Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2018/January

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Different cover art of Smooth Talk (album)

I found out that the late-1970s US reprints of Smooth Talk (album) used the different cover. It was also used in the initial Japanese release. Is the alternative cover art appropriate per NFCC? George Ho (talk) 06:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Photos taken in 1910

Was wondering if File:HP Nielsen in his biplane 1910.jpg and File:Merle 1910 Biplane at HP Nielsens shop.jpg need to be licensed as {{Non-free historic image}} since they appear to have been taken prior to 1923. They are being used in HP Nielsen and many of the sources cited in that article are from very old newspapers. If these were published in a newspaper prior to 1923, then they should be {{PD-US}}, right? Even if they were published after 1923, I am wondering if they can be {{PD-US-no notice}}. Anyway, if they need to be non-free, then I'm not sure they are needed per WP:NFCC#1, or WP:NFCC#8 since they do not really have proper non-free use rationales. The infobox photo could probably be {{Non-free biog-pic}} with {{Non-free use rationale biog}} if WP:FREER is not an issue, but the one of the plane might not meet NFCC#8 regardless. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Riscos logo generic cogwheel richard hallas lg cogwheel x1.svg

This is licensed as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}, but am wondering if this would be OK as {{PD-logo}} or even in the UK. If not and it's OK as currenlty licensed, then I don't think it needs any non-free use rationales. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

For the UK this really does pass their low threshold of originality: too much subtle shaded areas placement to be TOO. ww2censor (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

I am wondering which license I should use for releasing an image of interior design that was made this year in the United States.

Thanks, Sarah Chaudhary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schaudhary98 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Schaudhary98: If it is a new photo we need to know who took it and whether it contains anything copyrightable. So, has it been released under a free license and can, or will, that permission be verified by the copyright holder? If you took the photo yourself and if the interior design is not copyrightable then you can release it under a free license, such as {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} or {{attribution}} in which case you should upload it to the commons, but if the design is copyrightable you will also need the permission of the designer because your photo would be a derivative work. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page. ww2censor (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Vincent Logo.PNG

This was uploaded as "own work". While I believe that the photo was taken by the uploader, the copyright status of the label being photographed is unlcear. Think this is simple enough for {{PD-logo}} or does it need to be treated as {{Non-free logo}}. The origin of the logo appears to be the UK, so this might not be below c:COM:TOO#United Kingdom; in that case maybe it can be licensed as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The above also applies to File:HRD motorcycle badge.JPG. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
The logos are from the British Vincent Motorcycles and as far as I can find out File:Vincent Logo.PNG was used on the 1946 B Series Vincent Rapide, like this 1947 model while File:HRD motorcycle badge.JPG was used on the earlier A Series Rapide model like this one which may even have been used as early as 1928. Either way the photos are freely licensed and as the logo is a corporate work more than 70 years old I think {{PD-old-70}} applies to both logo images. ww2censor (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Combination of multiple images

I made an image that combines a barnstar and part of the Wikipedia logo. Since the two images have different permissions, which one should I use when uploading my combination to Wikipedia? The Nth User I like to use parser functions. Care to differ or discuss? 00:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to upload the images just in case seeing them would be helpful:
I know that it's okay to upload them because each license (one for any purpose without any conditions; one with unlimited use on Wikimedia sites, as well as some outside uses); I'm just not sure what to put as the license. The Nth User I like to use parser functions. Care to differ or discuss? 00:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
@The Nth User: The Working Man's Barnstar is in the public domain. It can be used freely and without restrictions in derivative works, though giving credit is of course nice. The Wikipedia logo is released under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License which requires that we not only give credit but release any derivative works under a compatible license. Personally I'd advise you to release those images, which clearly are derivative works of the original images, under CC BY-SA 3.0 too. That is, firstly, definitely permitted, and secondly, using a less restrictive license (which might be OK regarding your own possible copyright claim, and I'm not enough of an expert to tell just how much of a copyright claim to the new images you have, given the threshold of originality) might be tricky because any derivative work of your images arguably still is a derivative work of the Wikipedia logo. So using the more restrictive license is one way to make sure that the restrictions on that original image are respected. Huon (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
@Huon: How do I change the license? The Nth User I like to use parser functions. Care to differ or discuss? 01:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Also, this might be pertinent to how much of a copyright claim I have on the images: The text that says "meta page" at the bottom, I specifically chose its font to be the same as in the Wikipedia editor, and I specifically chose its color to be the same as that of The Copyeditor's Barnstar 2.0 (#ac0005, or rgb(189, 0, 5), if you're wondering). I also chose the font of the "W P:" on the top to be the same font that Wikipedia uses for page titles. The Nth User I like to use parser functions. Care to differ or discuss? 01:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
The relevant copyright tags would be the ones used for the logo file, too: {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} and {{Wikimedia trademark}}. As I said, I'm not knowledgeable enough to tell what kinds of copyright claims you have regarding these images, and I don't think it matters. Huon (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

UK Painting dated c.1780, unknown artist

Would this painting be in the public domain despite any claims of copyright on the hosting website? Mjroots (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Based on how WMF handled the UK National Portrait Gallery issue, you would be in your right to treat it as PD regardless of any copyright claim the website might have, as long as you are sure of the age of the work. --Masem (t) 22:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
See c:COM:PD-Art for more information. Faithful representations of public domain artwork is in the public domain. Regardless of when the photo was taken. --Majora (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
@Masem: Artist is John Ninham (1754-1817). Painting is 1810 at latest, as Carrow Bridge would be visible in the scene and was built in 1810. Mjroots (talk) 07:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Image now uploaded to Commons. Mjroots (talk) 08:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

HumanLight symbol

The HumanLight page contains a text description of the HumanLight symbol, but doesn't have an image. The copyright holder is an unidentified volunteer associated with the New Jersey Humanist Network, and I've determined that the copyright holder does not want to release the image to the public domain based on a concern that the image could be used for satire or commercial purposes. The image is posted on the HumanLight webpage and available for download for those wishing to use it "in HumanLight event materials". Two questions:

  • Is a low resolution image reasonable as non-free use in the article, perhaps under the "logo" rationale?
  • Can the copyright holder upload the image with whatever restrictions he/she wants? Such as "for use on Wikipedia only"? Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Airborne84. I'll answer you second question first. The answer is simply "no". Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons only accept free licenses which allow anyone anywhere in the world to download the file at anytime for any purpose. So, "for use on Wikipedia only", "for non-commercial use", or "for non-derivative use" types of licenses will not be accepted. The originaly copyright holder can pretty much only require that they be properly attributed by anyone downloading and reusing the file, but I think that's about it. Most of the free licenses accepted by Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons can be found in WP:ICT/FL. Once a file is released under a free license, the license cannot be revoked. The original copyright holder retains their copyright, and the file can be deleted from Wikipedia or Commons; the license, however, remains valid and still applies to any downloadeds prior to the file's deletion. Another thing is that the original copyright holder will probably need to be named since their explicit consent is required or verification that copyright transfer agreement has been made will need to be provided.
Regarding non-free use, yes it is possible, but it depends on whether you can clearly establish that the file satisfies all ten non-free content use criteria listed in WP:NFCCP. The hardest one to satisfy tends to be WP:NFCC#8 simply because it is the one most open to differing interpretations. You can find out a bit more in WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion. Generally, non-free use is easier to justify when a non-free logo is used at the top of an article for primary identification purposes about the organization, etc. in question, but tends to be much harder to justify when used somewhere within the article body or at the tops of other related articles. So, if the logo is currently used by HumanLight as their primary way of identifying themselves, then using it at the top of the article seems OK; on the other hand, if you just want to add it to HumanLight#Symbols as an example of one of many symbols the organization uses or has used then NFCC#8 could be an issue. There is also WP:NFCC#10a to consider since as much information about the logo's copyright needs to be provided; I'm not sure how this pertains to someone who creates a file, but wants to remain anonymous.
Of course, even as non-free, there's no guarantee that someone will not download the logo and use for commericial purposes, etc., but the original copyright holder is not giving them permission to do so. In fact, original copyright holder permission is not a prerequisite for uploading non-free content. -- 01:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate the information. The file in question is "the" HumanLight symbol, so it would be reasonable to use it at the top of the article. I'll review the ten criteria; if, in my best judgement, they are all met, should I upload the file with the appropriate information, or is there some other process? Thanks again! Airborne84 (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
After taking a closer look at that article, it seems to be more about the holiday itself than a particular organization. If the article was titled "New Jersey Humanist Network", primarily about the organization, and this was the logo they used, then I would say there would be no problem using the logo in the main infobox as the primary means of identification. You could simply upload it using Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard; the copyright license and non-free use rationale you could use would be Template:Non-free logo and Template:Non-free use rationale logo respectively. However, it's not clear (at least to me) if this is an article primarily about such an organization; so, it's not clear whether the logo should go at the top of the article. This might be something you should discuss on the article's talk page or maybe Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Holidays since you proposing to replace the current infobox image with the logo. I'm not sure if holidays in general typically have one commonly used and acknowleded identifying symbol per se; so, you may need to explain/show how that's the case for this particular holiday in your non-free use rationale. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your time and the advice. I'm not worried about replacing the current infobox image since I put it there recently, and only because the HumanLight symbol wasn't available. The article is indeed about the holiday itself, but there's only one symbol associated with it, and that symbol seems to be central to the holiday. For example, it appears at the top of every page of the official HumanLight webpage, and a web search brings up the symbol in about 75% of the relevant images. I can (and should) explain that in the rationale. Thanks again! Airborne84 (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Dinal Dias.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.182.233 (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there a question? ww2censor (talk) 10:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
See the deletion discussion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dinal Dias.jpg, even though that does not show copyright problems. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Can a black-and-white photo count of an ancient painting count as a "faithful reproduction" under Bridgeman v. Corel?

There is an ancient fresco that I would like to use as illustration in an article, but there don't seem to be any color photographs of it, as it was excavated in the 1920s. There are black-and-white photographs of it, as well as watercolor facsimiles. My question is whether black-and-white photos of public-domain artworks, if taken for the purpose of documenting those artworks rather than doing something artistic with them, count as "faithful reproductions" under Bridgeman v. Corel. A. Parrot (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Black and white photos are a mechanical transformation that would not introduce any new copyright. It should be fine as PD-old. --Masem (t) 03:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! A. Parrot (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Use of Wikipedia templates, scripts, etc. on sister project Wikinews

I have a question about non-mainspace templates and all kinds of background tools. I am from Wikinews and the reason is Wikinews is not under the same license as Wikipedia. Therefore, some people feel we can't import really useful things that have been developed on Wikipedia. I think we can, because I believe the CC-BY and CC-BY-SA (add whatever revision) licenses apply only to Mainspace articles. Some of the templates which are displayed in articles, may fall into that category, but those used in the background are surely Wikimedia property and all the sister-projects can share those, right? Don't be afraid to tell me I am wrong. I won't cry. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

