustrate this article? Images could include a book cover, a sample strip, a single panel, or a character.

HenryCrun15 (talk) 08:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Under WP:NFCC, particularly WP:NFCC#8, the image should be essential for the reader's comprehension of the (sourced) text describing the comic; if you can describe the style of the comic without seeing the comic, it may not be required. But if you cannot, then yes, a single image like one strip would be reasonable. --Masem (t) 06:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

astrophysics data system

Can I use diagrams, graphs etc. from this article? אילן שמעוני (talk) 10:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

No. Note that the bottom of that page says that it is copyrighted by the American Astronomical Society. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Is this rugby photo copyrighted?

I have uploaded File:John_Morkel.jpg but I wanted to check the copyright status. It was made in 1949 so it is out of copyright in Zimbabwe under Template:PD-Zimbabwe as 50 years have passed since creation but I was wondering if it might be out of copyright altogether under US law? I have uploaded it under a copyright tag as it was still under copyright in 1996 to be on the safe side, but could someone more versed in US copyright law have a look and let me know if it might have expired copyright? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Screenshot of document

I uploaded File:Amicusbriefaclu.png for use in SLAPP Suits– it's a screenshot of the table of contents of an amicus brief in a settled lawsuit. is it free to use? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Is this rugby photo copyrighted?

I have uploaded File:John_Morkel.jpg but I wanted to check the copyright status. It was made in 1949 so it is out of copyright in Zimbabwe under Template:PD-Zimbabwe as 50 years have passed since creation but I was wondering if it might be out of copyright altogether under US law? I have uploaded it under a copyright tag as it was still under copyright in 1996 to be on the safe side, but could someone more versed in US copyright law have a look and let me know if it might have expired copyright? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

No, it is still in copyright per the notice at the bottom of the template {{PD-Zimbabwe}}. It would have to be pre-1946. It' fine as a non-free for now. ww2censor (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Copyright question for Lilac (The Early November album)

Hi, if you can explain why the album art for the above album was removed from the page and what I can do to fix it? File:Lilac (Album Artwork).jpg Thanks! Alexmarie (talk) 02:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Alexmarie: When uploading the file you failed to provide the name of the article the image was for AND you did not add any licence template. Check out my edit to see what was missing. I've corrected both the file and inserted it into the article. ww2censor (talk) 12:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Ww2censor: Thank you for your help! Alexmarie (talk) 03:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 March 15 § File:Dengfeng Motor Corporation logo.svg

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 March 15 § File:Dengfeng Motor Corporation logo.svg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

MeTV Kansas Logo

Hey, I was trying to add the MeTV Kansas Logo onto KLBY, a semi-satellite or unit of KAKE (TV), because KLBY is a Station in both The KAKEland Television Network and MeTV Kansas, 2 KAKE-owned State networks. However, it was removed because it violated something, So, was it removed Because on the Logo's article, it says that it's article is KAKE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LooneyTraceYT (talk • contribs) 03:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi LooneyTraceYT. The bot that removed the file from the KLBY article left an edit summary that included a link to WP:NFC#Implementation. Did you read that section? Basically, a non-free file needs to be provided with a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each of its uses in order to satisfy non-free content use criterion 10c and those missing such a rationale can be removed from the respective article per WP:NFCCE. What that bot does is search non-free files for ones being used without a corresponding non-free use rationale for each use, and then it removes the file for uses lacking a rationale. So, you can stop the bot from removing the file by providing the missing rationale. Providing a rationale, however, doesn't automatically make a non-free use policy complaint per WP:JUSTONE; it stops the bot, but another editor may challenge the non-free use of the file. So, you might want to ask for some feedback at WP:TVS or take a look at Wp:TVS/STDS#Images if you're not sure about the file's non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

File:SilkSonic.jpg

So I uploaded this image for use in the appropriate article, but it was removed because of poor categorization. The thing is, this publicity shot was technically free, as all I had to do was drag it out of a public Tweet from the band's official account, without editing it whatsoever. I have no idea where else it could've been posted, although I do have some good guesses. But wouldn't that also classify it as promotional material?

I guess what I'm trying to say is, which copyright tag would be appropriate for the file? ---The Pastrami-Eating Bulldog 02:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Being publicly available online is not the same as being free from copyright protection. So, unless there’s some statement provided by the band that the original content posted on its Twitter account is freely licensed as explained here or you can get the band to agree to release the image under such a license as explained here, Wikipedia is going to treat the file as non-free content. Since the band Silk Sonic is currently active, any non-free image of the group is almost certainly not going to be considered to meet WP:NFCC#1 (see also WP:FREER and item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI); so, your best bet to use the photo is to try WP:PERMISSION to see if you can get the band’s WP:CONSENT, assuming they own the full copyright on the photo. — Marchjuly (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Dominic Pezzola photo

