Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2017/November

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Turin Metropolitan Railway Service Logos

All the logos are being used in Turin metropolitan railway service. File:Turin Metropolitan Railway Service - Line 1 Logo.svg, File:Turin Metropolitan Railway Service - Line 2 Logo.svg and File:Turin Metropolitan Railway Service - Line B Logo.svg are licensed as non-free content, while File:Turin Metropolitan Railway Service - Line 3 Logo.svg, File:Turin Metropolitan Railway Service - Line 4 Logo.svg, File:Turin Metropolitan Railway Service - Line 6 Logo.svg, File:Turin Metropolitan Railway Service - Line 7 Logo.svg and File:Turin Metropolitan Railway Service - Line A Logo.svg are licensed as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. Any opinions on which licensing is correct? -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Uplodating screenshot of Dashboard (SaaS platform)

Hi, I would like to upload the screenshot of Ning.com Dashboard. Could you please help me on the right to publish this work?

When I was making a screenshot, I was on internal page of my network. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutsnatalie (talk • contribs) 08:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nutsnatalie: Greetings. What do you want to use the screenshot for? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Hi, I want to show the admin panel of the product. Ning.com inside - how the dashboard looks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutsnatalie (talk • contribs)
That does not seem to be a good reason for uploading an almost certainly copyrighted screenshot, to be honest. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Website screenshot

Is it allowed to create a website screenshot, and to add this to an article? I want to make a screenshot from http://blessonline.net (Or from a Twitch streamer, who streams the game) and add it to Bless Online (video game). prokaryotes (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, if the article would suffer from its absence. Note that it almost certainly falls under fair use. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
What kind of license should I use? And well, suffering from its absence, that's very vague :D prokaryotes (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, WP:NFCC#8 says Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding so unless that website freely licenses its interface (I saw no evidence of that) such a screenshot would have to abide with the pedantic NFCC criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Photograph of Henryk Picheta

I would like to upload a photograph of my grandfather, to add to his page on Polish Wikipedia. The photograph is in my family photo album, and was taken c.1939 in Poland. What is the copyright status for something like this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romi56 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Copyright belongs to the photographer and to his heirs. So we'd need to know the photographer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
It depends if, where and when it was published. If it was published in Poland before 1989, it could be in the public domain. See Commons:Template:PD-Polish. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but I don't think "family photo albums" are usually published. Or at least not in ways that we could recognize as "published". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it was ever published. Don't copyrights expire after some time? it is almost 80 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romi56 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes they do, sometimes you need to wait more than 80 years and sometimes the clock starts ticking after the death of the photographer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Non-free alternate covers

I was made aware of The Time (Bros album), which shows both File:The Time (Bros album) cover.jpeg and File:Bros - The Time U.S cover.jpg in the infobox. Both images have identical fair use rationales that claim the images are both "the primary visual image associated with the work". Neither image is the subject of critical discussion in the article itself. I don't see how both can be "primary" and have tagged the US cover for deletion because its fair use rationale seems dubious and it violates WP:NFCC#3, the "minimal use" criterion: One non-free cover image should suffice. I'm not all that familiar with this application of the NFCC and would appreciate if someone else could confirm my reasoning. There's a similar situation at To the Next Level, with File:To the Next Level.jpg and File:To the Next Level (US Cover).jpg; if I'm right, one of the two should be deleted, if I'm wrong, I'll add the alternate cover to the infobox in that article. Huon (talk) 01:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Using one image to illustrate the cover is fairly common usage. Using two has been contentious in the past, with the second image often deleted under WP:NFCC#3 at FFD. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Just a point that there could, theoretically, be an example where the alternative cover has has enough coverage as to meet the #8 threshold. If that is the case then I would assume it would be fine. Most of the time though, the alternative cover is just being used as a "this exists" kinda thing without any additional comment. In that case, it definitely doesn't meet fair use standards. --Majora (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

File:DFBTriangles.svg

This file is essentially the same as File:DFBTriangles.svgFile:Deutscher Fußball-Bund logo.svg found on Commons. If the Commons licensing is correct, there seems to be no reason that the previous version of the logo needs to be treated as non-free, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC); (Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to add link to Commons file -- 05:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC))

I assume you are referring to commons:File:Deutscher Fußball-Bund logo.svg. The file "DFBTriangles.svg" does not exist on Commons. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 03:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for noticing that Anon126. Yes, that is the Commons file I'm referring to. Silly error on my part. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

How to add author photo to author page?

How can I add Nancy Pearl's official author photo to her page, using the right terminology? I have no way to take her photo or to ask her to waive copyright if that's what required. I do feel it's important to have an author's photo on her page. Since she has an official photo used online and on her Amazon page, I had thought that would be enough.

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

Please advise. Thanks.

