Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2016/February

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Use Of Photo For Infobox

I've been trying to use the File Upload Wizard, and it seems I'm going in circles. In a nutshell, I want to add a photo to an author's infobox. I have the photo I'd like to use. I have permission from both the photographer and the subject to use it on Wikipedia for this purpose. It is not a licensed photo - just a personal photograph taken and posted on facebook (where I found it - again, I have permission to use it for the infobox). As for copyright status, I'm not sure what to click and that's where I think I'm getting stuck - I'd probably indicate a "Copyright Photographer Name, Year" and thought that would be adequate to indicate this photo is not for commercial use, but that it can be posted here. Now, I'm either clicking the wrong things, or one really does have to jump through more hoops than I realized. Could someone please explain to me, in simple steps because I'm new to this, what I should do? Thank you so much! FarnsworthCrossing (talk) 05:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Permissions for "Wikipedia only" or "for non-commercial use only" are not allowed. All uploads need to be either freely licensed, or, in limited and specific cases, we can use copyrighted photos under a fair use doctrine and no permission is needed (for a photo of an author or any other person, this would almost always necessitate that they are deceased).
You most likely need to persuade the photographer to re-publish the photo under a free license. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Notices on material copied from Wikipedia to an outside publication

Greetings: Do you have a suggested form of citation for material quoted from Wikipedia? For example, where copying a chart or text into an outside article or publication, is it sufficient or necessary to say: Source: Wikipedia article, "Bla Bla" [02-01-16]? Is necessary to include, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bla_Bla? Would you suggest referring to copyright held in the quoted material. Or to the particular license referenced in Wikipedia under which the material was contributed by the editor or accepted by Wikipedia?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sokolesq (talk • contribs) 06:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content is the page you need to refer to. ww2censor (talk) 08:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Owner of a pic. What copyright??

I tried to post MY picture of the Solar one. I am th eowner and want to show the pic FREE. Everyone can copy the pic. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Khi_Solar_One_1200.jpg

What entry is necessary to NOT DELETE the pic from a robot Thanks Reinisch (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for the answer. Yes, I made the pic myself, pressed the button ;-)), saved the file and want to DONATE it to Wikipdia/English Version. What licence, I mean what snipp of text can someone build for me. I am no Wiki Editior, just want to add this stupid pic from far away... Pls. help. I am very happy to see South Africa starting with this project!!! Reinisch (talk) 11:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Is SVG copyrightable even if the resulting image is not?

I was answering a question at WP:SVG help#File:FiveThirtyEight Logo.svg when a copyright issue hit me. My understanding is that font faces are not subject to copyright protection. Adobe Systems got around that issue because it sold programs that drew the fonts: the program could be copyrighted even if the font could not.

The analogy is this. Say a logo or other simple image is not copyrightable. Is the SVG file (program) that draws such an image copyrightable? In other words, is copying such an SVG file from a website and putting it on a WP server a copyright violation?

Does it make a difference whether the SVG file was written by hand or a drawing program such as Adobe Illustrator was used?

Glrx (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

  • SVGs are potentially copyrightable even if their appearance is not, yes. I don't know enough to judge if hand made vs. program made would make a difference. If the program has human creative input, it would probably be copyrightable for the same reasons photographies are.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)If you constructed the image directly in Illustrator or an equivalent program and let that program spit out the SVG from your work, it is unlikely that the SVG would be copyrightable, as you are allowing a mechanical or algorithm process convert your on-screen image to code in a very deterministic way (that is, someone making the same logo would likely end up with a comparable SVG file, outside of things like position and length values), and there is no copyright there.
If you hand-wrote the SVG code directly, that may be different, but there's no strong case law to affirm or deny if the SVG code is protected like computer code (it's XML at its base so it has potential for that). If it were a situation on WP, we would likely presume that there is copyright on hand-written SVG code. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Being the person who asked the original question about the file in question, I was operating under the assumption that since Template:Should be SVG has a variable (I think that's what that'd be called) for logos, meaning that someone is saying that the logo should be an SVG, that all SVGs are fine for copyrighted material such as logos. If that's not the case, then there are a lot of images on here that need to be deleted. Elisfkc (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Also, Commons seems to have a lot of SVG files, and they don't allow copyrighted materials. Elisfkc (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Inspecting the code for that template, I don't think copyright has anything to do with the existence of that variable (although there are some implications about how to find SVGs for images when they are non-free). BTW, Commons does accept copyrighted material but only if it meets the requirements on commons:Commons:Licensing.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
If you, the Wikipedia editor, are making the SVG and then uploading it, we are assuming (though we should have licensing that is clear) that you are providing that SVG file as a CC-BY, PD, or otherwise uncopyrightable file with respect to the code, atop the uncopyrightable nature of the logo's graphic itself. If someone were to create the SVG of an uncopyrightable logo and then claim copyright on that SVG file and refuse to license as CC-BY/PD, we'd treat that as non-free and per NFCC#4, would not allow that file to be used. This is comparable to using a Wikipedia's photo of a building that falls in copyright but with the photo licensed freely, compared to a copyrighted photo of the copyrighted building without a free license; we always would use the first, "free-er" image than the second, despite both being technically non-free due to the building's copyright. --MASEM (t) 17:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Masem's answer fits my expectation. The Commons request is a general one for converting vector art from bitmap representations. Such conversions should probably not be done when the image is copyrightable and WP is using a low-resolution image under fair use: SVG images are intended to be high resolution. Glrx (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
So, I'm confused. SVGs aren't allowed for copyrighted logos? If that's true, then Category:Super Bowl logos is almost entirely in violation, as well as countless more images. Elisfkc (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
There is one exception we generally make for SVG logos and that is when the logo is copyrighted, if we can obtain the SVG directly from the organization or agency that holds the rights to that logo, we allow that SVG to be used instead of a raster image, if only to be true to the logo and avoid any mis-representations of it. This often is something that can be pulled out from official documentation that is provided in digital PDF form as SVGs can be embedded in that format (as, spot-checking the Super Bowl logos, this appears to be the case). We do not allow an SVG created by a third-party agency that does not appear to have control of the copyright logo, of which there are many websites that are just SVG logo warehouses. And we would certainly not accept a user-made SVG of a copyrighted logo for the same reason. --MASEM (t) 18:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Got it. So, all the SVGs I've been uploading that come directly from the source are ok, as is the image in question, since I pulled it from fivethirtyeight.com directly. Elisfkc (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, we would generally allow that. It is suggested to make sure to include the direct link to the SVG or PDF file you pulled it from on that website within the file's description page just to be clear where it came from and demonstrate that you nor any other editor crafted it. --MASEM (t) 18:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Use of original Photographs from the Deceased Estate of a Professional Photographer