This online news article includes a black and white photo of Dominic Pezzola breaking a window at the U.S. Capitol on January 6. The photo is credited to "Court paperwork". Because it is black-and-white, I am wondering if this may possibly be a security camera image, and therefore possibly in the public domain. Can anyone check the provenance of this photo? Thanks, and please ping me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jim. The same photo can be seen used in this NYT article, but is attributed to the US Department of Justice. You can ask at c:COM:VPC if you want to double check to be sure, but I think it should be OK to upload to Commons under c:Template:PD-USGov-DOJ. It would be better of course to try and narrow down the provenance as much as possible. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Marchjuly. The concern I have is that many of the January 6 related criminal filings from the DOJ (and I have read several of them) include photos from social media posts, which are obviously restricted by copyright. So, the fact that a photo was in a DOJ document does not seem convincing to me. Is there any evidence that you see, other than that this specific photo is black-and-white, that it is public domain? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Jim, but I didn’t really do much digging before finding the NYT article. The point you make about the photo not being taken by the DOJ is a valid one which is why it might be better to try and find the original source if possible. The NYT did attribute the file to the DOJ; so, I’m guessing it can be found on some official US Gov website. Perhaps finding that will help clarify the origin of the image since US Gov websites seem to be fairly good at providing proper attribution when they host copyrighted content created by others. It seems unlikely that the NYT would incorrectly attribute an image to the DOJ if the DOJ attributed the image to someone else, but perhaps the DOJ didn’t attribute the file to anyone. I kinda remember some images from US Gov websites being kept on Commons per a c:COM:DR when there was no attribution because it’s assumed that the US Gov website is the origin of the image absent any evidence showing otherwise. Maybe someone else can track down the file’s origin. — Marchjuly (talk) 04:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Does this photo fall under PD-Art?

I was looking at this photo and think that it falls under PD-Art. The photo was published before 1 January 1926 and it appears that the photo is just a mechanical reproduction of the original painting. Is my judgement correct? Can the license tag be updated to PD-Art, or is there a reason that the photo would not be considered PD-Art? --ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

That file was uploaded by Finnusertop who does a lot of work with files. It's possible that at the time the file was uploaded the original work wasn't yet in the public domain, but perhaps Finnusertop can clarify things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@ShyAlpaca482 and Marchjuly: I have opted for a cautious approach with this file because the painting was first exhibited in 1923 but exhibition does not necessarily constitute publishing. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

New UK driver's license

Should/could the new UK driving licence be uploaded under Non-free fair use like the previous version was? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megyeye (talk • contribs) 11:03, 13 March 2021‎

@Megyeye: The OGL terms, linked from the source page, specifically excludes "identity documents such as the British Passport", so you are out of luck. ww2censor (talk) 12:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, that is why I am asking if it qualifies as Non-free fair use like the previous version was uploaded under. If not, the version already uploaded probably doesn't qualify either and should probably be deleted (?) as it is the exact same artifact; a UK driver's license. In fact, the source of the image, written in the comment from the file uploaded on 27 April 2015 (http://www.nidirect.gov.uk/the-photocard-driving-licence-explained) has a link to https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/crown-copyright on the bottom, which again states "This licence does not cover the use of (...)identity documents such as the British Passport" {{Non-free fair use in|Driving licence in the United Kingdom|image has rationale=yes}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megyeye (talk • contribs) 05:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps this possibly could be used as long as it's only used for primary identification purposes at the top of Driving licence in the United Kingdom and as long as it doesn't contain any personally identifying information (including the photo). This seems unlikely given that it's an image from an official government website, but you never know sometimes since it's likely somebody's picture that is being used. Perhaps it would be better if an example of the license could be found which is just a blank template. Anyway, there are a couple of ways the file could be uploaded: (1) as an updated version of the existing file or (2) as a new file altogether. In either case, the older version will most likely need to be deleted per WP:F5 since it's unlikely there's enough of a difference between the two to justify the non-free use of the older version in some other part of the article per WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Finally, instead of using {{Non-free fair use in}} as the copyright license, it might be better to use {{Non-free Crown copyright}} since the latter seems to be more applicable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree, if the newer version was to be uploaded, the previous one would probably need to be deleted. However, perhaps the existing image could be cropped to only show the back of the card, and the newer version could be uploaded as a new file. As the new version does not show the reverse side. {{Non-free Crown copyright}} does seem to be more applicable. I didn't know about that one, just saw the old version was uploaded as {{Non-free fair use in}} Megyeye (talk) 09:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Is there any real encyclopedic value to showing the back of the card? The backs of most card-type pieces of identification tend to be nothing more than text; so, most likely anything written on the back could be sufficiently covered in text per WP:FREER and MOS:TEXTASIMAGES. Just because the older version was uploaded showing the front and back, that doesn't mean it should've been uploaded as such per WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly:Probably not. What if I upload the new version as an updated version of the existing file, in 0.1 mpx size (387 x 258) as per Wikipedia:Non-free content#Image resolution and change the file description page to:{{Non-free Crown copyright}} {{Non-free use rationale | Description = The front side of a United Kingdom Driving Licence | Source = [https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-style-driving-licences-and-number-plates-mark-one-year-anniversary-of-brexit-as-eu-flag-is-removed] | Article = Driving licence in the United Kingdom | Portion = Front side | Low resolution = Yes | Purpose =Image is used as reference for the subject of an article written for non-profit educational purposes. | Replaceability =No free alternative. The [https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/ Open Government Licence] excludes identity documents. | Other information = Since this is a derivative of a government controlled artifact, a free alternative cannot be created and it has no commercial value that can be impacted. The [https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/ Open Government Licence] excludes identity documents. }} Thanks, Megyeye (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I just noticed this post because your ping didn't work for some reason. Anyway, I think it's probably OK to do what you're proposing; others might feel differently, but sometimes the only way to find such a thing out is to upload a file and see what happens. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Ownership