SVTCobra,why do you say the terms of use are different at Wikinews? Its Terms of use link goes to m:Terms of Use just like the English Wikipedia's does. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
SVTCobra, this is more complicated than I thought. When you edit Wikinews, in the edit window for any text, templates, talk pages, and everything else, you agree to Your work will be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License and will be attributed to "Wikinews". Templates here on en.wiki are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 and any use of them must also be licensed under 3.0. However at the bottom of the every page at Wikinews it says Contributions must be attributed to Wikinews; see Terms of use for details. And that Wikimedia terms of use says When you submit text to which you hold the copyright, you agree to license it under: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (“CC BY-SA”), and GNU Free Documentation License (“GFDL”) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). So everything an editor enters on Wikinews is licensed both as 2.5 and 3.0.
So basically you can use anything here over there, but you must attribute it properly. The copyright holders are the original editors. See Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. On the talk page of the template provide a link to the version of the template on en.wiki that that you copied, so that the history and editors names are available. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
@StarryGrandma: I think when reading the Wikimedia terms of use you may have missed the paragraph where is mentioned the special terms of Wikinews using CC BY 2.5, to the difference of the other Wikimedia sites. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh yes, I missed The only exception is if the Project edition or feature requires a different license. In that case, you agree to license any text you contribute under that particular license. For example, at the publication of this version of the Terms of Use, English Wikinews mandates that all text content is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic License (CC BY 2.5) and does not require a dual license with GFDL. Thanks Asclepias. That simplifies things. No SVTCobra, you cannot copy anything, templates, talk pages, code, etc. from en.wiki since we require that anything copied must be made available as 3.0. And editing the template,talk pages, etc at Wikinews stipulates 2.5. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
@StarryGrandma: OK, thanks for looking into this for me. So my assertion that it is different for content that is not in mainspace does not hold water, I guess. Let me ask this, then. How are we even able to use the Wikimedia software, including but not limited to the Wikimarkup code. How are global bots able to operate on Wikinews? Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
SVTCobra, see MediaWiki for a description of the software which runs the Wikipedia projects but is not limited to Wikipedia. Editing on Wikinews does not change the underlying software, whose releases are managed by the Foundation. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

"Licensed" and "unofficial" images, and fair use, in articles on fiction

Sorry if this is the wrong venue, or if this has been decided somewhere before. I brought a similar issue up on WT:ASOIAF a few months back, but I'm really not sure if a consensus was reached.

The infoboxes of Dwarf (Middle-earth) and One Ring contain unofficial fan-art rather than either official book illustrations or screenshots from any of the various screen adaptations of The Lord of the Rings, while Daario Naharis and Daenerys Targaryen use images from an officially licensed television adaptation of A Song of Ice and Fire rather than book illustrations or fan-art. (Both properties also have numerous officially licensed card and board games that contain their own illustrations.)

FWICT, one problem is that in a lot of cases (including both the articles linked above) the screenshots are not accurate representations of the subjects of their articles, since the characters' physical appearances were changed drastically in the adaptation. This is the main problem, IMO, since we can't really claim fair use when the image is actually a rather poor illustration of the topic of our article. Other issues, though, include the fact that use of unlicensed images in a non-"fan" oriented publication like Wikipedia feels ... "iffy", and the fact that two separate images of a real-world actor's face (one screenshot from a copyrighter work and one Commons image of the actor "out of character") in the same article are kinda redundant.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

We do have to be careful as there can be a point where fan art crosses into being a true derivative work (eg using copyrighted characters directly); if the only way fan art can be done is through a derivative work then that's going to be non-free and we might as well use the "official" non-free imagery instead. With the Tolkien work, in speaking of its broad elements, a fan illustration of a generic dwarf is fine, because the artist is interpolating from sources. However, the One Ring image is clearly based on the film (namely the style of the inscribed writing), and should be treated as a derivative work and thus non-free.
Where there is an official licensed adaption, and where the original work lacked any significant illustration (as I believe the GoT books had), then using the official licensed work for images is fine. If there is a recasting of a character, editors have to make judgement calls of which character to feature: I think the Naharis one is right in using the image of the character that played the character the most as the lede is right, and the original actor's image is not really necessary since it was only a few appearances (this is where using a free commons image of the actor would be reasonable to reduce non-free). And I will say that there has been discussion of when talking live-action roles of why the need for character images , and the argument back is that there's elements of characters' styling, outfitting, and expression from official media that editors claim carry implicit weight relative to just an image of the actor taken freely. There's no problem with having the non-free character image alongside the free image of the actor, particularly if the article is long enough and needs some visual sprucing up. --Masem (t) 14:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Blanca Blanco photo

On the page for actress Blanca Blanco, the photograph https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blanca_Blanco.png uploaded by Mikemaxson is claimed to have been uploaded by author. The photograph seems to be a clipped photo that is available at http://www.zimbio.com/photos/Blanca+Blanco/AFI+FEST+2012+Presented+Audi+Hitchcock+Premiere/7VYZ9NW4fOL Attribution seems to be Jason Merritt/Getty Images North America Ngufra (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Seal of Minnesota.svg

File:Seal of Minnesota.svg is on enwiki under a fair use claim. However, on Commons, there is File:Seal of Minnesota-alt.png, which is said to be in the public domain (published in 1983 w/o notice and copyright not registered within 5 years; tagged with {{PD-US-1978-89}}). I'm confused because one is supposedly copyrighted and the other is supposedly in the public domain. —MRD2014 Talk 03:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Ourisman Chevrolet Picture

I would like to upload this picture to illustrate an article: https://www.loc.gov/item/thc1995008620/PP/

I am not sure if it can be used or not. The company who used to own the building still exist but the building does not. I am trying to illustrate the building by using this picture.

What would be the best way to handle this?

Thank you, Blaise Marion 15:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blaisemarion (talk • contribs)

The explanation by the LoC about the rights is there. The information about this particular negative does not seem to mention a client. It's unlikely that we can find more information than the personnel of the LoC did. From the background and the rights page, it seems implicit that the heir of the photographer released the personal photos to the public domain. You could take a chance and assume PD and then upload it to Commons in the Category:Photographs by Theodor Horydczak, or you could be cautious and assume that that it was taken for a client, in this case possibly the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., and then make more research to find if it was published, in what conditions, etc., or contact the company to ask if they know anything about it. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Distingbanner4.svg

I am wondering if this file's licensing can be converted to {{PD-CAGov}} since the copyright holder appears to be the California Department of Education. If not, then I don't see how its non-free use can be justified in any individual school articles like Marc and Eva Stern Math and Science School. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Marvin Shields.jpeg