Hello: I am a new contributor and have been referred here to clarify a question I have raised. A couple of years ago I purchased some original Photographs (Photographs only no Negatives as I believe they were either degraded or destroyed) from the Deceased Estate of a Professional (Motoring) Photographer. I know that a couple of these Photographs were published in at least two Motoring magazines/newspapers in 1973 and 1974 crediting but not declaring copyright of the Photographer. Also another couple of the Photographs have appeared on various websites uncredited however the majority of these Photographs have not been published in any form. I wish to clarify what the use of these Photographs that I have purchased would be on Wikipedia in these three mentioned cases that is : 1. Photograph/s that I purchased that were published and credited to but not declared copyright of the Photographer. 2. Photograph/s that I purchased that have appeared on the Internet uncredited. 3. Photographs that I purchased that have not been published in any form. Thanking You Regards Dora Domino (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Unless your purchase explicitly included the copyrights, these still belong to his estate until copyright expires, or possibly to the magazines that published them, or even a picture library/agency. If you did buy the rights, then as owner you can release them on an open licence. That's probably not much help, like most answers to copyright questions. Sorry. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Would you know how long Copyright would exist in this case if the images were taken in 1974 and published in 1973 and 1974? Thanking You Dora Domino (talk) 02:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu

Can this be used on here? http://www.gettyimages.ch/detail/nachrichtenfoto/director-alejandro-gonzalez-inarritu-attends-the-24th-nachrichtenfoto/459809640— Preceding unsigned comment added by Porcelainpink16 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

  • I've edited your post so as to remove the unnecessary markup. Getty Images images can pretty much never be used in Wikipedia articles, because they are fully copyrighted and you can't use them as fair use either because you'd encumber on their commercial opportunities too much, see WP:NFCC#2. In this case you are asking about a living person, so the image would fail WP:NFCC#1 (not replaceable with a free image) too.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I was trying to familiarize myself with the ways of Wikipedia uploading and used one of my pictures that I took as a file to practice with. No article or any subject in particular in mind... Just uploading a picture. Well, I just found that I had a message and it was regarding copyright and am learning ! It needed a copyright category and I'm not sure what it would be ? It's just a picture I had taken once.

What would the copyright type be for this ? How would I put my name to it I guess I am asking. There are a LOT of different ones to choose from. At least I am learning.

Thank you, bob gudgel boB K7IQ (talk) 07:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

This picture was one of a breakfast omelette simimlar to this picture... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omelette#/media/File:FoodOmelete.jpg

In this example, I see "public domain" as I did in a couple of other pictures of omelettes in Wikipedia. However, when looking at this picture and comment at the bottom of the page, she mentions that there was no copyright added to this picture and I think it has been on Wikipedia for quite a while ?

Public domain would certainly fit my picture as well I would say.

boB boB K7IQ (talk) 08:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

  • BoBK7IQ If this is a picture that you made yourself not based on someone else's work, you own a copyright on it, and in order to upload it you need to grant a free content license on it. There are many such licenses; I recommend {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} unless you prefer another. Free content should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. If you don't understand, or it is not your own work (now or later), ask for more info. —teb728 t c 08:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@BoB K7IQ: This page list all the free licences we accept (some are more appropriate to images than others). One of the most commonly used by media content creators are the Creative Commons licences one of which is mentioned above, but also {{self}}, in its various forms that you can see if you click on the template, and {{attribution}} are used. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page that goes through the issues editors and uploaders have with images. Hope that helps you get more familiar with copyright . ww2censor (talk) 09:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Is photo of Charles Davies Sherborn in public domain?