I'm sure I should know this but I can't think. I got an email offering some images for use on Wikipedia. The images were taken after WWII in the Arctic. The person who took the pictures died in 2011 and one of his sons has offered them. Who owns the copyright? 07:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by CambridgeBayWeather (talk • contribs)

The copyright would belong to the heir(s), usually. I think at Wikimedia Commons we assume that the children of the copyright holder have the right to licence the image(s) in question. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

There is a copyright license c:Template:PD-heirs that can be used for this type of file, but I think the copyright holders are free to choose any license accepted by Commons. Before uploading the files, however, you might want to explain to the son c:COM:LRV, c:COM:L and c:COM:OTRS/Consent. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 13:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

File:45 Record of Venus in Blue Jeans.jpg

This seems to almost certainly be mislicensed as perhaps many of the files located in Category:GFDL files are. I doubt this particular file could be considered self-published or "own work" and probably is actually non-free content instead. Any one have any opinions on this file or perhaps on whether the entire category itself needs to be cleaned up. Some of the files in that category probably just need some license tweaking, but others (particularly logos and cover art like File:13.soba cover.jpg and File:50th anniversary logo.jpg) might need a bit more sorting out or even OTRS verification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Araki's photo

I'm trying to find a picture of Prof. Araki. I asked to his colleagues and they sent me the following picture [1]. A OTRS ticket is already open and we are trying to figure out if the picture can be uploaded or not. In particular I need few days to figure out the artist's name (of the artwork).

My question is a different one. Let's suppose the worst-case scenario, where the picture cannot be uploaded because of the unfortunate presence of the artwork. Since I only need Araki's picture (to be added to enwiki and itwiki). By cropping the photo, only a (very) small part of the artwork would be visible. Would it be fine regarding copyright-related issues? If not, how do you advise me to proceed?

Thanks for your time. --SimoneD89 (talk) 11:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The file is already uploaded to Commons with at {{OTRS pending}} template attached to it; so, nothing to do but wait to an OTRS volunteer checks the email. If you want to ask a question about the OTRS ticket, you can try c:COM:OTRSN; however, OTRS volunteers aren't really supposed to discuss anything specific about the emails they receive from copyright holders on public pages.

As for the artwork in the background, it might be a borderline call as to whether it's c:COM:DW, which means someone could nominate it for deletion at Commons. One possible to fix this would be a crop, but another way would be to blur out the artwork. If you don't have the technical skill to do either of those things, you can try asking at c:COM:GL/P. The easiest option in the end might simply be to ask for another image of Araki. Politely explain what the potential problems are and simply ask them to provide a head shot of only Araki without an possible copyright eligible elements in the background. If Huzihiro Araki is that same Araki in the photo, just ask someone to snap a photo of him sitting at his desk or standing outside somewhere and it should be fine. One thing to make sure of though is that since he's a Japanese national, you might want to take a look at c:COM:CSCR#Japan since Japanese law on requiring consent is different from the US. Commons doesn't usually deal with non-copyright restrictions, but it would probably be best to get the subject's consent just in case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. The question was not about the pending request (the issues we are discussing in the ticket is about keeping the full picture and I'm taking care of it). Here I wanted to know about possible solutions for a future request where only Prof. Araki is visible. I can submit a cropped version of the picture (with the artwork removed). Thank you for pointing out the issues concerning the Japanese law. It was very difficult to find pictures of him, there are very few. Unfortunately, I've learned that, because of personal reasons, it is impossible to take pictures of him anymore and probably also to ask him the permission. --SimoneD89 (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The file you uploaded can be modified in anyway by anyone who wants to as long as they abide by the conditions of the copyright license you've chosen; so, you can crop the file yourself and license it either the same or under a less restrictive license if you want (a more restrictive license would not be allowed). You can also blur out the artwork in the background if you want while you're waiting on OTRS verification. You should upload the crop as a separate file and use the c:Template:Extracted from and c:Template:Image extracted to indicate there's a crop of the original file. However, if you decide to blur out the artwork, you can just upload it as a new version of the existing file and then request that the older version be deleted. (If you want to see how something similar was done for a bottle of hot sauce, look at File:Sriracha Hot Sauce Bottles Freshii Restaurant Family Dinner Downtown Grand Rapids June 27, 2014 1 (14552677466).jpg.) Of course, all of this is based upon the assumption that OTRS verifies the email that was sent; if they don't and you find the file suddenly tagged with c:Template:OTRS received, the person who sent in the email will need to resolve things with OTRS to stop the file from being deleted. There's usually a grace period of 30 days to resolve such things, but OTRS will only discuss specifics with the person who emailed them and only via email. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion for improving Creative Commons documentation

I've been searching around Wikipedia for guidance on uploading Creative Commons files, and it's a very poor experience. I think the information available to editors needs to be improved. (I'm making this suggestion after uploading a file tagged with {{Cc-by-nc-nd-3.0}} in good faith, and then having it unceremoniously deleted with no warning or explanation.) We all know this is a minefield, but trying to find out how to do the correct thing is difficult.