MedCircus (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@MedCircus: You need to ask Mrs Pearl to put that photo under a free license. I think that the photographer would have to do so, however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
@MedCircus: Just to elaborate on what Jo-Jo Eumerus posted above, there are basically two types of image files used on Wikipedia based upon how they are licensed: non-free content and "free content" (i.e., public domain or freely licensed). Non-free content use is quite restrictive, and each use is required to satisfy all ten non-free content criteria listed in WP:NFCCP. One of these criteria is WP:NFCC#1 and it basically states that non-free content should only be used when no free content is currently available or could not be created. There is a long-standing consensus not to allow non-free images to be used for the primary means of identification in articles about still-living individuals except in certain cases (see item #1 of WP:NFC#UUI) when the individual in question's Wikipedia notability rests in a large part on their physical appearance. So, it seems unlikely that any "official photo" you may find online at websites such as Amazon, etc. would be be considered acceptable for non-free use, unless you can clearly show that it has been released under a free license or that the photo is for some reason in the public domain. Also, as Jo-Jo pointed out, it is generally the photographer who took the photo and not the subject of the photo who is considered to hold the copyright on it unless there has been some kind of official copyright transfer agreement; so, Ms. Pearl may not even be the copyright holder of any of the images you may find of her online. It's kinda hard to be more specific than that without knowing more about the actual photo you want to use.
Just for reference, it is possible to request a photo of someone by posting at WP:RP or even c:COM:PR, and some people even trying directly contacting image copyright holders (see Wikipedia:Example requests for permission), but I'm afraid you're going to need to find a free image to use if you want to add one to the article.
Finally, just a bit of Wikispeak perhaps, but the article is not really Ms. Pearl's page per se, but rather an encyclopedic article written about her. Neither she nor anyone connected to the page have any ownership rights over it; so, even if she or someone connected to her possibly gives the "OK" to use a photo of her in the article, Wikipedia would still need for the file to be freely licensed in accordance with WP:CONSENT since permission to "use on Wikipedia only" would mean that the file would still be treated as non-free and thus almost certainly would not considered acceptable to use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

File:World Press Photo.tif

It doesn't seem like File:World Press Photo.tif needs to be non-free, but I'm not 100% sure if this would be considered "so trivial or banal" per c:COM:TOO#Netherlands. Could a simple text logo such as this be considered the "personal mark of the maker"? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Plain text in red envelope is highly unlikely to meet any definition of "personal mark". Of course I am not a Dutch copyright judge, so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Invoiceinterchange logo.png

Not sure what to do with File:Invoiceinterchange logo.png. It seems like an obvious candidate for either {{PD-logo}} or at the very least {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} and it appears to be a legitimate logo, but it's not clear if it's ever going to be used (User:Fierystar/Invoiceinterchange) given the fact that this is a new editor working on their first article which might have WP:COI/WP:PAID issues as well as WP:CORP problems. Any value in converting this to PD and tagging for a move it to Commons? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see information on copyright in Singapore, so PD-USonly seems fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Manx Telecom infobox files

File:Manx telecom new logo.svg and File:Manx Telecom logo (text).png are being used in the infobox of Manx Telecom. The first file is licensed as {{PD-textlogo}} while the second file is licensed as {{Non-free logo}}. I'm not sure about the TOO of the Isle of Mann, but if it's similar to c:COM:TOO#United Kingdom, then there's agood chance that the first file might be eligible for copyright protection because the UK's TOO is quite low. If that's the case, I think it would be better to license as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} since the US has a much higher TOO than the UK and this would most likely not eligible for copyright protection in the US.

The second file is just a text logo with some variations in color. I think this would probably even be below the UK's TOO, but it seems certain to be below the US's TOO, so there's no reason for this to be licensed as non-free. If these files need to be kept locally on English Wikipedia, they should be both licensed as "PD-ineligible-USonly"; if they can be moved to Commons, they should be tagged with {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

new picture for the wikipage about the Roman armguard called manica (Also: I'm completely new here, help?)

Dear sir/madam,

There's this picture I would like to upload on this site, so I can replace the current picture on the wikipage about the manica with that one. The one I would like to upload is a much more historically accurate version of the armour piece than the fake one that's currently shown.

I do not know anything at all about how the copyright policies of this site work and since my explanation of the to-be-uploaded-photo got pretty much ignored, I respectfully ask it this way. It's a photo that can quite easily be found on google images, so clearly I don't own any copyrights about it. But because I have difficulties to comprehend the policies I don't know what to do or notify about the file. Since the picture is probably accessable to anyone who knows the search engine Google, I highly doubt if the photo isn't supposed to be shared or or shown.

Long story short: I would like to upload this picture, which as far as I know should be ok. And I'm totally new to this side of the website. I don't have bad intentions or anything like that. I would just like to use this generic photo to slightly improve one article. Please.