This file is currently licensed as {{Non-free biog-pic}} for use in Marvin Glenn Shields, which seems fine. The file was, however, being used in SeaBee and User:Mcb133aco/sandbox, and those uses did not comply with WP:NFCCP so I removed the file from those pages. Mcb133aco posted on my user talk that the file is in the public domain because it's owned by the US Navy, but I am unable to clarify this given the links provided on the file's page or on my user talk. Perhaps someone else can find the original source for this image or at least something which states it can be converted to {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}? Maybe {{PD-US-no notice}} might also be an option. Just want to get the licensing right because as long as it continues to be licensed as non-free content, the file's use is going to have to comply with NFCCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

It is listed at http://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/sailors-medal-of-honor (scroll down to number 8) as being to the Navy but I am not sure about the accuracy. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that Emir of Wikipedia. I'm not sure if that's sufficient enough, but maybe. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
This https://navy.togetherweserved.com/usn/servlet/tws.webapp.WebApp?ID=2814&cmd=ShadowBoxProfile&type=TributeExt calls it a "Service Photo" which suggests to me it would be a Navy. The best confirmation however could be if someone was willing to email the person listed at http://www.mishalov.com/Shields.html as they have provided the picture of the picture online before. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
These results https://www.tineye.com/search/24357e2a07109f00f9906d75c4219c8b87026467/ could be useful for looking for more details but I think that was pretty much it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that additional info. I've also asked about this at c:COM:VP/C#en:File:Marvin Shields.jpeg since someone there might be able to help clarify whether this file should be PD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
@Emir of Wikipedia: Someone on Commons found this and this also showing the photo. Both of those websites say their content is protected by copyright, and they don't attribute the photo to anyone in particular. Maybe this lack of attribution means the photo is PD? -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I saw those sites as well as they were in the tineye, but I was unsure do to the copyright symbols on them and the lack of attribution. However further digging I have found this https://www.history.navy.mil/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nhhc-series/nh-series/USN-1119000/USN-1119884.html -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Which states that it is a photograph taken in July 1966 of someone who died in June 1965. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
That part is confusing and maybe a typo of some sort. National Archives is listed as the copyright holder. Are NA photos automatically {{PD-USGov}}? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Most often. It is documented in another book as being an official U.S. Navy photograph now stored at NARA. It should be PD-USGov-Military-Navy. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Emir of Wikipedia, Asclepias, and Clindberg: It seems that there's enough to suggest that this photo is {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}, so I've gone ahead and converted the licensing as such. I also added {{NARA-image}}, but was not able to figure out the NARA image number. I tried "USN 1119884", but that doesn't seem to work. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
    • NARA-image is for works with a NARA ID number, which are only given for material which they have scanned and put online. It does not look like this one has been done that way (presumably someone found the record at NARA and scanned it themselves). USN 111984 would be a navy-specific ID, which would be included in the record and can help finding it if you know the unit it comes from, but those do not work with an explicit lookup. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Conservative party logo.svg

Wondeing if this needs to be non-free. The "C" seems simple enough for a least {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} even if it would be considered to be above c:COM:TOO#Colombia. This is also basically the same file found on Commons as File:Bandera del Partido Conservador Colombiano.png. If the svg needs to be non-free simply because it's a user-created vector version, then there's no need for it per WP:NFCC#1 and it should be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

That's a fairly stylized C. I am inclined to say that it is probably copyrighted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I think there is originality with that "c", especially the dis-articulated parts, and I am not sure we can rely on Commons having gotten around to reviewing the file: here is the Commons user page for the uploader, who is retired [1]. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Jo-Jo Eumerus and Alanscottwalker. Of course as you point out, the licensing of the Commons' file might be wrong. I've asked about it at c:COM:VP/C#File:Bandera del Partido Conservador Colombiano.png. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Palazzo Corpii circa 1920.tif

Not sure if this needs to be licensed as non-free content, but if it does then the thumnail version File:Palazzo Corpii Thumbnail.jpg also needs to be non-free, doesn't it? Otherwise the non-free file fails WP:NFCC#1. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

If the image was originally published in 1920 or before, as the Library of Congress states, then all copyrights have expired and NFC does not apply. Do you have any evidence that the image was actually published later and is still copyrighted, Marchjuly? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I came across the non-free one while checking on some files flagged as WP:NFCC#9 violations, and then noticed the other one. I'm not saying the non-free one needs to stay non-free, only asking whether it should be converted to PD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I do not see a reason for a non-free content tag. The tag inserted by the uploader is "Non-free architectural work" and the NFC rationale is a rationale for the use of a free photograph of a non-free building. Of course, if the photograph had not been free, it could not have been used merely in a context about the building, but only in a context about the work of the photographer. So, the question is why the uploader thinks that the building is not free. Perhaps he was not sure if the image could be freely usable in Turkey. The article does not mention the death dates of the architects. The Giacomo Leoni who is said to have worked on the building in 1873 is not the same Giacomo Leoni who is linked in the article and who died in 1746. Anyway, the building should be free in the United States. -- Asclepias (talk) 06:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look Asclepias. I noticed you did some clean up of the license, but you left the non-free use rationale and non-free copyright license. That still creates a license conflict, so I'm wondering if there's a specific reason why you didn't remove both. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I guess my reason was just, while the situation is under discussion here, to leave the different possibilities coexist on the file's page until interested users have a chance to compare, modify, say what they think and a consensus is reached about what is best. If there's a consensus that the proposal presenting the image as freely usable would be ok, then someone, ideally the uploader if he agrees, can remove the non-free tag and rationale. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Received my ping. Sorry about any confusion I might have caused, I was originally conflicted about how I should go about uploading the Library of Congress image. Originally I thought that it may still be copyrighted, but when I went back to find a thumbnail sized image, I found at that it is most definitely out of copyright. I will remove the non-free usage information. Thanks for the help.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Oodaaq

A recent edit to Oodaaq questions the copyright status (and relevance) of File:Oodaaq Island, 2003.jpg. This isn't my field, but would anyone care to check it please? Thanks, Certes (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The immediate source of the Commons file File:Oodaaq Island, 2003.jpg is the image 2003 Ultima Thule Greenland in background uploaded to flickr by the flickr account Mr Minton. On his blog, the owner of the flickr account Mr Minton acknowledges that the source of the photograph is the website arcticthule.com. The website arcticthule.com credits the photos to Roger Brown, Galen Rowell and Peter Skafte. There doesn't seem to be a free license on this website and there is no evidence that Mr Minton obtained from the photographer the rights to offer the photo under the free license CC by 2.0. The photo is not even credited on the flickr page. The deletion of the file can be requested on Commons. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Bernardo Brusca.jpg