The page Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Free licenses gives some information but it fails to tell you what is not allowed. The only apparent resource is Deprecated#Non-free_Creative_Commons_licenses, which is very unclear. I would like to suggest that Wikipedia offers something like the licences table on Commons help (whcih I helped to develop) as a guide to editors, so we can avoid wasting everyone's time. I'm happy to offer a suggested version if more expert editors are willing to help. Thanks. Cnbrb (talk) 11:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Can I upload the minimum size of a black-and-white portrait photo of Wu Jianmin more than 30 years ago for the "Wu Jianmin (democracy activist)"?

Can I upload the minimum size of this black-and-white portrait photo of Wu Jianmin more than 30 years ago for the "Wu Jianmin (democracy activist)"? Thanks. --Jujiang (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Since Wu Jianmin still appears to be alive and currently residing within the United States, it's highly unlikely that a non-free image of him would be allowed per WP:NFCC#1 (WP:FREER). I cannot read Chinese (which I'm guess is the language that website is written in), but unless that particular photo has been released under a free license, it seems that photo from 1989 would be with in the public domain in either China or the US just because of it's age, and without knowing more about the provenance of the photo it would be hard to assume anything other than it's still protected by copyright. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Marchjuly. --Jujiang (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Correcting errors in a fair use template

I've seen a fair use template that incorrectly says "The cover art copyright is believed to belong to the record label or the graphic artist(s)." This is factually wrong. This may be moot, because the main element of the cover art is a copyvio (so we can't host it, not even under a "fair use" – I mean, even posting an external link to a copy of this photo on someone else's website would be a clear violation of a legal policy), but is there a way to correct this kind of error? Or is that some unremovable statement that the templates always provide even if it's wrong? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

It sounds like you're referring to {{Non-free use rationale album cover}}. That particular bit of text seems to have been here way back in 2009 by RockMFR. I wasn't around back then, but there might be explanation as to why it was added somewhere on Template talk:Non-free use rationale album cover. It appears to just be boilerplate text that can be changed or modified if there's something wrong with it; however, if you look at the syntax you'll see that it also includes a bit of code that will replace "record label", etc. with the actual values entered for the corresponding template parameters when they're not left empty. The "problem" is that many of these parameters are almost always never filled in, so many non-free rationales for album covers just show the boilerplate text. As for the other part of your post about WP:LINKVIO, I'm not sure what you're asking about. Are you referring to one particular file which has a LINKVIO problem or are you saying that pretty much all album cover files have LINKVIO problems? The former might be easy to resolve, but that latter not so much because there are currently almost 190,000 files listed in Category:Album covers and there are also probably quite a few more that have been incorrectly categorized that are floating around somewhere. FWIW, the relevant non-free content use criterion to LINKVIO probably is WP:NFCC#4 (WP:NFC#Meeting the previously publication criterion), and any file doesn't meet that criterion can be deleted per a WP:FFD discussion or even WP:F9 if it's an obvious copyvio. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me how to change the boilerplate in the future. (It's one particular album. LINKVIO would never have a problem with linking to a typical album cover. The image was speedy-deleted as an unambiguous copyright violation yesterday.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Non-free use rationale templates tend to be used on lots of files and in some cases the templates may be protected and require special permission to edit. Even if the template isn't protected, it might be a good idea to propose any changes on the template's talk page first before making them because of the huge ripple effect that almost surely will result from even a small change. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Liquid Death canned water can question

I'm assuming I can't upload this photo to Commons as it's a DW, is that right? That photo is licensed under a Commons-friendly license, but I'm thinking it's a derivative work of the water can, and the logo skull is certainly copyrighted. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Therapyisgood. Try looking at c:COM:PACKAGING, but photos of product labels tend to be treated as c:COM:DW which means the copyright of the photo, but also of the label needs to be considered. If you took this photo yourself, then you could release the photo under a free license that Commons accepts, but even in that case the copyright status of the label would need to be sorted out. If you didn't take the photo yourself, then whomever did would need to release it under a license that Commons accepts, and the copyright status of the logo would still need to be sorted out. You can ask about this at c:COM:VPC if you want some opinions from Commons.