Thanks in advance. Legionarius Marius (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Legionarius Marius: Copyright can be a difficult topic especially for new editors, but any image you upload must be freely licensed (except for certain exceptions) and to that end it is best if you provide a link to the image in question so we can review it for you. Generally the vast majority of images you find on the internet are copyright to someone and not acceptable to us. Perhaps you are referring to File:Quite realistic replica of a manica.jpg that you uploaded and has deleted as a copyright infringement because you did not have the permission of the copyright holder. ww2censor (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
@ww2censor: Unfortunately I am not able to send the link to the picture (or pictures) of the replica I was talking about, which is indeed the same picture as you mentioned. Apparently everything to do with the site romanarmytalk is 'not done', and thus blocked. However, if you type [ manica reconstruction ] into the Google search bar you should be able to see it.
I am unsure how accurate it is, but at least it is way more realistic than the one that can currently be found on the wikiarticle about it. The reason why I filled in that I don't own any of the rights is because I didn't know what to fill in instead. It is a picture that can be found very easily on the internet. What should I have filled in? I really don't know. As a Roman reenactor I can point out several reasons why it is impractical, and plain wrong to consider the one shown on wikipedia realistic. I also made one myself, which probably works just as fine as the one from the link in my opinion, but then the discussion about accuracy get's more vague: Mine uses +120 rivets, but there is little to no evidence for that. However, the evidence to debunk my impression is also absent. As far as I know of course.
And last but not least; thanks for taking the time to answer me b.t.w.! As I said, I don't know how this part of the website works so all help is more than welcome! Legionarius Marius (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Legionarius Marius Any image you find must be clearly noted to be freely licensed by the copyright holder on the webpage it is on and as i stated most internet images are copyright to someone, so we can't use them. The problem is you don't know and neither do we, so we can't tell you what license to use. If you have made a manica yourself, then you can photograph it and upload it under a free license, such as {{attribution}}, {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} or similar and that may be the easiest thing to do. I'm not sure why you say you can't link to the image you mentioned but you suggest we do a google search, however, that throws up loads of images, so we have no idea which one you are talking about. Anyway, this page from romanarmytalk.com http://www.romanarmytalk.com/thread-11197.html shows several images and maybe one of them is the one you would have liked to use. Therein lies the problem because there are no indications that any of the image are freely licensed, in fact there are no copyright statements of any kind with those images. Neither you nor we can just add a copyright license tag to an image if we don't know what its copyright status is. You could try contacting the people who posted on that forum page and ask them to release an image under a free license, or even put it on a Flickr page with a free license. Otherwise your best option would be to take a photo yourself of such a piece in a museum if one exists that you can access unless you decide to photograph your own reconstruction. You are the expert, so I'll leave the realism aspects to you to determine. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Epidural Hematoma.jpg

This file was licensed as non-free content, but apparently it's actually in the public domain per User talk:Marchjuly#Per here. Assuming that this is not a copyrightable derivative work, then c:Template:PD-US-Medical imaging seems the recommended copyright license per meta:Wikilegal/Copyright of Medical Imaging#Public Domain tags at Wikimedia Commons, but there doesn't seem to be an English Wikipedia equivalent template which can be used. Is this acceptable for a move to Commons as is or does the licensing need to be further tweaked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchjuly (talk • contribs) 11:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Doolittle Tokyo Raiders Congressional Gold Medal.jpg

Does this file need to be licensed as non-free content? It's being used in List of Congressional Gold Medal recipients and it looks like all of the other images of medals used in the article are licensed as "PD-USgov". If this is considered to be a work of the US government (it was printed by the United States Mint) then can it be treated the same was a US currency and licensed as PD?

The above also applies to File:Joseph Francis Congressional Gold Medal.jpg, File:U.S. Grant Congressional Gold Medal.jpg, and File:Preble Congressional Medal.JPG. The U.S. Grant medal image, however, may be problematic because of the box/case it is shown in even if the medal itself is PD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC) -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Transylvanian peasant revolt

Oshwah referred me to this board, because I argued that my reverts did not violate WP:3RR, since "Removal of clear copyright violations" is exempt from the edit-warring policy. I reverted edits by Rgvis several times (for instance, here [1]). Rqvis' edits contain unreferenced sentences and three sentences which are verified by citations to reliable sources.

  • The first work was published in 1935 ([2]). Its author is Seton-Wattson who writes, the Vlachs "were still on a footing of equality". Rgvis' reverted text in the article is the following: "At the end of the 13th century, they were still on a footing of equality with the other three privileged groups".
  • The second work was published in 1994 ([3]). Its author is Jean W. Sedlar who writes, "Herders and peasants by occupation, the Vlachs occupied the lowest rung of the social ladder, superior only to slaves. They suffered the additional disability of adherence to Eastern Orthodoxy, which in predominantly Catholic Hungary was considered a deviant and sometimes even a heretical form of Christianity." Rgvis' reverted text in the article is the following: "The Romanians suffered the additional disability of adherence to the Eastern Orthodoxy, which in predominantly Catholic Hungary was considered a deviant and sometimes even a heretical form of Christianity. They occupied the lowest rung of the social ladder, superior only to slaves."
  • The third work was published in 1998. Its author is Jordan Peter who writes, "most Vlachs/Romanians, who refused conversion from Orthodoxy became serfs". Rgvis' reverted text in the article is the following: "but due to the pronounced Catholic state policy, most Romanians who refused conversion from Orthodoxy became serfs".
    • I would like to know whether the above texts constitute a copyright violation.
  • During the debate, Rgvis stated that the following text, written by me, violates copyright: "Transylvania ("the Land beyond the Forests") was a geographic region in the 15th-century Kingdom of Hungary. Four major ethnic groups inhabited the territory: the Hungarians, Saxons, Székelys and Vlachs (or Romanians). The Hungarians, the Hungarian-speaking Székelys and the Saxons formed sedentary communities, living in villages and towns. Most Vlachs were shepherds, herding their flocks between the mountains and the lowlands." The cited source, published in 1977, is an article written by Joseph Held ([4]). Held's text is the following: "The Hungarian province of Transylvania (see p. 26), "the Land beyond the Forests," in which the drama of 1437-38 was enacted, experienced a parallel development. ... Four ethnic groups, the Saxons, Szekelys (or Szeklers), Magyars, and Wlachs (or Wallachians, the later Rtimanians), lived in the Transylvanialn province. By the early fifteenth century, the first three of these ethnic groups practiced settled agriculture or were involved in trade, and lived mainly in villages and towns. In contrast, many of the Wlachs were shepherds who migrated between the slopes of the Carpathian Mountains and the lowlands of the Danube according to the needs of their flocks."
    • I also would like to know whether the above text constitute a copyright violation.