I'd like to add a photo to page on Charles Davies Sherborn. He died in 1942 so any photograph must be 74+ years old. There are several copies of this photo http://bdj.pensoft.net/showimg.php?filename=big_72070.jpg on the internet. Is it safe to assume it's in public domain? Glendoremus (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The same image has been published under a Creative Commons licence. But I'm a bit sceptical about it. Creative Commons licences require a link to the original licence and not just a phrase CC by 4.0, so is this actually valid? As to the age of the image, the copyright term in the UK is the life of the photographer plus 70 years, so if this was taken around 1940, the photographer would have had to die just a few years later for this being out of copyright. De728631 (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
http://zookeys.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=7460&display_type=list&element_type=8 could be the original publication. It features the CC-BY 4.0 note with a proper link. I am unsure about whether this covers the photos too, and little very details about them are provided. De728631's link provides more information and looks pretty legit. The omission of the link is probably a technical limitation on the side of the website. CC requires that the license is indicated "in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material. For example, it may be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information" (CC-By 4.0). In short, a link is probably ideal (and reasonable) on the web. I'm not sure if the omission of a link is a violation (probably just bad practice). You could contact their webmaster and inform about this. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Uploading pictures onto Sorana Cîrstea 's page

Hi, I would like to add some pictures on Sorana Cîrstea's page, but I am having a hard time uploading pictures. I would like to get the pictures from http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/yWgVQi5Oiuu/Australian+Open+Day+1/T71WqF5p1Jz/Sorana+Cirstea. I just have a hard time on picking the right copywrite information, so could you explain it to me, or upload some pictures on her page for me please. Thank You!Bryson483 (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Those can not be uploaded here, Bryson483. Those photos are copyrighted to Getty Images and they have not relinquished any rights to them. But don't worry, we have plenty of photos of her that you can use (add to the article) here: c:Category:Sorana Cîrstea. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Daniela Hantuchová picture

What did I do wrong in uploading that picture? I am still a little confused.Bryson483 (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

You need to give some specifics: what exactly did you do and what was the result? I see no uploads by you on either the English Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@Bryson483: I am guessing you uploaded File:Daniela Hantuchová at the 2015 French Open.jpg and it got deleted for violating WP:NFCC#1. We can generally not use non-free images of living people as they are replaceable; even if one does not exist someone could still create it.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
However, you can use something on commons:Daniela Hantuchová instead.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
And there are plenty more freely licenced images to be found on Flickr at: https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Daniela+Hantuchova&l=4 and https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Daniela+Hantuchova&l=5 ww2censor (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Image of Holly Arntzen

Is the image (public domain) OK now on Wikipedia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holly_Arntzen

BSmith821 (talk) 03:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@BSmith821: No, currently there is no evidence on the source webpage that the image File:TheWildswithHollyArntzen.jpg has been released into the public domain as claimed. You need to get the copyright holder, who is usually the photographer not the subject, to verify their permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

AEDP chart

I am trying to upload a diagram to an article I am creating: AEDP: Accelerated Experiential Dynamic Psychotherapy. You may be able to see that I have made numerous efforts. The diagram is not copyrighted. However, I have permission to use this from the creator of the diagram. On one try I stated the author of the upload was me, but It is not me, it is Diana Fosha. I stated it was me as an effort to bypass the copyright questions that I cannot seem to get around. Carrieruggieri (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Can material from Metapedia be copied here without any attribution?

This link[1] was basically copying material from Metapedia's article on white nationalism to ours. Metapedia uses the GNU. Should the editor have given any indication where they copied from? The metapedia article is at en.metapedia.org/wiki/White_nationalism (not sure the filter won't catch this when I save). Doug Weller talk 15:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi I took that photo myself. How do I add a copyright not to it? Sorry I don't understand.

JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.D. Holiday (talk • contribs) 23:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, J.D. Holiday. If you want to use that photo you took (File:Jan8-25-10 85x67 Magicblox.JPG) here you can do so by releasing it into the public domain. Do this by adding the code {{PD-author}} on the file description page. Note that this means anyone can use the photo for any purpose anytime, and you can not regain your exclusive copyright to it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's you photo, so you own the copyright but to upload it here your must release it under a free licence, such as {{self}}, {{attribution}} or one of the other image appropriate licences found one this webpage or if you are prepared to release it into the public domain use the template mentioned above. You must also fill in the details in the {{information}} template (click on the link to see what info is needed) that I have added to the image File:Jan8-25-10 85x67 Magicblox.JPG which I assume is the one you are asking about. ww2censor (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I will add {{self}} Thank you, JD 2-5-16 — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.D. Holiday (talk • contribs) 17:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
You still need to add a licence to the {{self}} tag. Click on the template to see your options and choose one to complete the tag. ww2censor (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Jordanian–Syrian border incidents during the Syrian Civil War