FWIW, in cases like this, it's sometimes possible for the file to be uploaded locally to Wikipedia as non-free content in which there's a free license provided for the photo and a non-free license for the label; however, it might simply just be easier to find an image of the label on the company's official website and upload that at non-free content instead. Just from looking at Liquid Death, though, it seems unlikely that any use of a non-free image of the label in that article would meet WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#CS) unless there was some sourced critical commentary specifically related to the company's choice of branding (i.e. perhaps it's controversial or something) added to the article to justify non-free use. It might be possible, however, for such an image to be used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the actual product itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Flyers for Baby Pac-Man and Mr. & Mrs. Pac-Man

So, these pages were deleted and I'm trying to add back the images that were previously used for the lead, which for both games was the flyer. They're found here and here and I need help. I've not done this before, and I'm having trouble adding the tags. Pacack (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, I definitely did not format that correctly. My apologies. Pacack (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Pacack. The first thing you're going to have to do is add a copyright license to each file's page to stop the file from being deleted per WP:F4. Unless you're claiming that these files are either (1) your own original creative work (which seems highly unlikely) or (2) the files are no longer protected by copyright (which might be possible per WP:PD), I suggest that these files be licensed as non-free content; perhap you can use a copyright license like the ones used for File:Harley Davidson Pinball by Bally Flyer.jpg or File:WCS flyer.jpg. After you figure out the file's licensing, you're then going to need to provide a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the file to stop it from being speedily deleted per WP:F6 if the file is licensed as non-free content. Non-free files need a copyright license and a separate specific non-free use rationale for each use to stop them from being speedily deleted outright or removed from articles. Given the way the file's are currently used, things should be OK once you add the missing licenses and rationales. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for my lack of experience here. I'm trying to use these as non-free content, but I'm frankly getting a bit confused by the coding. I'll look at the file you linked, but it's worth noting that all of this was done in the past; I'm just trying to get it done again. I know for a fact that the previous use had all of this. Is there a way for me to find the previous way they did this? Pacack (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I am going to copy over the deleted version stuff over that is appropriate for those files (that I can see as admin). The only thing you should do is verify the source where you got your images (if they differ from where the included licenses tags came from). --Masem (t) 03:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I owe you my life, thank you. Pacack (talk) 03:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Bhupinder Singh Mahal

File:Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal award 2003.jpg This photo was taken by subject matter's son and is free to publish. No copy right involved. Please advise how to upload the image. I am 88 and not very tech savvy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S Tallim (talk • contribs) 17:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi S Tallim. Are you asking about File:Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal award 2003.jpeg by chance? Just for general reference, as explained here and here, pretty much every photo ever taken has a copyright holder and that copyright holder is almost always the person who took the photo. In some cases, a photo might have been taken so long ago for it to no longer be protected by copyright or it might be considered to be within the public domain for some other reason; however, it's best to start with the assumption that the photo is protected by copyright and then figure out if it isn't. Since you say that the photo was taken by the son of the subject, I'm wondering how you know that to be the case? If the son is the person who took the photo, then Wikipedia cannot really accept it without his consent, and his consent will need to be verified by Wikimedia OTRS. If you can contact the son and get him to agree to give his consent, then things should be fine.

While trying to figure out what photo you're asking about, I also noticed that you've uploaded File:College of Physiotherapists of Ontario Council Award 2002.jpeg to Wikipedia and File:Chairperson Board of Referees.jpg to Commons. These two files also have image licensing issues which need to be resolved. As I mentioned above, it's generally the creator of a work (e.g. the photographer who takes the photo, the artist who paints the painting, the organization which issues the certificate) who is considered to be the copyright holder of the work; so, when you upload something under a claim of "own work", you are stating you're the original creator of the work. In the case of these two files, that seems highly unlikely; if, however, it is, then all you need to do is send a consent email like the one mentioned above (or seen here for the certificate photo) to Wikimedia OTRS for verification. Please understand that even when you take a photograph of someone else's work, the copyright of the original work still needs to be taken into account and assessed per c:Commons:2D copying and WP:Derivative work. You can't simply download or scan a work created by someone else and then upload it to Wikipedia or Commons under a claim of "own work"; you may "own" the physical copy you have in your possession, but you don't "own" the copyright on the original work itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Photo Rights

How do you know when you can use a picture? For example would a picture from the 1800's have any copyright and if so how can you tell? I want to know bout photo rights mainly for these two pictures of Alexander Hunter. http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/alexander-hunter.htm and https://archive.org/details/confederateveter22conf/page/468/mode/2up. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

You try to find out as much about the provenance or a picture as you can, and then try and assess it's copyright. For example, if you're trying to figure out the copyright status of a photograph, then you try to find out who took it, when it was taken, and where it was taken because all of those things are going to help determine the photo's copyright status. It's important to know where the photo was taken (i.e. its country of origin) because copyright laws are different from country to country, and the laws of the country of origin might be different from say the copyright laws of your home country. It's important to know who took the photo because the length of copyright protection for works created by known authors is often different from the length of copyright protection of works created by unknown authors. Finally, it's important to know when the photo was taken because copyright protection runs out after a certain amount of time has passed, but this amount of time can be different depending upon the country of origin.