Any opinions on whether this is PD in the US? If it's not and needs to be treated as non-free, then I don't see how its use in Giovanni Brusca satisfies WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#1. The file could be used as non-free in a stand-alone article about Brusca's father (if one existed), but the reader doesn't need to see a non-free image if Brusca's father, especially since he's only mentioned by name everywhere except the image's caption. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Marchjuly: you should ask User:Ruthven, an Italian admin on the commons. ww2censor (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion Ww2censor. I've posted something on Ruthven's Commons user talk. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
@Marchjuly and Ww2censor:  The mugshot is very probably from 1985, so the file is in the Public Domain in ll the worlds but in the US. It's PD-Italy for sure (no creative intention in the shot), but it wasn't PD in Italy at the URAA date (1996), so is not considered PD in the US. To be PD in the US, a non creative photo taken in Italy must have been created before 1976. --Ruthven (msg) 08:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look a this Ruthven. Does this mean, in your opinion, the file should be treated as non-free content when used locally on English Wikipedia? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: On Italian Wikipedia it's PD for sure; here I doubt. I think it's a case of fair use. --Ruthven (msg) 21:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ruthven and Ww2censor: I've nomimated the file for discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 January 18#File:Bernardo Brusca.jpg just for reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Photos of Italy national rugby union team players

I receive press emails from the Six Nations Championship and one I received this morning informed me that the Italian Rugby Federation has uploaded "hi-res, rights-free head and shoulders pics" to a Dropbox account. By "rights-free", can I infer that these are good to upload to Wikimedia Commons and use freely on Wikipedia? – PeeJay 11:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it all depends on how the IRF define "rights-free". Is that definition anyway to be read? Nthep (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I clicked on the Dropbox link they provided and there didn't appear to be any expansion on what they meant by "rights-free". I could perhaps get in touch with the contact mentioned in the original email. Bear with me. – PeeJay 15:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Sankta Lucia Ticket.jpg

I have a ticket to the Saint Lucy concert at St Paul's which I would like to use in a article I am working on in relation to British-Swedish relations (which is currently in my sandbox). The question is is what kind of licence would be the best one. Currently I put under fair use as it is someone else' work, and it has four logos which are copyright-able. However, other similar tickets such as File:Detroit_Pistons_at_Washington_Wizards_game_ticket,_March_11,_2006.png are PD as its is {{PD-text}}. 159753 (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Contributing my own photographs to Wikipedia

I have quite a few old photographs of railway subjects, taken by me in the 1960s. I would quite like to include some of them in WP articles, but I am well aware that people make money out of selling books of old railway photographs. I am big-headed enough to think that some of my photographs could be valuable in that respect. I am not happy that having contributed my photographs freely to WP someone else should make money out of them. I have noticed some photographs in WP articles where the photographer seems to have retained copyright. I didn't think this was possible. Can someone please tell me whether I can upload pictures to WP and still retain copyright? If so, how.

I could always downgrade the photographs by reducing the resolution, but that would seem a pity. Exbrum (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Exbrum: You would still retain the copyright. However, in adding the files to Wikipedia (actually Wikimedia Commons, in this case), you would be releasing them under a free licence. There are many of these, but they all allow free use by anyone for any purpose, including for commercial purposes. The most restrictive licence you can apply would require that the re-user credited you, and that they released their own version of the photograph under the same licence. As the copyright owner, you would still be free to sell and reproduce these images yourself in whatever manner you wished, but the copies on Wikipedia would be free for anybody's use. Yunshui 雲水 22:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I think I asked the wrong question. I should have asked: Can I upload photographs and prevent others from using them commercially? I am aware that this is not possible on Wikimedia Commons, but Wikipedia seems to be different as I am sure that I have come across pictures there where the owner seems to have managed to restrict usage by others. Exbrum (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The solution to this, is to upload images that are just large enough to be of use on Wikipedia. Whilst we don't allow advertising, I see no problem with you uploading small versions with a comment that you can supply larger images suitable for commercial use (for a fee) and your email/contact details. Editors at Wikimedia Commons may suggest that an image under 1,000 pixels are a bit useless for commercial use but large enough for Wikipedia articles. Also keep in mind that when you expire and ascend to that big dark-room in the sky, your photographic heritage may end up in a rubbish dump. Prepare now, to pass them on to your descendants. After death, relatives are a bit in shock and numb. Their focus is just sorting out things of value and unfortunately photos are the first things to get thrown out because they a seen as just photographs. Aspro (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi Exbrum. Wikipedia basically only accepts freely licensed content which allows use for any purpose, including commercial; so, no it will not accept content uploaded under a free license which does not allow commercial use. Wikipedia does, however, allow copyright content to be uploaded as non-free content as long as it's use complies with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. Non-free use is not automatic and each use must meet the ten non-free content criteria listed in WP:NFCCP. Satisfying all of these criteria can be tricky, so it would be easier to give a more specific to know in which articles you want to use the photos and how. Non-free content generally requires that there be a very strong connection between article content and non-free content and its use is usually only recommended when including the non-free content significantly improves the reader's understanding of what is written in the article to such a degree that omitting said content would be detrimental to that understanding. This is to discourage non-free use which is more decorative than contextual. There are some guidelines given in WP:NFC#UUI of types of non-free use typically considered unacceptable.
Finally, just because a file is uploaded to Wikipedia under a non-free copyright license, doesn't that Wikipedia can prevent someone from downloading it and using it commercially; it just means that they can't calim that they got the file from Wikipedia under a license allowing commercial use. Non-free content does not require the permission of the copyright holder and essentially the photos you've see are being used under Wikipedia's version of the concept of fair use. Not all language Wikipedia's allow a type of "fair use", and those that do have their own specific policies regarding it. You can find out more in c:COM:FAIR#"Fair use" allowed on some Wikimedia projects. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Think this needs a bit of clarification. As far as I can see, it is the version of the image uploaded that carries the CC copyright. If the uploader has a better quality image s/he can can still sell the reproduction rights to the better quality image. The help desk on Wikimedia Commons can give better advice as they deal will images all the time. Aspro (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 January 18#Non-free road signs used in list article