[2] Can the image here be considered as "Images with iconic status or historical importance" criteria for free use? --Makeandtoss (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC) ....Makeandtoss (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it is. Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima is an iconic picture. Your picture meets WP:NFCC#1 but it doesn't meet WP:NFCC#8. There is nothing in the article that could me misunderstood or misinterpreted by omitting the picture. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Some were arguing that the Jordanians were lying and that they were normal refugees not armed infiltrators, I thought this would act as proof..So it does meet #8 Makeandtoss (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
@Finnusertop: Makeandtoss (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
No, I disagree, Makeandtoss. There isn't support for this "seeing is believing" kind of approach in the image use policy. Argumentation within an article is generally done with text and the sources that back it up. If you don't think that some people are going to believe what is being said, you have a problem with either those people (and as far as Wikipedia is concerned, we don't accommodate skeptics of this kind by bending our rules in their favor), or with those sources (in which case, you'd need better reliable sources). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Dominika Cibulkova Pictures

I'm also having a hard time on finding good pictures of Dominika Cibulkova for 2016.Bryson483 (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

We don't have any, it seems (c:Category:Dominika Cibulková). But why do they need to be from 2016? Is there a point in the article Dominika Cibulkova that needs to be specifically illustrated? In general, photos that identify the person (in the infobox) need not be up to date to such degree. The key is are the recognizable, and people seldom undergo drastic changes in appearance within a year. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File:DanielVassilieffwithDorisandLawrenceOgilvie1935.jpg

I have received a messsage about the copyright of File:DanielVassilieffwithDorisandLawrenceOgilvie1935.jpg

I feel that I have left clear information about my copyright to this photo of my parents and Daniel Vassilieff.Duncanogi (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Greetings, @Duncanogi:. The bot is tagging your image because it can't find a copyright tag. Something like {{self|<Insert a license here>}} is necessary as a copyright tag. Also, generally one says who was using the camera when the photo was made, since that is the all-important information for copyright purposes.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually {{self|<Insert a license here>}} is not the best because you did not actually take the photo. Because you are an heir, you should upload it to the commons where they have an heirs copyright template at c:commons:Template:PD-heirs while the best you can find here is {{PD-because|insert reason here}}. ww2censor (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Huh. I was inferring from the image description that Duncanogi was the copyright holder.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Pictures

How do you make the pictures smaller because they are wayyyyyy to big! Bryson483 (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Bryson483: I assume you are referring to the infobox image in Sorana Cîrstea. I've fixed it for you. ww2censor (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Pictures

How can you tell if a website allows you to use the pictures they have on it. I mean for tennis players. How can you tell? Bryson483 (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

  • @Bryson483: You need to check their copyright license, which is typically in the bottom bar, beneath images, or on Terms of Use pages. If it mentions "Creative Commons" and doesn't mention "noncommercial", "all rights reserved" or "no derivatives" (shortened as "NC" or "ND", usually), it usually qualifies.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
In general most images you find on the internet are copyright to someone unless they are specifically noted to be freely licenced. However, there may not always be a copyright notice on a webpage, so the lack of such a notice does not mean it is freely licenced. Just be careful and look around or search the site for a copyright statement which may be on a different page than the image you are interested in. if you need we can review any image you find before you upload it. ww2censor (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Video/Website...?

May I add these to this article...?

— 2601:183:4000:D5BD:C577:EF5D:6FA8:1A02 (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Add this article (see below) for THIS ARTICLE...?

— 2601:183:4000:D5BD:C577:EF5D:6FA8:1A02 (talk) 23:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks but one request is enough. BTW, there is no need to SHOUT, i.e., use CAPs. The docuwiki image have no source or author information, not a copyright status, so we don't know if they are freely licenced or not, so no we can't use them without that information. The YouTube link does not work, so I can't help you on that but YouTube videas have a "SHOW MORE" button below each video and that show you the licence. The Godzilla page has a copyright notice so unless you can verify the artist has freely licenced the image, again the answer is no. Also, even if that was a good image it is noted to be inaccurate, so I would certainly not recommend you using it anyway. Sorry to give you bad news. ww2censor (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

License of Wikipedia image

what will be the license information for the logo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Authorspress_Logo_2016.png This picture is a logo of the publishing house, Authorspress and i have requested from the publisher. it was created in the year 1999. The CEO, Mr Sudarshan Kcherry of Authorspress holds the copyright for this picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prinshukr (talk • contribs) 09:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

what would be the license information for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phenomenal_literature-logo.jpg & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phenomenal_Literature.jpg The present picture is the logo of the journal. It was got prepared by the journal's chief editor, Vivekanand Jha. He holds its copyright and he gave me permission to use this photograph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prinshukr (talk • contribs) 09:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@Prinshukr: there are uses that require permission and uses that don't. Of the former, you have not acquired a permission that is acceptable for us. "You can use these photos on Wikipedia" is not the kind of free license that we can accept, so your permission is null and void. If they indeed said they are willing to license these images with CC-BY 2.5 India - then we need proof of it.
Let's turn to uses that don't need permission. These are done under the fair-use doctrine and in agreement with our non-free content policy. The way you are using the cover of the journal is certainly okay, but you just need to spell out a rationale (Template:Non-free use rationale 2) and use the correct copyright tag (Template:Non-free magazine cover). The logo of the magazine is ok, too, if you move it to the infobox and write a rationale and use the correct copyright tag (Template:Non-free logo). For the press logo, I can't tell because it's not used anywhere. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/use-this-image.php?mkey=mw192360 is a photo of Mary Catherine (née Sackville-West), Countess of Derby which has a Creative Commons licence but I don't know if that means it can be used on wikipedia. Is there someone who can read the page and let me know if I can upload a copy for the article on the subject or not? Plz help... 🍺 Antiqueight chat 22:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

