Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2019/January

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


1955 copies of The Illustrated London News

Two copies of The Illustrated London News from 1955 contain photographs of, and text about, the Emesa helmet. Could someone please give me a sense of the copyright status of these issues?

1) April 30: Cover with two photographs (crown copyright indicated) and about two paragraphs of text. I assume that the photographs entered the public domain around 2005. Could the entire cover be uploaded to Commons? The only other elements of the front cover are the paper's logo (which may still be trademarked, but is too old for the copyright to endure), and the two paragraphs of text.

2) August 27: Single page with two photographs and text. The photographs are "Reproduced by courtesy of the General Directorate of Antiquities of Syria, world copyright reserved," which Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has indicated essentially just means that UK copyright law applies. In that case, and given that the copyright holder is an institutional author, what is the relevant length of copyright?

Thanks for any help. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Who owns steerable webcam images

For public webcams with camera pointing and zooming controls in the browser, who owns the resulting images? 73.222.1.26 (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Are there terms & conditions associated with the webcam(s), and if so, do they speak to the subject? --Usernameunique (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Whoever directs the webcam in a given direction would be the most plausible copyright holder. Note though that AFAIK depending on the details there may not be any copyright holder. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, wonderful and helpful people!

I am currently looking to add the appropriate logo to Dizzy (series) and since I am not particularly knowledgable about copyright issues, I am unsure as to whether it would count as a copyright-free logo. The image in question is this one cropped to include only the word "dizzy" (sadly, I was unable to find any sufficiently high quality version of the image that would not require cropping). Would this fall below the threshold of creativity required for copyright, or is there enough to it that I should upload it as a non-free fair use image?

(In case it matters, the logo originates in the UK. As far as I could tell, that's only of potential relevance on Commons and not if it's uploaded on Wikipedia, but it's probably better if I err on the side of providing too much information rather than too little.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowercaserho (talk • contribs) 08:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I've come across this before. It needs to be uploaded to Wikipedia, not Commons. Commons specifically states that UK logos are NOT OK.( Media related to COM:TOO United Kingdom at Wikimedia Commons). And don't upload it as copyright free either. When you upload it add {{Do not move to Commons|reason=USonly}} to the licensing section. It will help prevent the cycle of someone moving it and then it getting deleted from Commons. - X201 (talk) 09:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Just to be 100% clear on this: you're saying that the image would not qualify as a copyright free logo and that I should upload it as non-free but with a fair use claim? Sorry if I'm belabouring the point or asking obvious questions; copyright makes my head hurt. Lowercaserho (talk) 10:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
@Lowercaserho: If I understand it correctly, the correct tag is {{PD-logo}} or {{PD-US}} but you have to upload it here and add the "do not move" template as described to avoid accidental moves by others. It cannot be used on Commons because it's copyrighted in the UK. See the documentation of {{Do not move to Commons}} for more details. Regards SoWhy 11:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Lowercaserho. I suggest using the license {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} (use the syntax {{PD-ineligible-USonly|United Kingdom}}) if you want to try and upload this locally to Wikipedia as WP:PD. However, if the official logo of the file includes the two images as well, then cropping it might not be a good idea since that might be seen as sort of misrepresentation. In that case, you'll need to upload the logo as non-free content and make sure the way(s) you intend to use it comply with WP:NFCC. As for just the "dizzy" part, that looks pretty close to being more than just a simple text logo or font; so, it might not be considered {{PD-logo}} even in the US per c:COM:TOO United States. It would definitely be above c:COM:TOO United Kingdom in my opinion, which means Commons most likely would not keep it. The safest thing might be even to upload the "dizzy" crop as non-free. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you all for your help and your time. I will (when I have time) err on the side of caution and upload it as non-free/fair use. Lowercaserho (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

According to Copyright law of the United Kingdom, Crown copyright of "[p]hotographs taken before 1 June 1957 expire 50 years after creation." I can't find an appropriate copyright tag for this case. Is there one, and if not, how should the image be tagged? SpinningSpark 10:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks to me like {{PD-UKGov}} or {{Non-free Crown copyright}} depending on whether the copyright has expired or not. —teb728 t c 10:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I found that tag on commons myself after posting. It's not here on any of the lists at Wikipedia:File copyright tags, but probably should be. SpinningSpark 10:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I can't upload a facebook screenshot