Thank you for your assistance. Borsoka (talk) 03:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

To state for the record, I was unaware at the time that Borsoka's reversions on the article were due to concerns regarding copyright violations. Because of this information, I made a follow-up acknowledgment to this fact on the RFPP report that he filed. I don't intend to hold him accountable for 3RR, even if we find here that the edits in question are not in violation of any policy. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Ditto; thank you for directing to the proper venue. That was my fault; I referred him to this noticeboard instead of the other by mistake. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2017 November 13 Borsoka (talk) 04:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it is hard to say how much of this article is copy-paste with original text sources. I suspect that large parts of this article are based on copy-paste text from sources, especially those regarding the offline (and Hungarian language) sources, that could not been verified (as already mentioned during the verification process). In my opinion, I consider that I was improperly prevented by Borsoka to add valued content from immediately verifiable sources. More over, each time I indicated direct links of the references cited (to be accesible by anyone), Borsoka deleted them. It seems that he has preferences only for authors, or texts that, in his personal opinion, can be cited. If the text serves his biased opinon, than everything is OK; if not, the content is cataloged as not relevant or as WP:PARAPHRASE. All different sources witch present other perspectives than his opinion are worthless and must be eliminated with any price, even by the violation of the Wikipedia basic policies (WP:LOP). Thank you, (Rgvis (talk) 09:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC))

(1) You are baselessly accusing me of misconduct. On the other hand, you clearly copied texts from copyrighted material. (2) Please remember there is a content debate on the relevant Talk page. It was me who initiated it, but you have been unable to answer simple questions. Borsoka (talk) 10:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

File:KahlichFishing1938.jpg

Is it possible that File:KahlichFishing1938.jpg might be PD? The file is currently licensed as {{Non-free 3D art}} for the sculpture and {{cc-by-sa-2.0}} for the photo. The photo is taken from Flickr and it's license appears to be OK. However, this discussion on my user talk also say that the work itself might be PD since it was created as part of the Works Progress Administration. If the sculpture was created by a US government employee or someone commissioned by the US governemnt and the US government now holds the copyright on it, then it might indeed be PD. Does anyone know how to verify this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Marchjuly: I did an extensive search and the one citation in List of public art in Milwaukee is unavailable, but the artist Karl Kahlich does not appear very often and is not listed as the artist of this sculpture, nor is Music (sculpture) but this New Deal database entry (copied from here), while not naming the artist, does state the works were dene by WPA artists. A little more digging may verify it better. ww2censor (talk) 11:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I uploaded an image and am positive that I filled out the copyright and licensing status correctly but the file says that it doesn't have this information. What can I do so that the file will not be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miso16 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Miso16. Since you did not specifically say which file you're having problems with, I can only guess that it might be File:The East Light Wearing Hanboks.jpg because of User talk:Miso16#Image without license. The problem appears to be that you manually typed in a file copyright license instead of using a template. This might have caused the bot to mistakenly assume that you did not add a copyright license. It also appears that you've taken this screenshot from this YouTube channel. I cannot read Korean, but if the video was uploaded by its original copyright holder to YouTube, then the "Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported" license you added might be OK; however, if it's not, then it is unlikely that the file can be uploaded under such a license and would most likely need to be licensed as non-free content instead, which in turn is going to make it much harder to use on Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Photo of Oscar with stated regulations

Can somebody evaluate commons:File:Photo-Sonics Inc Award for 4ER camera.jpg and its use in User:Verbwright981/sandbox, discussed at User talk:PrimeHunter#Thank you for your Tea House response. with reference to http://www.oscars.org/legal/regulations. See File:Academy Award trophy.jpg for a similar image uploaded here with a fair use claim. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Procedurally, that seems like a question for Commons. When was the statuette made and by who? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
@Verbwright981: @PrimeHunter: I've nominated the image for deletion on the commons because it is a derivative work that requires the permission of the copyright holder, who may well be the creator/designer/artist, and without that permission, even though the photo itself is freely licensed, it will be deleted unless that permission is forthcoming. It therefore appears to be a non-free image and the enwiki have strict rules about non-free media. See WP:NFCC and WP:NFC which means it cannot be used in the current sandbox and even then will likely not comply with our non-free policy in the proposed article. ww2censor (talk) 10:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
@Ww2censor: @PrimeHunter: @Jo-Jo Eumerus: First, to address Jo-Jo Eumerus, the Oscar(c) statuette stands 13.5" tall (including the base) and can only be "manufactured" by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences or a specifically designated sub-contractor (to the best of my knowledge). There is a Wikipedia article on the Oscar Statuette(c) that describes the Oscar(c) itself and the various forms it comes in that you can read regarding the Oscar(c) award itself. To address Ww2censor and PrimeHunter, given the review and decision of the Wiki Copyright Review department (stated above), I have gone ahead and deleted the photograph in question and the accompanying caption out of the article.Verbwright981 (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
@Verbwright981: @PrimeHunter: Regarding the original statuette image, there is a deletion nomination at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Photo-Sonics Inc Award for 4ER camera.jpg where you can comment. However, having removed that image from the draft article you replaced it with this image c:File:ACME animation stand circa 1942 Harold Scheib operator reduced.jpg claimed to be your own work of 2015. Bring a low resolution image and dated 70 years ago, we need to know who the actual photographer is, if they are still alive and if they, or their heirs, have given permission because I presume you did not take it yourself in 1947. ww2censor (talk) 10:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
If my understanding is correct, the Academy Award of Merit statuette itself was designed by George Stanley (sculptor) and it might either fall under Template:PD-US-no notice or be copyrighted until 2044. That's for the statuette itself, not necessarily for the derivative we are discussing here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
commons:File:Photo-Sonics Inc Award for 4ER camera.jpg has been deleted. Thanks for looking into this. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
@Ww2censor: @PrimeHunter: Regarding the image c:File:ACME animation stand circa 1942 Harold Scheib operator reduced.jpg. The photo that is in the proposed Wikipedia article is a product photo of the ACME Animation Stand being operated by a former employee of ACME Tool and Manufacturing Company by the name of Harold Scheib. This photo was taken by an ACME employee of that time period and has remained in the ACME Tool and Manufacturing Company/Photo-Sonics, Inc. archives since that photo was taken. Mr. Harold Scheib passed away in the mid 1980’s. This image was uploaded to the Wikipedia Commons by Mr. Philip Kiel, the current owner and President of Photo-Sonics, Inc. Mr. Philip Kiel is also the heir of the past owner of Photo-Sonics, Inc. as well as the majority stock holder of Photo-Sonics, Inc. Verbwright981 (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Verbwright981: Assuming what you say is true, and I have no reason to disbelieve you, then you need to post those details to the nomination page on the Commons where the image is hosted because posting here will not be seen by the closing admin on the commons and unlikely other commons editors who might be interested. In the meantime you also need to verify the copyright by getting the copyright holder, I assume Philip Kiel, to release the image under a free license by following the procedure found on the Commons OTRS Team page though the simplest way is for him to use the Inteactive Release Generator which is also linked from the Commons OTRS page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Dzaïr News Latin logo.png