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 January 18#Non-free road signs used in list article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Government photos from a country that no longer exists

  • I have a large number photographic images originally produced by the Government of Manchukuo, which only existed between 1932 and 1945. They were given to my grandfather when he visited that country in 1934. Are those images Public Domain.--Orygun (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

File:2018 Aktobe bus fire.jpg

Is a photo of a major disaster (that could be used as evidence or in a report) published by an official government ministry, in this case the Committee for Emergency Situations of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Kazakhstan considered an official document? To cite precedent in the US, NTSB photographs of similar accidents and/or diagrams, charts, etc, are published in the official final reports, presented to witnesses in court as evidence, etc. I was thinking that the image would be considered an official document because it depicts the exact scene of the fire, but not 100% sure. I suspect it may be Copyrighted free use or Attribution case, but not sure. Thanks!--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Depends on the law in question. I could imagine some countries where the photographer loses their rights to a picture so published as a matter of public policy and others in which they keep them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
one. I put the image under fair use to be safe, but in Kazakhstan would it be PD if its a government photo?--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
My sense is that it's fairly unlikely that a government employee is by chance going to photograph an incident that the government is later investigating. Most likely such photos would be contributed by people who still have copyrights to the photos, unless the copyright law in question strips them of such rights if their photos become evidence in a report. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I was under the impression it was taken by a government employee that was sent to the scene of the accident, based on the degree the bus was burnt, and the respective attributions to the government. The NTSB always takes photos of an accident scene, why wouldn't Kazakhstan's emergency ministry do the same? The image is used by many newspapers, all crediting the government.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Busan I Park.png

Does this need to be {{Non-free logo}}? The shield imagery seems utilitarian enough to not be eligible for copyright and the same seems to be the case for the letter "I". There is, however, some kind of "shadowing" or "color gradient" which covers the right side of the logo and the trim of the shield's edge. Are these enough to keep it non-free? -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

There is zilch about TOO in South Korea at Commons:Threshold of originality, so I'd go with the c:COM:PCP and say it's non-free in that country. As for US status, the shadowing and gradient make it problematic, so I'd assume non-free status here as well. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Finnusertop's opinion. ww2censor (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Bradley Central logo.png

I don't think this is below c:COM:TOO#United States because of amount of detail found in the claw imagery and probably would be better off as {[tl|PD-logo}}{{Non-free logo}} instead. However, I am interested in other opinions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC); [Post edited by Marchjuly to change "PD-logo" to "Non-free logo". -- 13:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)]

The claw detail looks creative and not simple enough even for the US. ww2censor (talk) 10:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ww2censor and Hammersoft: I think this can be converted to non-free given your comments, but I've placed a {{Please see}} on the uploader's user talk just to give them a chance to repsond. If they don't within a reasonable amount of time, then I think just being bold and converting, plus adding a link to this discussion to the file's talk page, is enough. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
We had a similar discussion with File:Brainerdhightn.png, which we determined Template:Non-free school logo would be better. However, this was uploaded before then, and I had used the current template because it was what I had seen used with all other school logos (which I accept was somewhat foolish on my part). So my rationale would be change to {{non-free school logo}}. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Where is this image on the webpage linked as source? -- Asclepias (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Asclepias: It looks like the logo can be found here and one of the school's Facebook pages here. Perhaps one of those can be used as the source url. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Treaty of Waitangi

This is an odd one. Not an image question as is usual over here.

I have recently added an English translation of the Māori version of the Treaty of Waitangi to the article of the same name. The translation is essential as part of the article, as one of the main features of the Treaty is that it was originally signed with two different copies in different languages and the original English and Māori versions differed from each other significantly. Having an English translation of the Māori version to compare against the original English version is essential for the reader in this case.

The translation is by Sir Hugh Kawharu, and is often called the 'official' modern English translation of the Māori version.[2] It was used in the Treaty Times Thirty translation collaboration,[3] and is listed on various NZ govt sites [4], [5], including the Waitangi tribunal site.[6]

As I understand it, translations generally have copyright, even if the original source was free. However, I believe that the text of this translation meets fair use criteria, there is no free equivalent of sufficient quality, and by some rationale there cannot be one, if it is as accurate a translation as everyone seems to agree. I do not believe that Hugh Kāwharu's footnotes meet fair use, for example this NZ govt sourcehere shows that they copied the text with no comment, but the footnotes they say that they only copied with permission. I have therefore not included the footnotes.

Basically the question here is whether the use of the translation is ok or not, and whether there needs to be any further attribution (it clearly states in-text just above the treaty sections that the translations are by Sir Hugh Kawharu). Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 12:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