The screenshot doesn't have the facebook logo on it. And I want to use it on a facebook related article. --Facebookfakename (talk) 07:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Facebookfakename: You are mistaken if you think that a screenshot could be used to verify a fact in an article: A screenshot or other image is not a reliable source. What you need is a published reliable source. —teb728 t c 08:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
facebook disabled the report fake name function in the chinese language, why does this web site need an article in order to verify that? it is as simple as 1+1.--Facebookfakename (talk) 09:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Verifiability pretty much requires that all article content be supported by citations to reliable sources so that anyone reading the article can verify the accuracy of whatever is written. A photo/screenshot is not really the best way to try and do this because there's no way to know for sure whether the photo has been altered. Try checking major newspapers, magazines, or major news websites to see if this has been covered by any of them. As long as the source has been published and has a good reputation for editorial control/fact checking, it should be OK to cite. Check Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for some examples of the types of sources Wikipedia generally considers to be reliable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I'd added a logo to this page using this file File:Child trends logo.jpeg which I found on their website and thought was a fair use for it. Any help is appreciated! valereee (talk) 10:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Valereee. It looks like the file was removed because it's lacking a non-free use rationale for that particular use. All files are required to have a file copyright tag, but non-free files are further required to have a separate specific non-free use rationale for each use per non-free content use criterion #10c. You can ask JJMC89, the editor who removed the file, to be sure, but I think all you need to do is provide the missing rationale for the Child Trends article. You can probably use Template:Non-free use rationale logo if you want. Just follow the template's instructions and fill in all of the parameters as best as you can. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Marchjuly I will go try! I thought I had done what I was supposed to, but I'm not very experienced with images. I'll come back if I can't figure it out! valereee (talk) 13:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Two images with incorrect sourcing

Two images at WikiMedia Commons have incorrect attribution this and this, as explained here. What's the proper way to handle such a situation? --Ronz (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. Those are Commons files which means they will have to be handled on Commons. Technically, they should be tagged for speedy deletion using c:Template:Copyvio per c:COM:CSD#F1 since they aren't released under a license compatible with c:COM:L. It seems, however, to have been a good faith mistake; so, another option would be for the uploader just nominate the files for deletion per c:COM:CSD#G7 and just say he/she mistakenly uploaded the files as "own work". -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

1955 copies of The Illustrated London News

This is a repost of an archived question.

Two copies of The Illustrated London News from 1955 contain photographs of, and text about, the Emesa helmet. Could someone please give me a sense of the copyright status of these issues?

1) April 30: Cover with two photographs (crown copyright indicated) and about two paragraphs of text. I assume that the photographs entered the public domain around 2005. Could the entire cover be uploaded to Commons? The only other elements of the front cover are the paper's logo (which may still be trademarked, but is too old for the copyright to endure), and the two paragraphs of text.

2) August 27: Single page with two photographs and text. The photographs are "Reproduced by courtesy of the General Directorate of Antiquities of Syria, world copyright reserved," which Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has indicated essentially just means that UK copyright law applies. In that case, and given that the copyright holder is an institutional author, what is the relevant length of copyright?

Thanks for any help. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

If I make my own translation from copyrighted material from French or German ( or any language) for use in a WP article, is it OK for it to be more or less a literal translation? I would cite it to the source, of course. Or should I treat my own translation as if it were copyrighted material in English and re-write my own translation in my own words? ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

If you're translating content from another language Wikipedia into English, then you probably should follow the guidance given in WP:TFOLWP. However, if you're translating content you found in a non-English external source into English, then I believe all you need to do cite the original source. Unless you're simply copying-and-pasting someone else's translation of the source, I believe your own original translation would be a WP:Derivative work and you would be agreeing to release it under a free license when you add it to the Englist article. You might find some helpful guidance in WP:TRANSLATION. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you!Smeat75 (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I was looking for images to illustrate the Menstruation hut article Anna Frodesiak wrote and found this on Flickr, which says simultaneously that it's the work of USAID (United States Agency for International Development) and "all rights reserved". Wouldn't works by USAID be in the public domain via {{PD-USGov}}? Huon (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

No, that looks correct. USAID itself is an independent government agency, and PD-gov does apply to its works (even its policy page says this [1]). However, USAID Global Waters is a different organization. It is managed by USAID, but it is not an official part of the US Gov't [2]. As such we cannot presume PD-gov applies to them. --Masem (t) 00:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
The flickr photo contans "Photo Credit: USAID/Nepal", suggesting USAID took the photo and that thus the work is PD-USGov. I would be inclined to say the work is PD-USGov. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I would agree that if we know 100% that a USAID employee produced that photo then it should be PD-gov, but I worry there's enough doubt towards that to avoid. If you explore other photos by that user at Flickr, there's others named to people, which may or may not be USAID employees. And unfortunately, with the shutdown, it would be hard to contact to confirm if they messed up the licensing or not. --Masem (t) 01:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Insignias

