Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2024/November

File:Boutiqaat Company.png

File:Boutiqaat Company.png (the logo for Boutiqaat) seems to be nothing more that text (including the "B") and a flower/start used to dot the "i". Any opinions as to whether this can be converted to at least {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} per c:COM:TOO US even if it's still protected in Kuwait per c:COM:Kuwait? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

{{PD-ineligible-USonly}} would be an appropriate tag for this, yes. It is definitely below the threshold of originality in the US, so it doesn't need to be tagged as unfree. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

File:SM City Caloocan in night.jpeg

I'm not too sure about the licensing of File:SM City Caloocan in night.jpeg given that there's no FOP in the Philippines for building constructed on of after November 14, 1972, per c:COM:FOP Philippines and the snowman imagery. The fireworks imagery per c:COM:CB#Fireworks displays, but not sure about the other stuff. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding FOP, I believe we accept {{FOP-USonly}} for images of buildings, regardless of where they are located. I am not sure about the snowman, though. Felix QW (talk) 13:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Deleted as a blatant copyright violation. The image was taken from Facebook. The freedom of panorama issues are moot. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at this IronGargoyle. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

PD-Italy file

Does File:Domenico Chirieleison.jpg need to be treated as non-free content for local Wikipedia use even though it's licensed as {{PD-Italy}}? Wikipedia is really only concerned with the copyright status of this under US copyright law, and if it's copyright was restored in the US as of Italy's URAA date, it would seem that this needs to be treated a non-free content here on Wikipedia. If it's PD in both the US and Italy, then it should be moved to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

If this is indeed a "simple photo" in the sense of Italian law, its copyright there expired 20 years after creation. It would therefore be free in the US too. I fixed the tag accordingly. Felix QW (talk) 12:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at this Felix QW. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Uploading an Image

I'm wondering if my image of Alexander Zverev can be uploaded to replace the one already on his home page, or is it copyrighted and has no excuse to use it. Big4tennis (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Big4tennis: Did you take the image you want to upload or did you find it somewhere online? If you took it yourself, and you want to release it under an acceptable free license as explained here, you can upload the image to Wikimedia Commons if you want. Whether it ends up being used in Alexander Zverev, however, could depend on whether a consensus is established in favor of doing so. If you didn't take the image yourself and just found it online, then you should assume it's protected by copyright and not OK to use unless it can be clearly shown to either have been already released by its copyright holder under an acceptable free license or you're able to obtain the copyright holder's WP:CONSENT to upload the file. Without either of these two things, any such image would need to be treated as non-free content and would not be allowed because it would be a violation of Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

If by home page you mean Alexander Zverev, we call that article around here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

File:CFA-AFC logo.png

File:CFA-AFC logo.png seems simple enough to be {{PD-logo}} per both c:COM:TOO US and c:COM:TOO Canada. The maple leaf imagery is pretty standard, and I don't think it's really eligible for copyright protection; however, there's something in the upper left gray quadrant that I'm unable to quite make out. It's an arc of some type, but it could just be from the low quality of the file. Can anyone determine what this might be? -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Marchjuly, have you checked out the archive link for the stated source? It looks to be a design element (bit of a puzzle piece outline) of the web page, not part of the logo. Commander Keane (talk) 10:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for checking on this. It seems that you're right in that the element is not part of the logo at all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

PD-US-expired?

If File:Frederick Baker 1914.jpg dates back to 1914 as its file description states, then it should have already entered the public domain by now, shouldn't it have? Can the file's licensing be changed to {{PD-US-expired}}? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

If it was published rather than merely created then, it would certainly be in the public domain. Since it very much looks like a formal portrait and sale to the sitter was generally held to constitute publication, I would support that assumption and would be comfortable with relicensing accordingly. Felix QW (talk) 09:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Richard Sharp Smith.png

Given that Richard Sharp Smith died in 1924, there seems to be a pretty good chance that File:Richard Sharp Smith.png can be relicensed as public domain per c:COM:US. Can this be relicensed as either {{PD-US-expired}}? -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I think so, by the same reasoning as in the thread below. Felix QW (talk) 09:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Internet Archive outage notice: non-free or PD-text?