In the case of the two photos you mentioned above, the country of origin is highly likely going to be the US and you can find out more about the US copyright law at c:Commons:United States and c:Commons:HIRTLE. Since the photos Hunter himself are from the US Civil War era, they are almost certainly old enough to be within the public domain because of their age, but the two photos of the gravestone might be a bit trickier to resolve per c:Commons:Derivative works since it's not clear who took them or when they were taken. The Arlington National Cemetery website photo of Hunter is probably OK since the copyright notice given at the top of that website page can't really apply to the photo since it seems highly unlikely the person who created the website took that photo (they might have taken the gravestone photos though). The Confederate Veteran (serial) photo of Hunter might be a better choice since it was published in 1893 (so, the book itself would be old enough to be public domain in the US which means any photos in it are also probably old enough to be public domain in the US) and it looks like a better photo. So, If I were going to upload a photo, I would choose that one since it's easier to figure out at least when it was published. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Family Photograph of James Jamieson (dancer)

Recently while reorganising some old family photographs, I came across a picture of James Jamieson (dancer) who unbeknownst to me was my Grandfather's second cousin. That page is an unloved stub and could use a picture at a minimum to improve it. According to the handwritten information on the back, the photo was taken in 1938, but there's at least one mistake in the information so I can't account for its accuracy.

I've previously uploaded photographs to Commons on which I was the heir, but this one has thrown me a little. As he was my Grandad's Second Cousin, I'm not directly in his line of succession or inheritance. As far as I can tell both he and his brother died without issue so there are no biological heirs directly on his branch which would transfer ownership back to one of his cousins or second cousins branches back here in Scotland, but it's not clear which if any. The photographer is anonymous, and if it was here in in the UK it would be PD as a 70 year anonymous work (as would the EU as a 70 year anonymous work), but it was likely taken in somewhere like Illinois by a U.S. citizen. Doesn't look professional, so think it's been taken by a family member (likely the subject's father), but can't rule out it having been published in say the local paper (Evanston).

As it stands I think there's very little risk of a closer family member making a copyright claim on it and I'm not even sure if any other branches of the family other than mine know this copy exists. My Grandfather inherited this copy from his older brother (who had added the notes on the back) and who lived in Toronto, and so was probably the closest geographic connection that the subject had.

Is this something I could reasonably license CV BY-SA 3.0, or would I be better using it as non-free? In the latter case better anonymous studio photographs of the subject exist and would be better used in his article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it's unlikely going to be able to be used as non-free content because of WP:NFCC#4 (WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion), but others might feel differently. Another photo which can be found in some book, etc. would probably have a better chance of being accepted as non-free.

As for As it stands I think there's very little risk of a closer family member making a copyright claim on it and I'm not even sure if any other branches of the family other than mine know this copy exists., please see WP:NEVERSUE and c:COM:PCP because that kind of argument seems to have little success when it comes to image deletion discussions. Per c:COM:HIRTLE, it will be PD for sure in 2058 or 2059, if the date you give above is correct and the PD claim is based on being an unpublished US work by unknown author. Since you intend to upload this file to Commons, maybe asking about this at c:COM:VPC would help. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Except WP:NFCI gives various examples that would fail WP:NFCC#4 implying that the latter only applies to textual content, and the last entry in that 'Photographs of deceased individuals where no free alternative is likely to be available' would appear to apply here. Also WP:NEVERSUE would also be more about the image being widely available and found by the editor uploading not expecting the owner to notice they've copied it from the authorised site to Wikipedia. In this case, as far as I can reasonably be certain, there is no other copy of this image in existence, uploading to the project allows its preservation in a manner akin to Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._HathiTrust which found in favour of the HathiTrust preserving the works. To be fair 2058 is a long way away, I'll be in my 80s and likely not in a position to donate this as I am now - that's even if the photograph or myself still exist by then. I haven't intended (at the moment) to upload to commons, just here where I can access the image while working on my Sandbox copy of the article. I may ask there anyway though, but it wouldn't really help as much as hosting here with the option of non-free. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

As I posted above, others might feel differently; however, I think that personal photos which don't meet c:Commons:Publication aren't generally considered to meet NFCC#4 because their copyright status can be hard to assess per WP:NFCC#10a. Even if the file is considered acceptable NFCC#4 and meets the other nine non-free content use criterion per WP:NFCCP, you couldn't use it in your sandbox per WP:NFCC#9 (see also WP:UP#Non-free images and WP:DRAFTS#Preparing drafts); you would have to wait until the article was created and then upload the file. For reference, Wikipedia isn't really an online image gallery for preserving old or unique images, and there do seem to be other images of Jamieson found online which might be OK to upload as non-free. This is also one found via James Jamieson (dancer)#External links that could be used as non-free. You might be able to upload the file to Commons as "PD-heir" even in a case like this; so, try asking at c:COM:VPC.

Finally, since you appear to be distantly related to Jamieson, you might want to take a look at WP:COI just for reference. The similarity between your username and the name of the subject of the article will likely be noticed by someone besides myself; so, you might want to at least understand how Wikipedia treats even an WP:APPARENTCOI. It might also be a good idea (I'm not sure if this is what you're intending) to avoid simply replacing everything currently in the article with User:Stuart.Jamieson/sandbox1. It probably would be better instead to incorporate the improvements you make or feel need to be made into the existing article. Completely overwriting an existing article is likely going to set off lots of red flags, and might be even be considered a claim of WP:OWN by some. My apologies in advance if you already know about all of these types of things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem with the image in external links is that it explicitly says it would fail an equivalent of NFCC#4 because they've no evidence of the image ever being published with permission of the copyright holder and they've not received such permission when they published it on their website. Though they do identify the studio as the defunct Bloom Photography Studio in Chicago. There are perhaps two others that do appear to have been published, but with no evidence of when or where, certainty that they were, or evidence of copyright permission in their current use. I will ask the same at Commons in case they view it differently.