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2019010710004731 regarding File:Nort insignia.svg and File:Souther insignia.svg. The customer indicates he owned the CR and he uploaded the file first to Devian art as "all rights reserved". Please take a look. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

So is the sender claiming that they are not "YourGloriousLeader"? The Deviantart pics were uploaded a month before the Wikipedia ones. But perhaps the images are PD-Simple anyway. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, he sais he is not the user:YourGloriousLeader and he uploaded the files before. Ganímedes (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
In which case the CC-0 is invalid as that license is not granted by another. However PD-simple could apply. What do others think? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
The gif files File:Nort insignia.gif and File:Souther insignia.gif have been on Wikipedia since 2006 and they are tagged with PD-self. The png files on deviantart are from 2018. How would one tell that YourGloriousLeader's svg files are derived from deviantart's 2018 pngs more than from Wikipedia's 2006 gifs? Couldn't one say just as well that deviantart's 2018 images might be derived from Wikipedia's 2006 images? Or just that they are all independently derived directly or indirectly from the magazine? -- Asclepias (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Good point. Thanks. Ganímedes (talk) 10:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Image where the original website has been taken down

I found an image in use on Wikipedia where the image was originally posted on someone's personal website with a license. However, the website is no longer online. The image and the license are still available online through the archives from the Wayback Machine. Is that good enough to allow the image to be in use? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

That would still be suitable evidence. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

So, I was doing some uploads for British Rail logos and I noticed someone in a talk page make a remark that Crown Copyright expires 50 years from publication. So would this mean that the British Rail logo is in fact out of copyright, due to it being published in 1965? (50 years from 1965 is 2015), and wouldn't need to be uploaded and flagged as a 'non-free logo'--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 19:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

That seems right, but I'm having problems determining if the logo was created under a Crown Copyright or not. It's not clear how the BRBoard was handled as a part of the government or not. --Masem (t) 19:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
See c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:British Rail double arrow for info on this topic. Nthep (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
So, to confirm, the conclusion reached there was 'The British Rail 'Double Arrow' logo is not under copyright, because the Crown Copyright expired in 2015, 50 years after creation.', which means it can be treated as a {{PD-UKGov}}.--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 23:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Need help with an image

Moved misplaced question from talkpage. GermanJoe (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi!

I intended to upload an image in "Upload File", for use in an article ( here at English Wikipedia), but got just more and more confused the more I read about the rules. The image in question is a photograph of Rohit Khandelwal, Indian actor and model who was nominated Mr. World in 2016. I had an image in mind, and found that same image in the Indonesian article on Mr. Khandelwal here: https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohit_Khandelwal I copied it, and now wonder whether its presence on that article automatically mean that it is free to use? And if so, under which category do I upload it? Will "This is a free work" do, given that the image is lifted from Wikipedia?

I am interpreting the following line that it should be okay to use it; You can use (free) images from Wikipedia on your own site, or anywhere you like. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ten_things_you_may_not_know_about_images_on_Wikipedia


Thanks. Okama-San (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Okama-San:, unfortunately the image is not "free" (= freely licensed for all usages on-Wiki and off-Wiki). As far as I understand the Google translation for its license tag, the image is a non-free PR photo used on id-Wiki under a claim of fair use. However, the usage of such copyrighted promo photos for living people under a claim of fair use is not permitted on English Wikipedia. en-Wiki has a much stricter policy regarding non-free content - you'll find the detailed criteria for limited non-free usages on English Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, but this particular image doesn't meet them. GermanJoe (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


Thank you for the reply!:) What a pity that it was not usable, then, but at least I know now