Is there a reason File:Dzaïr News Latin logo.png licensed as {{non-free logo}}? It seems to be mainly a text logo with a few decorative elements, but nothing which appears to be above c:COM:TOO#United States. I think in some cases arabic text might be seen as calligraphy, but not sure if that means its eligible for copyright protection. If not PD in it's home country, then maybe it's OK as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. Otherwise, the way it's currently being used would almost certainly not be acceptable per WP:NFCC#8 which means it should considered for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

It is on the commons as a combined image earlier then this one at c:File:دزاير نيوز.png though I am not sure it is correctly licensed there. ww2censor (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look Ww2censor. I was aware of the Commons image, but am also not sure about its licensing. File:Numidia news.png is another similar logo which also has a more recent version uploaded to Commons. Any opinion on this file? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Pablo Picasso, 1901-02, Femme aux Bras Croisés

File:Pablo Picasso, 1901-02, Femme aux Bras Croisés, Woman with Folded Arms (Madchenbildnis), oil on canvas, 81 × 58 cm (32 × 23 in).jpg is a colour reproduction of Picasso's Femme aux Bras Croisés. It claims {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} but the cited book was published in Germany, not USA, and the reproduction within it is monochrome, so not the actual source. jnestorius(talk) 00:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

And you consider that the painting was not published? -- Asclepias (talk) 05:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what "publish" means for a painting. If a book with a mono reproduction is published, does that count as publishing the painting or just publishing the reproduction? In any case, publishing in Germany is certainly not publishing in the USA. jnestorius(talk) 10:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I've corrected the license to {{PD-US-1923-abroad|2044}} because the date should not be 2054: 1973+70=2044. In reading through Wikipedia:Public domain#Artworks the publication does not suggest that the form of publication, in this case a black and white image, makes any difference. By being reproduced in the source book, the painting was published in Germany in 1920. If it helps, there are some other similarly dated Picasso paintings which are tagged {{PD-USonly|expiry=1 January 2044}}. ww2censor (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks jnestorius(talk) 13:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Appeal by Δ (BetaCommand)

The community is invited to comment on the appeal lodged by Δ at Arbitration Requests for Clarification and Amendment.

For the arbitration committee - GoldenRing (talk) 11:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Why is it so difficult to post and attribute an image you have taken yourself?

Image:2005-02-24 Trinity Church at night.jpg

There is a message in my notices that this file had been deleted. I took the photo myself. I posted it myself to WikiPedia. And I gave you the right to use it. i did this with numerous awesome photos i took in 2005 of this iconic church at the Russian Antarctic base at Bellingshausen. It says the image has now been deleted. I don;t even remember which image of the thousands I took that it was. is there any way for Wikipedia to recover the image and replace it on the Trinity Church page?