No, this is not compaitible as it is non-commercial and no-derivatives. We require a freer CC licnse than that. However the original image is very likely public domain in the USA, and usable. Also see National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I kinda thought that was likely the case but I wasn't sure. I'll take another look around at other locations for images for this article. 🍺 Antiqueight chat 21:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Where should I report an image which breaches copyright?

This is about File:A_Summer_Nightmare_and_Other_Poems.jpg

It is an image of a book cover. It has been uploaded as "own work", which seems unlikely, as the book is still protected by copyright. I have searched for a place to report it or a tag to place, without success. Maproom (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I've tagged it for deletion on the commons at: c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:A Summer Nightmare and Other Poems.jpg. ww2censor (talk) 11:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Is it okay to uplaod this picture?

Hello, I'm new to wikipedia and want to add a picture to an article I'm translating. I read the picture guidelines, but I want to make sure that I don't do anything wrong either way. The picture I want to upload is this: http://img.inven.co.kr/column/jukz_pre_reporter_2012_2/20120517153456928.JPG, which can be found here: http://m.inven.co.kr/webzine/wznews.php?idx=96463&site=it , on a korean news website. Is uploading this picture okay? I'm a bit confused by all the information on here. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeanutsLife (talk • contribs) 10:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not okay, PeanutsLife. The bottom of the page says "Copyright ⓒ Inven Communications. All rights reserved" and without anything on the pictures, we are assuming that those are copyrighted too. This would be the case even without a copyright notice; content you find on the web is assumed to be copyrighted by default. There would have to be an explicit release under a free license of the photos for us to be able to use them. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Turns out we have such a confirmation on a very similar image, that you can use: File:Park Ji-soo (Millenium.ForGG) from acrofan.jpg. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Using your photos.

Dear Wiki,

What are your rules concerning use of your photos by others? I'm a blogger and would find this very convenient. I have no problem tagging each photo with proper credit to your site. However I have no budget to pay a fee.

Many thanks for your attention. Sincerely, Larry Powell www.PlanetInPeril.ca — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenSenior (talk • contribs) 23:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

What does it mean when the media has a copyright on it, and why does it matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.219.127.131 (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

You should probably read Copyright for an understanding of copyright and especially the Exclusive rights section. ww2censor (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Location of meso-zeaxanthin at the macula.jpeg

Hello, I updated the image copyright on the file "Figure2 Location of meso-zeaxanthin at the macula". Can you advise that this is now correct and can be uploaded to the meso-zeaxanthin wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macularcarotenoids (talk • contribs) 14:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

How do I do that? Will a letter from all authors suffice?. Niamh Owens — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macularcarotenoids (talk • contribs) 14:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
You all authors to verify their permission by email. That procedure can be found at WP:CONSENT. Otherwise it will be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I have emailed as requested, when can i expect the figure to be u on the Wikipedia page? --Macularcarotenoids (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

There was also a cc-by license on the source website, that may be enough. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Shirley Walker image

How do you post a picture on Shirley Walker? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ty45674 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ty45674: I see the image File:Shirley Walker.jpeg but we need to know where it came from, when it was published, who the author is and when, or if, they are alive or dead. This all affects the copyright status of the image. I see you also uploaded it to the commons and there you claim it as your own work but tineye.com finds several copies on the internet, so I doubt you actually are the photographer of this image. Please provide true and accurate information about it. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 11:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Scientific images

Hi I'm starting to edit wikipedia page articles primarily of a scientific nature. For these articles many of the best images are present in the published scientific literature. Under what circumstances can I use these images? If I found them on google search? If the article is open access? Can I request permission from the author or does it need to be the journal?

Thanks Aidan Haslam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidan Haslam (talk • contribs) 15:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Greetings, @Aidan Haslam:. As a general rule, almost all images in journals are copyrighted unless the journal is very old, and when they are copyrighted they are typically not under a free license. Even "open access" journals are frequently not freely licensed. So you'd have to ask either the journal or the authors for permission, depending upon who has the copyright on the images in question.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Can this image be used here?