It does not sound OK as the translation would be replaceable. It may not be easy, but it would be possible. So I think use would be UNFAIR. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
​How would it be replaceable? There is no suitable quality translation alternative. A user translation would not be sufficient, and the treaty has been subject to 170 years of examination as to what the best translation should be, this is what has been accepted. Any sufficient other free translation (if one existed) would be essentially identical anyway. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 11:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Its currently been removed from the article for now... but I'd really like to get some more advice from experts on copyright regarding this specific case (at least more than the brief comment above). I'm having difficulty understanding where the bright line in the sand is in this case and why this case would not be fair use. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 01:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Why does the complete Kawharu translation need to be included? I understand that there are significant differences in the original Maori and English versions so pointing these out is a necessary part of the article. But are these differences in part or throughout? If it is only certain areas then using small extracts of the translation may meet fair-use criteria. Another option, are there reliable secondary sources that discuss the differences as those could be used to show what the differences are rather than relying on direct primary comparison of the Kawharu's translation and the original? Nthep (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Nthep. See Treaty_of_Waitangi#Differences_between_English_and_Māori_versions. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 18:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
So with the depth of sourcing in that section, looking at the Kawharu translation how does having that reproduced in full or part add to the user's understanding of the subject? - this is a key part of the WP:NFCC. I ask because I don't see how it does. There are key phrases already mentioned where it might help to have The Maori version says X, the English version says Y but Kawharu's work shows that Y doesn't translate as X (or vice versa) and this means there are issues because ... but I don't think it is necessary to have the Kawharu in there in full. Nthep (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
@Nthep. So what I am hearing is that it would be better to quote Kawharau for contentious bits of the articles "English says this, which best translates to ... quote Kawharau's translation" and then discuss the individual wording choices as is done currently, and leave out Kawharau's full text. OK. Thanks for your input. I think we can count this as resolved. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 19:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Yousuf husain.jpg

This file has been tagged with {{wrong license}}, and from the EXIF data it looks like a photo taken of another photo of uncertain copyright status. I'm not sure Wikipedia can keep this as currently licensed, but if it can then it might mean that the non-free File:Dr Zakir Hussain.jpg is no longer needed per WP:NFCC#1. Is there a way to find out the copyright status of the original "File:Yousuf husain.jpg" photo? It might be possible to convert this to {{Non-free biog-pic}} for use in Yousuf Hussain Khan if WP:NFCC#10a and WP:NFCC#4 can be sorted out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

File:YYT Corporate logo.jpg

File is tagged with {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} and {{Non-free logo}}, but it can't be both. If it really needs to be treated as non-free, then its use in Draft:YYT Food Corporation fails WP:NFCC#9. It will keeped being flagged as a NFCC#9 violation as long as the licensing conflict is not resolved. Any opinions on whether this is below c:COM:TOO#United States? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Alexander Abugov.jpg

Hello, I don't know how to put copyright tag on my image File:Alexander Abugov.jpg ‎— Preceding unsigned comment added by MinskBel (talk • contribs) 19:11, January 24, 2018 (UTC)

Image has been marked for deletion. Do not take photos you find on the Internet and just upload them there. Unless there is an explicit notice putting it under a free license all images are under a copyright license we cannot use. --Majora (talk) 02:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Older questions

were can i see older questions from me 24.159.0.224 (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi IP 21.159.0.224. You've only made one post to this page using this IP address. Did you perhaps use a different account to ask your question? If you did, then scroll up this page until you see the "Search all media copyright questions and archives". There's a box right above that so just enter the user name or IP address you used when you asked your question, and then press "enter" on your computer. This will search for all posts where that user name can be found. If you don't remember your user name, but remember what the question was about; just enter that into the serach window. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Rogersville MO Frisco Caboose.jpg

A non-free image of this might not be needed per c:COM:FOP#United States since the US tends to allow free photos to be taken of structures, buildings, vehicles, etc. which are publically displayed. The question then is whether this caboose would be considered more of train car or a 3D work of art/memorial. I'm not sure how US copyright law treats ultiltarian objects which are subsequently converted into memorials. The file's non-free use rationale also claims that "The author of the image has released the photographic work under a free license, or it is in the public domain: The image is found on the public domain on the 417 Magazine website." so maybe if the copyright status of the caboose is not an issue then all that probably would be required is OTRS verification for the photo. If this does need to be non-free, then I think its copyright license probably needs to be changed to {{Non-free 3D art}} or something else more appropriate than {{Non-free architectural work}} with a separate copyright license for the photo also added. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

C-SPAN coverage of the Supreme Court

Are Supreme Court videos produced by C-SPAN in the public domain? E.g. Oral arguments

Thanks! – Lionel(talk) 13:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

L.S., I was advised by ColinFine to ask my question here; it is whether this photograph is in the public domain: File:William_Edwin_Hamilton.png. The photo was made around 1870, but I do not know where. The p-book in which the photo was published (probably for the first time but also that is unknown) is copyrighted 1980 by the Johns Hopkins University press, but the photo itself does not have a copyright notice, the text does mention courtesy to a family member.

As far as is known WE Hamilton never lived in the US: the photograph was made in Ireland or in Canada. This page, Wikipedia:Public_domain#Country-specific_rules indicates that if it was made in Canada, since there is no crown copyright applying, it is in the public domain. The same holds for Ireland; for an "artistic work" which includes photographs, http://ivaro.ie/copyright/ says: "In Ireland, and throughout the European Union, copyright lasts for the creators lifetime plus a further 70 years."

If, by chance, the photo was made in the US while WE Hamilton was travelling, in the table of Wikipedia:Public_domain#Copyright_term_table element S+ if N* applies: created before 1897, published between 1978 and 1 Mar 1989; as mentioned, for the photograph there is no copyright notice in the book (only for the book itself). VWA (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

  • I'm hard pressed to come up with a scenario in which this image is not in the public domain. We don't know the author. The image claims the author is the subject of the image, but that is extremely unlikely given the nature of photography at the time. Under Irish law, if we don't know the author, copyright expires 70 years from the end of the year in which the work was created. If we presume the author is the subject, he died in 1902...and again we add 70 years. I don't think we can conclude the image was taken in Canada; he didn't move to Canada until 1872. If we presume the work was created in Canada, the expiry of copyright is even less, and it would have had to have been registered. The base case scenario for not public domain is the image was created in U.S., in which case 120 years from date of creation would apply, which means copyright expired 28 years ago. I think we're quite safe indicating this image is public domain. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Captured German flag, Friesoythe, Germany, 16 April 1945.jpg