As for the COI, believe me I know the policies - I've just returned to WP after an extended break, to give evidence in the Administrator Investigation into Tenebrae for his substantial and repeated COI violations - which I first reported almost a decade ago. I've declared the COI on my talk page and the whole point of the Sandbox is so I can propose changes and have an independent review of my proposal for any COI risks before I make the mainspace changes. Although that being said, I didn't know I had a COI in this article until last week when I found this photo and discovered the family history behind it. So it's not like I have a personal stake in getting it right for someone I never knew existed. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

My comment about having a COI wasn't intended to mean you've done something wrong; I only brought it up because of the similarities of your username to the name of the article you're editing. Even if you do have a COI, it only becomes a problem if you're edits starting moving too far into WP:NOTHERE territory. Anyway, you can't use a non-free in your sandbox draft, but you most likely can use one in the existing article as long as WP:NFCC#1 (WP:FREER) isn't a problem (that tends to be the main issue with images of deceased persons). At the same time, if you're able to upload the photo you have to Commons, then there will be no need for any non-free image to be used, which would be a good thing from a Wikipedia standpoint. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Vectorizations

Vectorizations seem to be disallowed in WP:NFC#Multiple restrictions because they may create derivative works with their own copyrights. I am not sure I 100% understand this, we are allowed derivative works of non-free content, e.g. photographs of sculptures. If someone who understand this could explain it, that would be great. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 19:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dylsss: there are two problems with vectorizations. While it's okay for a Wikipedia editor to e.g. take a photograph of a non-free sculpture, it is generally not okay to use such a photograph taken by someone else. The same applies to vectorizations and we've had problems with editors uploading vectorizations made by others. But even more crucially, non-free content is supposed to be minimal (#3b) and respect the copyright owner's commercial opportunities (#2). A vector that can be scaled at infinite sizes is not minimal. Similarly, such a vector could be easily used to make print quality items that compete with the copyright owner's own licensed products. For those reasons, it's usually only vectorizations already provided by the copyright holder that are okay. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I had not considered 3b and 2 here, that makes sense, though I feel we should not allow non-free vectors at all if they are to be considered non-minimal, since they cannot be properly reduced in resolution like a raster. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 20:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dylsss: regarding your comment about photographs of copyrighted sculptures, we aren't allowed. See Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I should clarify that I meant we are allowed derivative works of sculptures in the context of fair use. I get that there is no FOP for sculptures in the US so photographs of sculpture are not considered free, but they are still allowed under fair use. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 02:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Subject of photo owns copyright in Singapore, except...

There's a discussion at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gan Siow Huang 1.jpg that may be of interest to participants on this page.

There's some disagreement about evidence required for permission to host an image on Commons, given that Singaporean law gives copyright ownership to the subject of a photograph if certain conditions apply. The uploader is vehemently defending the image to a small (but skeptical) audience. Additional viewpoints would be helpful. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• I uploaded the photo, and would be very grateful for broader participation. If you don't mind, I will share this in WikiProject Singapore as well. Just a small clarification that Singapore law gives copyright ownership to the person who commissions the image, rather than the subject, though this is very often the subject themselves. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Commons and Wikipedia are separate projects with their own policies and guidelines and their own respective communities; this doesn't mean that an editor cannot edit on both, but you should still be aware of any type of cross-wiki c:COM:CANVASSing is not going to be viewed favorably. Moreover, whatever things might have been decided here on Wikipedia regarding this will have no impact on Commons at all. Some Commons editors don't have a that great of an opinion of English Wikipedia and some Wikipedia feel the same way about Commons. This is being discussed over at Commons; so, you're going to have do things according to Commons policies and guidelines as explained in c:Commons:For Wikipedians. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Thank you for pointing this out, I didn't know that. I've invited three users to share their opinions, and I will not ask any more. I don't think I've helped matters on the comity front; I think I'm coming across as argumentative and slightly rabid. But I don't know what to do; the consequence of overcaution is another many years of Singaporean politicians' articles without photos. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 05:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
      • You can solicit the opinions of other editors who might be able to help resolve things, and you should be OK as long as you do so in accordance with WP:APPNOTE. However, you need to remember that Commons has its own policies and guidelines and the discussion will be resolved based on those, not what we want might want here at Wikipedia. Did you check c:COM:Singapore and see if there's something there because that's what Commons will be looking at, not whether the consequence of overcaution is another many years of Singaporean politicians' articles without photos. If Singaporean copyright law has recently changed or the Commons information on it is incorrect, the thing to do would be to start a discussion at c:Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Singapore and explain the issue. It will also help if you can find actual Singaporean court cases which support the way you think the law should be interpreted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

        Thank you for the advice, I'm very grateful. I'll do some research on court cases, and when I'm ready, will start a discussion at the copyright rules page you mentioned. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 07:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Fair use image removed from the article