Can the png image of the phone from this webste be used in this article by the rationale of fairuse? Thanks Ayub407talk 06:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The website also it's media-kit here. Can it be used at common under which rationlate? I'll use it here only. I will be upload the image by the non-free promotional rationale. Ayub407talk 07:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Not on Commons for sure. The website has an explicit copyright notice at the bottom and no evidence of a free license anywhere. Now if the current non-free images are the only ones that exist about that upcoming smartphone, then it can be held on enWikipedia as fair use, but afterwards you'd have to start looking for (or creating yourself) a free image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I've got to disagree slightly with Jo-Jo Eumerus' advise on this one because as this phone obviously exists, be it in tiny quantities, a freely licenced image could be made and therefore any image of it fails the first criteria of WP:NFCC#1. It just needs a person to gain access to it, maybe at a trade show or promotional event. Remember that for living people, where there is obviously only one available, we don't allow non-free images of such people, so a phone of which there are no doubt a few copies is no different. Many biographies of living people lack images because no freely licenced image is available and this will be the same until a free image is provided. ww2censor (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

What is the right tag for something designated as Public Domain Mark 1.0 in Flickr

Hello, Thank you for your help.

I have been going around in circles trying to figure this out. There is a picture in Flickr/https://www.flickr.com/photos/138035511@N02/24920150785/in/dateposted-public/ that I uploaded into the Commons/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Erin_in_White_Blouse.JPG that I want to use in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Aubry_Kaplan.

Since it is designated "Public Domian" and further because the author has given permission in an email,I am confident the picture is fine, but I am told that I need to "TAG" it properly or it will be deleted.

I have looked at the list on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:File_copyright_tags/All#General and am mystified about what to pick.

Can you help? Which "tag" do I use? Do I need to take a different approach somehow?

Thanks David Blake — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidsBlake (talk • contribs) 00:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC) DavidsBlake (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

You could try {{PD-author|name}} where another author has dedicated this work to the public domain. This can apply in the USA or Philippines. Otherwise a CC-zero license could be used if in another country. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually the public domain mark on the image may not be as easy as Graeme suggests based on this post and this discussion on the commons. The best option is for the photographer to verify their permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. ww2censor (talk) 11:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both,

I have since had the photographer change the license designation in Flickr from "Public Domain" to "cc0". From what I have read [here|https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/Flickr_and_PD_images] it seemed that this should cover the license requirements, But I am unsure of the mechanics of "tagging" it properly. Do I simply put a "

" in the body of the description of the [file|/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Erin_in_White_Blouse.JPG] I created in the commons? Thanks 17:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

File:CSULA plaque007.jpg

There was a question about copyright for an image I uploaded Image:CSULA plaque007.jpg.

It was provided to me by the spouse of that person and it was her personal photo since the late 1960's and transfered to a bronze plaque when the University dedicated their baseball field to Coach Reeder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LASKOA (talk • contribs) 21:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Non-Free Criteria

Hi! I am trying to include a picture of the artist for the Wikipedia Article, Molly Upton. I completed the non-free section for a Wikipedia image upload and have received a message that the criteria may not be adequate. Help?Tapestry1 (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Tapestry1. The problem with your image is that it there is no indication that it was previously published anywhere (we call this "non-free content criteria number 4"). We cannot use images that are previously unpublished in this fashon. (I'm assuming the reason is because it makes our fair use claim stronger). Has this been ever published before? Did you get this photo directly from the photographer? If you answer "yes" to both, you should either ask them to publish this elsewhere first or - ideally - agree to publish it here under a free license (here's how). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I also have a question about why the photo I uploaded to Wikipedia has the wrong orientation and how I can edit that?Tapestry1 (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
You need to add the {{Transform-rotate}} template to the image page with the appropriate degree of rotation required (click on the link to see how to use it). ww2censor (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

PD-India

Hello. I am Pavanjandhyala, an Indian wikipedian interested in Telugu film-related articles. As per {{PD-India}} template, i came to know that images and screenshots of films released before 1 January 1956 are in public domain in India. Knowing this, i uploaded an image of actor N. T. Rama Rao from Missamma (1955) (which was released on 12 January 1955) on Wikimedia Commons. Here it is. But, i later came to know that images which are also free in the US are acceptable by the commons. So, i uploaded an image of actress Jamuna from the same film at Wikipedia with PD-India license. This is the file. Now, the way the licensing appears has left me concerned. I aim to provide valid, legitimate free images of actors/actresses of the black-and-white era by using the screenshots of their films released before 1 January 1956. Please let me know whether i was right in the Jamuna's upload. If i am wrong, please suggest me the right way to do. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Indian copyright of films is 60 years but that is not the only concern. The image must also be copyright free in the US. You may find it useful to read: c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory#India but notice that the Berne convention applies which means any image still in copyright on 1 January 1996 are still in copyright in the US so we cannot use them. You also should familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Restored copyrights and you can use the 4-point text you will find there to determine if your image is allowable or not. So c:File:NTR Missamma.jpg has had a {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} template applied to the image. ww2censor (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

File:John Marshall of Tas.jpg

Hi all. I am a new editor on Wikipedia and need help on copyright status of the above noted file. The file was uploaded by a previous editor from an Tasmanian government published book A History of Tasmanian Cricket, written by Roger Page. The Australian government website says the published book and its contents are no more under copyright (clicking on "Check copyright status" at http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/26335298?selectedversion=NBD2292663 gives this: "Out of Copyright ---- Reason for copyright status: Since 2007 [Created/Published Date + 50 Years]")

That is, under Australian government, this book is copyright free. The question I have is, is it out of copyright in the US too? Wikipedia's copyright content guideline gives a test here:

  • Was the work published after January 1, 1923 but before the effective date of copyright relations between the source country and the United States? If YES, then the work is in the public domain in the United States.