The photograph is PD in Canada. Would someone check that the US copyright tag is correct. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it does. The current CA law , the Copyright Modernization Act, which places photos taken before 1949 in the PD, was not passed until 2012. In the US, we need to have had the photo in the PD before 1977, which as I understand the state of the CA copyright law, was not the case: until the above Act, the photo would have been considered copyright of life + 50 years (which for a 1946 photo, could be possible, unless we can verify the photographer). However, I'm not 100% on this. --Masem (t) 18:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
A search for the photographer brings up a lot of his images (including some on Commons), many featuring in official Canadian government publications and the subjects and locations are so widespread that these aren't just personal snapshots, so there is a definite possibility that his work is covered by Canadian Crown Copyright in which case it is PD. However it needs confirmation that his work is official Canadian Government work. Nthep (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
See this. Credit: Capt. Alexander M. Stirton / Canada. Dept. of National Defence / Library and Archives Canada / PA-167250 [...] Copyright: Expired — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Seen that, but that's not, imo, confirmation that he was an official Canadian war photographer and that his work is covered by Crown Copyright. It's a strong indicator but not conclusive. Nthep (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
To be covered by Crown copyright, a work does not necessarily have to be the creation of a government employee. It only has to have been "prepared or published by or under the direction or control of" the government (per section 12 of the Copyright Act). This photo having been published by or under the control of the government, it was under Crown copyright. Anyway, Stirton was actually an official Army photographer, as specified in the context page linked from the source, so this photo was also prepared under the direction of the government. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Good find, that is the confirmation I was looking for that he was an official photographer rather than these being a set of donated personal snapshots. Nthep (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Photographs (other than Crown copyright) taken before 1949 were already in the public domain since a long time, per the old rule, which was creation year + 50 years. (That rule was replaced in 1999 with the rule of life + 50 years, applicable to photos other than Crown or corporate photos. Photos already in the PD remained in the PD. Hence 1999-50=1949 becoming de facto the cut year.) The 2012 law that modified some sections of the Copyright Act did not "place" those photos in the PD. Those photos were already in the PD. The 2012 law confirmed that the works that were already in the PD remained in the PD. Anyway, it is a moot point for the photo discussed here because this photo was a Crown copyright photo. The rule for Crown copyright works was, and still is, publication year + 50 years. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
However, for a PD work in Canada to be PD in the US, it needs to have been PD in Canada by 1977, which, unless it was Crown Copyright, it was not. --Masem (t) 04:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
It will likely be accepted on Commons with PD-Canada + PD-1996. Those photos were meant to be published for war information and it seems reasonable to assume that they were published in the year of their creation. There are many photographs on Commons from the same photographer and the same source and, as far as I can tell from a quick search, their validity on Commons was never questioned. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Commons has a separate template for Canadian Crown copyright images {{PD-Canada-Gov}} which perhaps we should consider introducing here to make these discussions a bit easier as we would have more idea which leg of Canadian copyright is being relied on in the first instance. Nthep (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all. Transferred to Commons. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Kwai Tsing District Council Logo.svg

Can this be treated as {{PD-logo}} or {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} (the latter if this is not deemed to be below c:COM:TOO#China (PRC)). If not, then it needs a non-free use rationale for Kwai Tsing District per WP:NFCC#10c or it should be removed from that article. Also, would it matter if the logo was created prior to Hong Kong's sovereignty being transfered to the PRC because if Hong Kong followed the c:COM:TOO#United Kingdom at that time, then this might not be PD-logo since the UK's TOO tends to be quite low. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I dunno, to me such a figure sounds like a case of a "selection and arrangement" copyright. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Official Mossad logo.png

File:Official Mossad logo.png is licensed as non-free, but there's a very similar version of the seal uploaded to Commons as File:Mossad seal.svg. Either the non-free file can be converted to the same licensing as the Commons one, or it's no longer needed per WP:NFCC#1. Of course, it's always possible that the Commons version is uploaded under an incorrect license, and if that's the case then c:COM:DR will need to be started there to discuss it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

More than one fair use image in an article

I'd be grateful for some expert advice. As a frequent submitter to FAC I know how rigorously copyright is observed, and before I embark on an overhaul of an article I have in mind, I'd like to know if it will be worth attempting. The article is on an artist who had three quite separate careers: as a cartoonist, an architectural historian, and a designer of stage sets and costumes. All his drawings and designs are still in copyright, as far as I can discover. I doubt if there will be any point in expanding the present article if we cannot reproduce one example of each of his three different activities, and I'd be glad of expert opinion on whether I'd be likely to succeed in pleading fair use for three different images in the one article. I attach links to examples of his work in the three genres: cartoonist, architectural historian, and stage designer. (Not the images I'd necessarily wish to use, but illustrative of the three quite separate aspects of his work.) Tim riley talk 12:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't see why not - look at, for example, Whaam!. There are several perfectly well justified non-free images in that article. We did create a {{PD-ineligible}} image of some of the lettering at WP:GL so that it could have a relevant main page image when it was TFA, so it might be worth considering if you can find at least one free, relevant image to include for that reason, but if there are no free alternatives to images which are important to an understanding of his various fields of work, and the understanding of the reader would be greatly diminished without them, then I don't think it should be an issue to include them with proper rationales. -- Begoon 12:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much for that advice. I'm most grateful and much encouraged! Tim riley talk 13:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, there is no upper limit on how many non-free can be used in an article, but the goal is to try to limit non-free to "zero" if we can. Each additional piece of non-free could be a problem if it doesn't meet NFCC (particulalry NFCC#3 and NFCC#8). However, assuming the person's career has discussions about their disparate works, then a non-free to illustrate each is likely reasonable. But there's no math or formula here at play, that's key. --Masem (t) 02:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Masem. That is clear and helpful, and I'll make sure to follow your and Begoon's pointers. Tim riley talk 16:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
What Masem said. The ideal number of nonfree is "zero", but that's not always possible. As long as the number of nonfree works used is the minimum possible, it's allowed. In some cases, that might be more than one per article, especially if they illustrate totally different things. If you want to use multiple nonfree works to illustrate the same thing, that's more of a problem. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Seraphimblade. I understand, and will carefully follow the above advice, for which I am most grateful. Tim riley talk 17:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2018/January&oldid=1138542486"