Best regards - Okama-San (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

It has been pointed out that the Tampa Bay Rays updated their logo about a year ago and I have no idea how to update the current file (found here) to the updated one which can be found on their website at the bottom of this page. The updated logo on their website is a .jpg and the currently uploaded file is an .svg so I am hoping to find any guidance on how to update the file, or if there is somewhere I can request that it be updated because I don't have a clue where to start without worrying about violating some kind of policy. Tampabay721 (talk) 07:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC) 00:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tampabay721. The first thing you need to do is to download the file from the team's website onto your computer. Once you've done that, there are a couple of things you can do next: (1) update the existing file so that it shows the new logo or (2) upload a new file altogether and replace the existing infobox logo with it.
If you want to do (1), go to File:Tampa_Bay_Rays.svg, scroll down to the bottom and then click "Upload a new version of this file". Just follow the instructions and upload the new version of the logo from your computer to Wikipedia. The file name will not change, and the non-free use rationale and file copyright license should also be the same; so, you basically won't have to do anything else, and the old logo will automatically be replaced by the new logo in every article in which the file is being used. The drawback of this approach is the the older version will be overwritten, and eventually deleted per WP:F5; so, if you feel the old version should be saved for some reason, you should not do (1).
If you'd rather keep the two files separate, you need to do (2). Go Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard and click "Click here to start the Upload Wizard". The Wizard is fairly self-explanatory, but just remember to choose file name which is different from the already existing one and also to select "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use." Once the process has been completed, you'll need to manually replace the old file with the new one in the articles in which the old file is currently be used. If you've got any further questions, feel free to ask. If doing it yourself still seems too complicated, you can ask for help at Wikipedia:Files for upload; but that however tends to be for unregistered accounts which can't upload files. -- 00:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Tampabay721 (talk) 07:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC) 01:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Is this image in copyright?

Is this image in copyright?
SoWhy helpfully said at the ref desk: Seems as if was published in Infantry (magazine) in 1947 which is published by the United States Army Infantry School, so it's a work of the US government for the purposes of {{PD-USGov}}. On the other hand, per the Copyright Act of 1909, such publications might contain works that are copyrighted. In this case, there is no copyright notice on the image, so it should fall under {{PD-US-no notice}}. I suggest asking at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions for expert input. Thoughts? Eddie891 Talk Work 16:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The magazine is identified as published by a corporation and it has a copyright notice in the name of an association. It is not a work of the government. You could search to find if the copyright was renewed. Some of its contributors are not government employees. Some contributors are military personnel but probably not contributiong to this magazine in the course of their regular duties. Some material is reproduced from other sources. In short, one should assume that the contents are not pd-us-gov. However, some particular contributions could be considered pd-us-gov if evidence can be found. There does not seem to be much information about the photographs. Many photographs look like they were probably taken by army photographers and thus pd-us-gov. Maybe you could find more information about this photograph in places like the National Archives, Army sites, other publications, etc. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I've sent an e-mail to the National Archives, but they will not get back to me until at least the government shut down is over so we shall see... Eddie891 Talk Work 23:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Where does it say it is published by a corporation? It says: As a government publication, Infantry is in the public domain except for those items where copyright information is posted. [3] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Hawkeye7, I guess the question is whether it was published by this National Infantry Association as it seems to suggest here [4], and then it is in copyright, or whether it is the Infantry Journal as it also seems to be, and if it is the infantry journal, it would be in the public domain. Additionally, if it is published by someone other than the US army, the publisher may be defunct Eddie891 Talk Work 01:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
The copyright notice in your link seems to be for the diagram reproduced on that page. The copyright notice of the journal is in the first pages of each issue. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
The question asked by Eddie891 in this section is about a 1947 issue of the Infantry Journal, published by "Infantry Journal, Incorporated", as stated in that publication, which is reproduced at the link provided in Eddie891's question. The question is not about a 2018 issue of the magazine Infantry, published by the Fort Benning School. According to this article, "the Infantry Journal ceased publication in 1950, when it merged with the Field Artillery Journal". The magazine Infantry may have some indirect link through a series of mergers of various publications, not entirely clear in that article, but that's not important. What matters is that the contents of the 1947 Infantry Journal cannot be considered to have been pd-us-gov, except contributions created by government employees in the course of their duties. It's very possible that the photograph of Ira T. Wyche is in the public domain, either as created by an Army photographer in the course of his duties or as copyright not renewed, but it would be better to have evidence. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

WGTN-FM

This removal of a logo is not justified since the logo is that of WGTN-FM. Unless only WEZV can have a fair use rationale, but the two stations air the same programming all of the time.— :Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Vchimpanzee, is there a particular question you wish to ask? GMGtalk 18:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, clicking on "preview" risks losing everything if I go to find the diff.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
It looks like this bot is removing any instance where there is a fair use image with no link to the article that it is used in. Umm... User:JJMC89, when implementing this bot, did you consider that many of these instances may just need an added fair use rationale, rather than needing the image removed? GMGtalk 18:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
There is a link to the article, but in this case, there are two radio stations that use the logo.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, there's a link now, because I added a second fair use rational for the other article. GMGtalk 18:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I noticed a note someone left about one of my edits five years ago. I finally fixed the issue.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I not sure if this file even needs to be {{Non-free logo}}. It seems simple enough per c:COM:TOO United States for it to be licensed as {{PD-logo}} and then tagged for a move to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Advert in the Eastbourne Gazette newspaper dated 29 January 1902 for Eastbourne Football Club versus West Ham United.jpg