By this above test, the file seems to be in public domain in the US too. Am I on the right path or am I horribly wrong? Please help. I don't want to end up digging a grave for myself, jumping into it and putting sand all over me. Xender Lourdes (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Xender Lourdes, unfortunately it would appear not. The book was published in 1957, which means it became public domain in Australia in 2007, as the Australian site indicates. Per the copyright guideline you cite, you should apply the rule of restored copyrights before subsisting copyrights. According to the four-point rule there, since (a) Australia is a WTO member or a Berne Convention signatory, (b) the work is copyrightable in the US, (c) the work was published after 1923, and (d) the work was still under copyright in Australia on the date of restoration, 1 January 1996, that would mean the US copyright persists.
I see that the image previously had a non-free use rationale - it would be appropriate to restore that. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the reply Nikkimaria. The page you refer to also suggests that in case the work is found to be copyrighted under the Restored copyrights, one should then go to the subsisting copyrights rule and test it there. In other words, should not we be using the subsisting copyrights rule as suggested by the guideline you have referred? Thanks again for the invaluable assistance. Xender Lourdes (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Scratch my response above. You are right and I thank you for the guidance. Gave me good learning on this issue. Thank you. Xender Lourdes (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Facing problem in accessing

Dear Wikipedia

I am getting a problem to access the licence please apply the licence fro your side. i have not much knowledge in it. i had upload some thing important to me.

Please solve the problem ASAP

Thanks & Regards Syed Baqar Imam Rizvi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed Baqar Imam Rizvi (talk • contribs) 14:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm assuming this is about File:Syed Baqar Imam Rizvi.jpeg, Syed Baqar Imam Rizvi. Where did you get this photo from? Who took the photo? Is the photo released under a free license by the photographer? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  • It would appear the image was taken from somewhere. There's a derivative image at this location, but it's slightly smaller and color/tone balanced so I doubt it's the original source. The source is unknown at this point. Imagetaggingbot tagged it, but the uploader removed the tagging. I restored the tagging. Since the subject is in the photograph, the subject does not own the copyright to the image unless there's a specific release from the photographer to the subject. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


All pictures uploaded on File:Syed_Baqar_Imam_Rizvi.jpeg is my own and i have taken that pictures from my camera. Please solve this problem. Thanks & regards Syed Baqar Imam Rizvi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed Baqar Imam Rizvi (talk • contribs) 15:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Low resolution album cover replaced with higher resolution - a problem?

I noticed today that a newish user, Oneclicklogin replaced File:Ofmontrealcherrypeel.gif with File:Cherry Peel (Front Cover).png, a higher resolution copy of the same image, in the article Cherry Peel. File:Ofmontrealcherrypeel.gif is, of course, now set to be deleted as an unused non-free image.

My understanding of the non-free content policy is that we are to use the lowest resolution image that still serves to identify the product. Are Oneclicklogin's actions in replacing the low-resolution image with a higher-resolution image inappropriate, and should we replace the new image with the old one? Or should we leave it alone? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

To note, the original was 200x200, the new one 316x316. In either case, these are within the limits we give for non-free (aiming for 0.1 megapixels or less), and I believe that the album wikiproject recommends 300x300. I don't think the larger image is really necessary, but its also not against any exacting policy; we do ask for using the smallest image possible to identify the work, but at the same time, infoboxes tend to be 250px or larger so the 200px image may be offputting and the larger 300px size can help. I would say this is a matter for content discussion since neither case would be an NFC violation of any reasonable degree. --MASEM (t) 16:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
The misconception is that I am simply replacing the covers with higher resolution copies of the same image. That is not true. I am replacing the image with an actual official unadulterated copy of the image that is not bad quality. The other images are not only low res, the original images that they are resized from are also bad quality. If you wish for me to resize my images to 300x300, I will do so. Oneclicklogin (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Existing image confusion

Hello, I noticed that my Gravity Falls userbox has had its image taken away due to its failure of the non-free image policy. However, I did not upload the image and since it already existed, I wanted to put it in my userbox. There has been a misunderstanding, and I wanted to ask how to fix it and put it in my userbox again. Userbox location: User:Seelamviraj/Userboxes/Gravity Falls. File:Gravity Falls logo.png Seelamviraj (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Seelamviraj. It's not a misunderstanding. Some files can only be uploaded on Wikipedia as non free files and their use is subject to limitations. One of these limitations is WP:NFCC#9, which says that these files can only be used in articles and never in userboxes on userpages. See the image description page for information on how and in what articles it can be used: File:Gravity Falls logo.png. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I am considering asking Disney to license the image, but I just wanted to let you know that I did not know it was a non-free image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seelamviraj (talk • contribs) 19:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
But what about the GradeAUnderA userbox? That picture was removed as well. I guess that is also non-free. Seelamviraj (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

How to upload historical publications which were made public knowledge

How can I upload a pdf copy of an original document that is / was "Public Knowledge" and was originally issued in the newspapers of the day (upwards of 100 years ago) and as such became widely read and available to the public at large?