Some people have a life. Mine is practically destroyed by chronic illness and I do not have time or energy to chase down silly problems like this. I offered the image for the world to see. You should not make this any more difficult than posting it and clicking a button which says it is mine and I grant permission to use it. I did all this and nearly all the photos of the Trinity Church I posted are still there. I have no idea why this one was an issue. Can someone help recover this and give the awesome image back to the world? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArJuna (talk • contribs) 11:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@ArJuna: It looks like this file was deleted from Wikipedia back on 10 December 2007 by an administrator named Quadell and the reason given was "no valid tag after 7 days (CSD I4)". I've pinged Quadell to this thread, but he hasn't edited since January 2017, so I'm not sure if he will respond. I am not an administrator, so I cannot see or undelete previously deleted photos. In general, files which are deleted are not really gone forever, but are only hidden from public view and they can possibly be "undeleted" at a later date via WP:REFUND or by the deleting administrator if they feel an error was made.
Just for reference, Wikipedia's policies, etc. related to image use and file uploads probably have changed quite a bit since you first uploaded the image and even since when Quadell deleted the file. Back then there were probably quite a number of files which people were uploading under a claim of "own work" even when that was not the case at all. Since Wikipedia tends to delete files whose licensing is questioned and whose copyright ownership cannot be sufficiently verified. The reason given by Quadell is now referred to as WP:F4, and files tend to be deleted for this reason because their copyright ownership cannot be properly verified; so, that appears to be why your photo was deleted. If you can verify you own the copyright of the photo (i.e., it was actually taken by you), such as explained in WP:CONSENT or even c:COM:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS?, then having it restored is probably not going to be too difficult. In some cases, files uploaded way back in the early days of Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons before the OTRS verification system was esablished have been grandfathered in even if their licensing isn't perfect per c:COM:GOF, but this file was deleted more than ten years ago and I'm not sure if that would be applicable to it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Actually, your file has just been restored by an administrator Ritchie333 who apparently saw your post. Just a suggestion, but maybe this file and any other similarly licensed files you've uploaded locally to Wikipedia would be better off hosted on Wikimedia Commons instead. Local files can only being used locally, but files hosted by Commons can be easily used by any WMF project. As long as your ownership of the files is no longer an issue, they should not be deleted from Commons. Wikipedia is not really set up to be an image repository, and files are often moved to Commons when there's not really a good reason to keep them locally. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
@ArJuna: (ec) I have restored the image, and assumed from what you have written here that the picture is your own work and that you are happy to release it via a suitable free licence. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Occasionally an image will slip through the cracks as this one did not 10 years but you did get a notice on your talk page (which is still there) that this image was missing copyright details back in 2007. You never did anything about it at the time and no one else seems to have noticed the missing copyright notice either. Thanks for letting us know even with your health problems, but now everything looks good. ww2censor (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

File:A for Andromeda (1961 TV series).jpg

File:A for Andromeda (1961 TV series).jpg is uploaded as a {{Non-free title card}} which seems correct, but the source given is YouTube and it seems clear that the YouTube uploader is not the original copyright holder. How does Wikipedia deal with this kind of thing when it comes to file uploads. Per WP:ELNEVER and WP:COPYLINK, links to copyvios should not be added to any Wikipedia pages, which seems to means things such as this. Would it be acceptable to simply change the source to the TV series or the BBC without a link or perhaps use the DVD cover art for the series found on its IMDb page instead? It also might be possible to find the same or a similar title card image here, but I am not a registered user so I can't say for sure.

Finally, File:Adventure Story (1961 TV play).jpg also has the same YouTube source issues. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe reupload the same image from an official source and let F5 take care of these screenshots? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Can a photographer give permission to use his work if it has already been published

In the article Don Gregorio Antón, most of the images are published versions of Antón's photographs, with the publication given as the source in a footnote. The source in Wikimedia is 'own work', so presumably they were uploaded by Antón, and the license is Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. If a photographer's photo is published (or an artist's painting, etc), does the copyright stay with the artist, or do the journals/books that published them hold the copyright? Also, in a case like this, how can an editor know what 'own work' means? It could be the artist uploading his own version of the image, or someone who took a picture of a published source or museum exhibit (which would, of course, be a problem). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leschnei (talk • contribs) 22:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

About your first question, it depends what the parties have agreed in the contract between them, but in a case like this one I suppose that it is very probable that the artist kept the control over his copyright. However, and sort of adressing your second question, see also Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by BLAN-JU. There does not seem to be an indication that the situation has been clarified since then. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
c:File:Don Gregorio Antón.jpg has been reuploaded despite the issues not being addressed, so I have nominated it for deletion again. ww2censor (talk) 10:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Leschnei (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I have drawn a map which I would like to incorporate in an article I have edited. The map is drawn by hand (using drawing software) with reference to an Ordnance Survey 1" 7th series map, dated 1960, which is out-of copyright, with additions drawn in by me to suit the article. When I look at the copyright status page, none of the choices are true; the nearest is "This is entirely my own work" but this choice goes on to say "without incorporating anyone else's creative work". My map does incorporate other work, albeit out-of-copyright. Can it be used?

I did not scan the OS map, but suppose I did. Could such an image be used, with or without my adding anything myself? Exbrum (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I presume you are talking about a UK Ordnance Survey map, in which case you could upload a scan of it so long as you add the copyright tag {{PD-UKGov}} because the copyright expired at the end of 2010. Depending on how much you changed the original, it might still be considered a derivative work but there are no problems because the original copyright has expired. I suggest you should probably state your work is based on a previous Crown copyright map. You should upload it to the commons and not here, so it is available to the other language wikis. ww2censor (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I found a tag that specifically referenced OS maps. I have now uploaded the file. I still found the process quite tricky, so hope I have done it correctly. Exbrum (talk) 13:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Modern sketches of 6th century two-dimensional designs

Sutton Hoo helmet replica

The 6th-century Sutton Hoo helmet was covered with five designs stamped into metal. Four of these designs are capable of reconstruction, and in the 1970s were published as two-dimensional black and white sketches in various articles and books in England (e.g., JSTOR link; a similar non-paywalled example is here). Would these two dimensional drawings be eligible for copyright? If not, what would the proper licensing tag be?

On a similar note, what about a two-dimensional sketch of a three-dimensional 6th-century work? I'm thinking about File:Sutton Hoo helmet - winged dragon motif.png, which is a sketch of the eyebrows, nose, mustache, and dragon's head on the front of the helmet (see File:Sutton Hoo helmet 2016.png).