Hello! I am not very literate with copyright issues, need your help. Several days ago I created an article No. 3/No. 13 (Magenta, Black, Green on Orange) using this file, which was already used in Mark Rothko article. The bot removed it saying: No valid non-free use rationale for this page. I've read the guidelines, but I still don't understand what should be done to put it back. The article is fully dedicated to the painting, so the rules for non free use are met. Can anyone help? Thank you! Less Unless (talk) 09:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Less Unless: every use of a non-free image, like this one of a Rothko work, requires a separate non-free use rationale explaining why it meets the non free content criteria for the article(s) it is proposed to use it in. This image needs a rationale adding for the article you started. Nthep (talk) 09:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Nthep Thank you! All done now.Less Unless (talk) 09:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Football Match Tickets

Good afternoon! I'm looking for advice about uploading an image of a football match ticket (specifically the 2005 Scottish League Cup Final). I was hoping to use this in the article of Davie Cooper which I have been working on, as it features an image of Cooper and this match was dedicated to him 10 years after his death. I do own the ticket and I believe it would be a good addition to the article, however I am worried that there may be a rule I don't know covering the use of images of tickets/ matchday memorabilia? Any advice would be much appreciated.--Andrew Henderson (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I suspect if it has the Scottish FA crest or either of the teams crests on it, then it would be copyrighted (unless you cover them I suppose). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Display of copyright notice in an image caption

Is it proper for an image caption to display a copyright notice when the image documentation confirms that it is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license? Here's a diff: [2] Ewulp (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

A photograph of a 1798 painting is in the public domain, even if somebody slaps a copyright notice on it. I have removed it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It seems like that information would be better off added to the file's description that the image's caption, and it's not required to be added to the image's caption for proper attirbution. Asking at c:COM:VPC about how to best attribute the might be a good idea because the file was uploaded to Commons. Commons, however, has nothing to do with MOS:CAPTION and WP:EL, and adding an external link to the file's caption like this might be seen as a form of self-promotion that's not allowed per WP:ELNO and WP:LINKSPAM. Those things, however, aren't really related to the copyright of the file; so, you may have to ask about them at WP:ELN or WP:WPSPAM. Before you do any of those things though, you might want to try and discuss your concerns with editor adding the links because they might just think that it's something they're required to do. FWIW, they don't appear to have been active that much, and their recent burst of editing has been mainly to add links to their "museum" to various articles. It all could just be a good-faith misundertanding that might be able to be sorted out without having to drop a ton of bricks on their head. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. I'll initiate a discussion with the editor. Ewulp (talk) 02:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ewulp: My guess here is that the adding of the links is not an attempt at c:COM:LL or anything like that; it's just probably a misunderstanding of c:COM:2D copying, c:COM:PD-Art and c:COM:DW. The uploader probably assumes that since they took the photo that they own the copyright over it and have created a derivtive work; I don't think they feel (at least I hope not) that they somehow own the copyright on a painting from 1798. Perhaps they own or are connected to the museum when the paintings are displayed and feel per c:COM:CB#Museum and interior photography that they can impose non-copyright related restrictions over the photos they're uploading to Commons and don't realize that Commons doesn't really care about such things. Not all the editor's uploads, however, are a "problem" since the ones of 3D works of art are probably OK as licensed since those would be considered a derivative work. Anyway, I've asked about this at c:COM:VPC#PD-Art? so perhaps someone there can help sort things out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

CC BY licenses require that the uses of the work must retain and mention elements, such as attribution, notice, license, and that may be done in any reasonable manner based on the medium and context. From previous discussions, the consensual practice on Wikipedia is that the presence of the required elements on the description page of the file meets the condition of the CC license and the mentions do not need to be, nor should they be, additionally copied with the displays of the file in the articles. From the display, the description page of the file, with the required mentions, is accessible with a simple click. In short, the way of meeting the license requirement is to place the copyright-related mentions in the description page of the file and to have the display link to that page. Occasionally, new users place the mentions in the articles. As Marchjuly wisely said, the user is probably just unfamiliar with the manner to apply the conditions of the license on Wikipedia. The practice applies to licensed files in general. In the particular case of licensed reproductions of public domain paintings, Wikimedia considers that the copyright does not apply in the United States, as noted in the other comments, although it may apply in other coutries. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

British Armed Forces Rugby League crests copyrighted?

Hi all. I recently uploaded the crests of the rugby league teams of the British Army, Royal Navy and British Police: File:British Army RL crest.jpeg, File:Royal Navy Rugby League.jpg, File:Great Britain Police RL logo.png. To be on the safe side, I uploaded them as non-free but I was wondering if they might come under Template:PD-UKGov like their main logos? If that is the case, should they be uploaded to Commons? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

In all likelihood they are copyrighted. As neither the army nor navy RL bodies are over 50 years old then even if the logos are Crown Copyright they are still in the 50 year period during which the copyright applies. The police logo isn't likely to be Crown Copyright as I think the police RL is more of a private body so the copyright will belong to the designers of the logo. Nthep (talk) 08:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)