CanadianAME (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Canadian AME

Public knowledge or available to the public at large does not actually mean such publication are freely licenced but if it was published in the US before 1923 then it is the public domain. Other countries have other rules but at 100+ years old you will most likely be OK but please refer to c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory. Publications are best uploaded to the WikiSource Library, if appropriate, where they can be available to all wikis or to the commons. ww2censor (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Update a Picture

Hi there, Could anyone update the first picture on the University of Bristol page? The crest used currently on the wiki page is not the official one (it is for the alumni). Could anyone do this?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bristolian00 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Exactly which image are you suggesting is the current crest you think should be uploaded and added, and why to you say the existing crest is only for the alumni? There is also a logo a the bottom of the infobox which appears to be the current official website's logo. That is really all that is justified for the infobox. ww2censor (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

North Korea

General question about North Korea. I notice that a lot of NK-related articles lack images, particularly images of everyday life (and death). This is understandable -- in many cases, the images simply aren't available. Even when they are, copyright is often unclear. In light of this, are we simply stuck? Mostly, this post is a plea for ideas.CometEncke (talk) 14:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Yes, images are hard to come by there and freely licensed ones will be rarer still and difficult to create. WP:NFCC#1 does still apply in NK articles though - we have repeatedly rejected to have a non-free photography of Kim Jong-un for example.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Can you give some examples, CometEncke? In my experience, the problem is not that images aren't simply available, but that many topics are neglected because of systemic bias. When it's about North Korea in particular, people generally think about military and political affairs and disregard culture and everyday life. Commons has many great images from NK (a few travel agencies provide us with amazing scenes of daily life: see eg. c:Category:Photographs by Uri Tours) Proof of neglect is that most of these images are poorly categorized, so it takes time to find what you want - but at least it's there. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Including third party images

I'm expanding these wikipedia articles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasmine_43 and https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasmine_43

I found here "http://www.lexpev.nl/minesandcharges/europe/germany/glasmine43.html" useful images taken from a person, following the copyright info I "found" and reached him by email.

I asked him if it was ok to include (some of) his images in the Wikipedia articles and he expressed no problem about it.

Which is the correct procedure, how should I go on? How can he "release" some of his images to be used (without backfires) inside the article?

The Internet is not free, but also would be bad to have his images end up in a book because they were on the wild on Wikipedia. Which use policy would apply in this case?

Thanks!

Camp0s (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Images cannot be allowed just for wikipedia use, they must be freely licenced. The copyright holder, who is usually the photographer and unlikely the webmaster, though they may own some must release the images, needs to follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. ww2censor (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Right, I noticed later the various image sources. I've seen other type of licences for images, is there some special reduced licences that can be applyed in this case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camp0s (talk • contribs) 11:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately I'm sorry to say no. All the images could be rephotographed by someone else and freely licenced, and even the illustration could be recreated by the graphics lab, so they would fail the first requirement for a non-free image per our non-free media policy requirements. Have you searched c:Category:Landmines for any suitable images? ww2censor (talk) 11:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear all,

I would like to know what kind of copyright I need to specify if the image I have uploaded is the Logo of the organization I work for (The OECD Development Centre), and therefor has no copyright.

Thank you kindly,

Irit and The Development Centre Comm's Team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VED sur seine (talk • contribs) 16:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

  • @VED sur seine: Greetings. There are two options. The first is that you add {{Non-free use rationale logo|Article=OECD Development Centre|Use=Infobox}}. The second is that if you are editing on behalf of the company, you ask the company to freely license the logo in accordance with what is explained on WP:IOWN.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
    • It helps us to answer your question if you tell us why it has no copyright. Your website has the following to say about the logo: "The OECD encourages you to use its logo when linking or referring to the OECD" - but this does not mean that it is not under copyright. Quite the contrary, they go on to say that: "All reproductions of the OECD logo must respect the current rules for use and the OECD’s corporate identity." This implies it is under copyright, and that they have chosen to exercise their copyright by licensing it in this peculiar way. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Signature

Hi,

I own a copy of the book George Baldessin: Sculpture and Etchings. A memorial exhibition, published in 1983 by the National Gallery of Victoria. Both the cover and the frontispiece depict a reproduction of George Baldessin's signature. Do I have to ask the NGV for permission to use it?

Sorry if the question may sound dumb, but I'm a novice. Markhole (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Markhole: See c:Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Short, 30 second audio clip

Hi,

I would like to upload a short, 30 second clip from a copyrighted song by the band Dream Theater for an article of theirs (The Astonishing). I would like to upload it as it encapsulates a lot of the background that is discussed in the article, namely, that it uses choirs and has more acoustic playing than their usual stuff. Does this sound like a good enough reason to have a sound clip, and if so, what are the best settings to upload it in? My current plan is to load it in a 16 bit FLAC format.--Ktmartell (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

It's good enough a reason if it meets all 10 Non-free content criteria. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music samples. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2016/February&oldid=1138542458"