Thanks in advance for any help! --Usernameunique (talk) 09:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Three dimensional 6th century works are not under copyright, except in some circumstances where they were altered recently (e.g restoration). The sketch can be copyrighted by its drawer, seeing as there are creative choices made when you sketch a 3D work (which shadowing and which angle to use, for example). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Seems like the sketches you are talking about are all under copyright. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Jo-Jo Eumerus. Can you let me know what the rationale is for the two-dimensional sketches of two-dimensional designs being under copyright? As the dimensions do not change there are fewer creative choices made; the main effort would be in stitching together the designs from multiple fragments (e.g., this one). --Usernameunique (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. There is the aspect that a 2D sketch of a principlly 2D pattern on a 3D object, recreated faithfully, possibly may be uncopyrightable in the US. But we're talking England, and they definitely have a "sweat of the brow" principle that any type of work in creating an image is copyrightable (eg see the problems we had with high resolution images of classic out-of-copyright paintings from the National Portrait Gallery). I would treat these for all purposes as a new work under UK law for copyright, which is life + 70 years. You'll need to treat the images as non-free and use {{Non-free 2D art}} for the copyright tag. --MASEM (t) 14:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again Jo-Jo Eumerus and Masem. The sketches have been published many times, in multiple countries. Would the copyright situation be any different if uploading one that was published in the US, either as a direct copy of the original (English) version, or as a new drawing done after the original one? --Usernameunique (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
We need to find the original publication; just because a sketch was published in other countries, its the country of first publication that matters (Which seems to be UK). So no, a US publication of the sketches presumably done by a UK researcher published in a UK journal would not eliminate the issue. --MASEM (t) 19:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

is an official state image subject to copyright? AmYisroelChai (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

It depends on what state (or country). Some countries do have public domain licenses like the US, and there are some US states that also do the same (California, I think) but it is more the exception than the rule. --MASEM (t) 22:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
states of Indiana and Oregon. AmYisroelChai (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
her's the links http://www.in.gov/gov/2358.htm and http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Pages/meet-the-governor.aspx AmYisroelChai (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
@AmYisroelChai: Only California and Florida per Wikipedia:File copyright tags/USA#State Government Public Domain tags. Sorry but Indiana and Oregon don't feature. ww2censor (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Two images of politicians

are these ok to post ? File:Katebrown.jpg File:Images-Holcomb LG Headshot.jpeg AmYisroelChai (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Not unless you give the source, but if this is the source of the first image then prolly no since as far as I know Oregon does not freely license its government images. Plus both Eric Holcomb and Kate Brown already have images. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
these are my sources http://www.in.gov/gov/2358.htm and http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Pages/meet-the-governor.aspx these are the official images so its better than the ones there AmYisroelChai (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Problem is that they are copyrighted. For living people, we only allow freely licensed images and this point has priority over whether they are official or not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
how do we know that they are copyrighted? AmYisroelChai (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Because, unless it is clearly stated that they are under a free licence, they are copyright, except for certain known public domain work, such as US federal government work. Anyway, in the immediate post above, your basic question has been answered about Indiana and Oregon. Sorry but we can't keep these images without evidence of permission and the source pages don't have that. They may well be better official images but that does not make it allowable to use them here. ww2censor (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Video game screenshots

I am making a draft for the return of the obra dinn, I understand screenshots are copyrighted, how can I upload screenshot of the game while following all the rules?? YuriGagrin12 (talk) 03:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, YuriGagrin12. You simply cannot use any screenshots of copyrighted video games in a draft of an article. Once the article has been accepted into the main space of the encyclopedia, carefully follow the directions for uploading non-free images that you can find at WP:NFCI. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay @Cullen328: Thank you YuriGagrin12 (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Getting notable people to create a selfie for Wikipedia?

Hi all, I am working on South Park: The Fractured but Whole and there are no free to use images of people involved in the game on Ubisoft's side. I was thinking of contacting certain people on twitter to see if they could take an image of themselves that could then be used in the article and future articles where applicable. What would be the best procedure to do so and the ideal creative commons license? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

I've uploaded a new version of FreeBSD Foundation logo. I'm not sure which copyright tag to select. I would appreciate any assistance. The logo is made available from here https://www.freebsdfoundation.org/about/brand-assets/

Thanks!--Mr.hmm (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I found a description from the old logo and used that instead. I'd appreciate if anyone can verify this is correct.--Mr.hmm (talk) 15:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

clarification requested re: permission to use image

I wish to add a photo to the article on the science fiction author/editor Stanley Schmidt. Dr. Schmidt told me, informally, that it was OK to use a picture from his website (meaning his section at the SFWA site: http://www.sfwa.org/members/stanleyschmidt/ ). The author of the blog ("Strangelove for Science Fiction", at http://strangelove4sf.blogspot.ca/ ) where I first found the photo gave me his permission to use it at Wikipedia. Since it was derived from the SFWA website, I asked SFWA also. I got this response: "Looks like that SFWA page is crediting the photo to the Strangelove site, so no need to credit us. Additionally, that page is showing Stanley as having the copyright on the page’s contents. So seems like you’ve got the permissions covered."

However, I need some clarification, please, on a couple of WikiMedia rules. One rule says that (in order to put an image in the Commons) "It cannot be replaced by any other, free illustration that might yet be created". Well, other free photos could certainly be obtained; I could generate one myself, for instance, if I encounter Dr. Schmidt at another convention. However, that is not very likely for me, since I am unable to go to many conventions and his travels are not coordinated with mine. So, since I already have permissions from all involved -- though not (yet) in an official/formal document -- is it actually OK to use the photo?