File:Internet archive website, during DOS attack, 13th October 2024.png was uploaded as a non-free image; however, I don't see it as meeting the threshold of originality, especially the original October 13th upload which consisted of only three sentences of text. Unless anyone here thinks this should remain a non-free image, I intend to propose undeletion of the high-resolution versions and moving to Commons as facts, data, and unoriginal information which is common property without sufficiently creative authorship in a general typeface (from PD-text). Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 06:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Dan Leonard: I feel I agree here. Per C:COM:Screenshots, "screenshots must not be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons unless all content in them is under a free license or in the public domain", we have most of the stuff on this file free, including the Archive's logo. Whatever is little, could be considered de minimis. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 17:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Kemal and Magdalena Hemady.webp

I doubt that the file is subject to the NFCC as the file was first published and presumably registered in 1931 per its description and was in the public domain (at least in the Philippines) as early as 1962 per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#For works created before 1998. -Ian Lopez @ 08:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that is a perfectly reasonable analysis. One might question whether such a family photo were "published" in the sense of US law, a condition for it to be in the public domain in the US, but for that it would have sufficed if a professional photographer took it and sold it to their client. Felix QW (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Owl WTP.jpg

The image file, File:Owl WTP.jpg, must be uploaded onto either Wikimedia or Wikipedia, preferably Wikimedia, by someone who has an account. Oh, and in case you're wondering, it must be a picture of Owl from the Disney Winnie the Pooh franchise, and it must be this image here. Just click on the link [1]. 2601:401:4300:3720:4EB9:5BA8:5D2C:AEAF (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

There are couple of issues with your request. The first one is that it's not clear why it must be that particular image Wikipedia uses when any image of the character could possibly be used to serve the same encyclopedic purpose. If an image is needed, one from the original book itself or as close as possible to when the book was published would be much more preferable than someone's fan art image since it would be likely a much more accurate representation of how the book's author and its illustrator "saw" the character.

The other problem is that the provenance and copyright status of that fan art image is unclear, which most likely means it would need to be treated as non-free content. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is quite restrictive and non-free images are generally not considered acceptable to use for illustrating individual entries in list articles. This is probably the reason why there are only five images currently being used in that list article, none of which are licensed as non-free content. Since there doesn't seem to be an individual stand-alone article about the character "Owl", the list article is probably the only place to use it on Wikipedia, and given that the book itself seem to now be within the public domain, and images taken from it are also most likely within the public domain; this makes justifying the use of any non-free one in any article is likely going to be quite hard. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

There aren't any images of Owl from the Disney Winnie the Pooh franchise on Wikipedia, nor Wikimedia, for that matter. I need it for my draft article I'm working on Owl from "Winnie-the-Pooh". I need an image of Owl from the Disney Version of Winnie the Pooh. 2601:401:4300:3720:E295:6640:4B95:4922 (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

1. Such a use in an article is going to be a blatant copyright violation, not fair use; and Disney's copyright lawyers are notoriously merciless and well-funded. The same goes (but even more so) for uploading such an image to the Wikimedia Commons.

2. Fair-use images can't be used in drafts anyway. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't Gopher (Winnie the Pooh), with its fair use image, contradict this? Commander Keane (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Gopher (Winnie the Pooh) isn't a draft so Orangemike's point 2 above (i.e. WP:NFCC#9 and WP:Drafts#Creating and editing drafts) doesn't apply. As for point 1, the Gopher character seems to have been introduced by Disney in 1966 (i.e. it's not a character from the original book); so, it's use for primary identification purposes in a stand-alone article about the character is probably OK per relevant policy. It's use in other articles or in other ways, on the other hand, probably wouldn't be considered to be policy compliant; for example, trying to use in List of Winnie-the-Pooh characters is likely not going to be allowed per WP:NFLISTS and item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI. It's probably not a copyright violation per se (fair use could be argued perhaps) to try to use the file in such a way, but Wikipedia policy is much more restrictive than fair use. What could possibly be a copyright violation per WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion and WP:COPYLINK, though, is uploading an image posted on an online forum or fandom site, unless it's clear the site is either under the control of Disney or the image was uploaded by Disney. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I think I found something. Just click on this link right here [2]. 2601:401:4300:3720:ADE:BAB7:7DA:FE5E (talk) 20:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Aspects of twentieth century painting, 1963.pdf

Hi, This is a US publication, in the public domain due to lack of copyright notice, but it contains images of works of art from other countries, which are not in the public domain outside USA. For this reason, it is questioned on Commons. Would it be OK to move it on the English Wikipedia? Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

World Heritage Site nomination

The application[3] to UNESCO by (it seems) the Canadian government, contains, at a minimum, a very useful map showing the wreck sites of interest in Red Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador. (Search for "27M" or "24M" in the document and you will get to the maps that show the locations of these wrecks, as well as other archaeological sites on land and the proposed heritage site boundary.) The copyright situation here is beyond me. Who would own any copyright, the authors or UNESCO? In whichever case applies, do they assert copyright (I cannot find the word copyright in the document) and if so, how long would that last? The actual entry on the UNESCO site[4] gives me (but perhaps not others) little clue on the copyright status of any of this stuff, though I have spotted the copyright symbol on photos on the UNESCO site. It also seems to give a link in to the pdf file mentioned above ("the application"), but with no copyright statement that I can find. Is this a Canadian government situation? Even if it is, I need a bit of help on this.

Thanks, ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 21:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)