Another rule says, "The file will serve an important function in a particular article," implying that the article would be much worse off without it. I disagree, in this case. Very often, in a Wikipedia article about a notable person, there is included a photo that is not strictly necessary for informing the reader about the person. The photo enhances the article, I feel ("a picture is worth a thousand words"), and evidently the Wikipedia community at large feels this way too -- since there are so many examples.

Please give me your thoughts...thanks! Silverhill (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Silverhill: your biggest problem is that you need to find out who is the actual copyright holder of the image. That is usually the photographer and not the subject of the image unless there was a transfer of copyright in a contract which can happen if it was a work-for-hire. The copyright holder can then verify their permission by using the interactive Release Generator. So Dr. Schmidt will have to verify who is the copyright holder and besides that the permission you have: "use on wikipedia" is not sufficient for us. We need the image to be specifically freely licensed without any commercial or derivative restrictions, which means anyone can use the image for anything they like in the future. Even if your path does not cross Dr. Schmidt, someone can take a photo of him a license it freely while he is still alive, so using a copyright image is not permitted per WP:NFCC. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page to see the issues editors encounter. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

photo for sidebar

Trying to update photo in sidebar but it is not showing visually, only a link. I have a few options to use for the photo but not sure which one is best or how to upload it properly: https://www.flickr.com/photos/130202126@N03/38659896831/

http://media1.popsugar-assets.com/files/thumbor/OFuMZGNMLVbZVkGK6ynd_JtEgrs/fit-in/2048xorig/filters:format_auto-!!-:strip_icc-!!-/2017/10/03/801/n/1922729/tmp_c5M2wz_526255d095070610_The_Shadowboxers_-_profile_pic_Sept_17_.jpg

http://78.media.tumblr.com/da319dabc1d31671bf6e90b2a2a0cc7e/tumblr_owr1izUjhq1tzkyryo1_1280.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snellycat (talk • contribs) 04:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Snellycat. It appears that you are trying to add an image to the infobox of the article The Shadowboxers. All images used in Wikipedia articles need to be uploaded directly to either Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons as explained in Wikipedia:Uploading images. The infobox is a template and is designed to work only with images uploaded internally to Wikipedia's servers; you were having problems because you were trying to link to an image found on external thrid-party website. The software was searching for a file under that name and simply treated the link as a red link when it couldn't find one.
Now, before you upload any inages to Wikipedia, you need to figure out what their respective copyright status is per Wikipedia:Image use policy. There are two possibilities here as explained in Wikipedia:Copyrights#Guidelines for images and other media files: (1) the file is what Wikipedia refers to as a "free file", or (2) the file is non-free content. The former basically means any file which is considered to be in the public domain or which has been released by the original copyright holder under a suitible free license, while the latter means the file is considered to be under copyright protection and thus can only be used if it satisfies Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. Be advised that words "free" and "public domain" in this context have very specific meanings: "free" means "free of copyright protection", not "free of charge", while "public domain" does not mean "publically available/accessible" as in available online. Almost everything you find online is considered by Wikipedia to be protected by copyright unless it is clearly licensed otherwise or can clearly be demostrated to be otherwise. Moreover, the original copyright holder of an image is pretty much always considered to be the person who created the image (e.g., the photographer who took the photo) unless it can be shown there has been a copyright transfer agreement.
I'm unable to figure out the copyright status from the links you've provided above so perhaps you can provide some more information about them. Did you take the photos yourself, or did you just find them online? Not everything you find on Flickr has been released under a suitable free license and in some cases Flickr accounts even incorrectly claim copyright ownership over someone else's work. So, more information is needed to determine about the images to move forward.
FWIW, If you are not the original copyright holder of the image, you cannot claim ownership over it and release it under a free license. In such a case, the original copyright holder will need to give their explicit consent to release the file under such a license or it cannot be uploaded, except as non-free content. However, non-free content use is highly restricted and non-free images of currently active bands are almost never permitted per non-free content use criteria #1 because it is believed that a freely licensed equivalent image could be taken of the band by someone, somewhere at sometime even if such a file doesn't currently exist.
I've provided you lots of links to pages (the words in blue), so just ask if you have any questions after looking at them. Finally, please remember to sign your talk page posts. The easiest way to do so if explained in Wikipedia:Signatures#How to sign your posts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

File:LanePick.png

This was uploaded as {{Non-free computer icon}} and it's currently being used in two templates. There is no source information provided about the image, so it's eligible for speedy deletion per WP:F4 even if it doesn't need to be non-free content. On the other hand, it this does need to be non-free, then it also is missing a non-free use rationale, so it can be tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F4 and WP:F6; furthermore, it cannot be used in templates per WP:NFCC#9. Any easy way to fix this or is deletion inevitable? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Images

I am writing a book and would like to you several images from Wikipedia articles that I have referred to. What is the process for this? Are there any fees? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:9:3:0:0:0:93 (talk) 10:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Depends on which images you want to use. Different images on Wikipedia have different terms. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Teachfirst.png

Logo for the UK-based Teach First. File was uploaded as {{Non-free logo}}, but it seems simple enough for {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} even if it's considered to be under copyright protection in the UK. Any reason why this needs to remain non-free? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Definitively, and I am not certain (Black Kite did comment on such a question a while ago) that coloured regular text would create a copyright even in the UK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2017/November&oldid=1077417258"