I'm not sure this needs to be non-free assuming the original newspaper ad/listing was first published in 1902. Can't this be licensed as {{PD-US}} or maybe even {{PD-old-100}}? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

File:B2002 - Hackney Tram Depot, Adelaide circa 1925.jpg

Not sure this needs to be non-free, but if it does then I don't think it can be kept per WP:NFCC#4 and WP:NFCC#8. The non-free use rationale file states that this is a family photo, but there's no indication that it ever has been WP:PUBLISHED. It's probably not old enough to be WP:PD; however, if the uploader is the copyright holder, then it seems that this can be released under a free license since there's freedom of panorama for buildings in Australia. Even a family member of the uploader is the person who took the photo, this might be OK to be licensed as c:Template:PD-heirs and moved to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

If it from the 1920s it would appear to be be {{PD-Australia}} and under section B1 of those guidelines also {{PD-URAA}} presuming it hasn't previously been published which isn't suggested in the description. Nthep (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Hunter Industries Inc logo.svg

This is ineligible? I am not seeing any significant artwork vs simple typographyShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Yep. US company. That's PD-text-logo. GMGtalk 14:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
So.. if someone can make a 'formal' decision on this, and update that file page...ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 Done - Updated, transferred, tagged. GMGtalk 15:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Crown Prosecution Service images

Are images produced by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) under Crown Copyright? I'm particularly thinking of this image from this story on the Metro website for use in the 2015 Shoreham Airshow crash article. Althoug credited to the Press Agency in the Metro article, the image is clearly watermarked as being prouduced by the CPS. Mjroots (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The print may have been produced by the CPS but it's highly likely they won't be the copyright holder. More likely this is an eye-witnesses photo being used as evidence in the trial. A photo they probably sold to the PA after the accident. Nthep (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

File:ITV logo 2013.svg

Can this be converted to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} or is the way the coloring overlaps just enough to push it above c:COM:TOO United States? For reference, I asked about this at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 November 11#File:ITV logo 2013.svg, but that discussion closed without anything be decided on whether this could be converted to PD.-- Marchjuly (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Please clarify

If someone (in the case I'm using, User_talk:JJMC89 for the entry I created about Myra Page) worked for the The Moscow News, and I think it's important to highlight this fellow-traveler's experience in the USSR by adding the the logo of the newspaper where she worked to illustrate that connection visually, what specifically under Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Implementation overrides my original decision to include that image? Respectfully Aboudaqn (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

There was no separate non-free use rationale for your use, as required by WP:NFCC#10c. Even if a rationale had been attempted, the rationale would have been invalid because your use did not significantly increase reader understanding (as required by WP:NFCC#8) beyond what just text could have accomplished: Your use was essentially decorative, which does not justify the use of non-free content. —teb728 t c 20:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Regional Bell Operating Company Logos

I'm about to start making SVGs of some of the logos for the Regional Bell Operating Companies. Some of the logos are under 'PD textlogo', some are under 'Non-free logo'. The logos themselves are basically identical. Cincinnati Bell 'PD-textlogo', BellSouth 'PD-textlogo' vs. Ohio Bell 'Non-Free Logo', Bell Laboratories 'Non Free Logo' the only difference being the company name and sometimes the presence of a tagline like 'An Ameritech company' or similar.
The 'Bell System' symbol (the blue circle with a bell) is marked as being 'PD-shape'.
AntiCompositeNumber over at the graphics lab seed to think File:WestElecBassLogo.svg should be 'PD textlogo', when I was asking about an unrelated matter.

I want to know if we can decide on which it is: 'PD Textlogo' or 'Non-free logo', or what aspects in these logos make it 'PD' vs 'Non-Free' if it's not uniform across the logos.--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 06:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi The Navigators. Sometimes the editor uploading a file is either unfamiliar with the concept of threshold of originality or uncertain as to how it might apply; so, they upload the file as non-free as a precaution. Other times, they might be copying what they see has been done for another logo that was licensed as non-free. Another thing to consider is whether the svg formating is in and of itself considered eligible for copyright protection separately from TOO issues. Some feel that converting a file to svg might create a new copyright since it involves some computer code as explained in c:Help:SVG#Copyright; for non-free files, svg might be a problem per WP:FREER if it's user created and not a file downloaded in svg format from an official source.
Assuming there are no problems with the Commons files and there are no svg copyright issues, I think it's probably OK to convert File:Bell Laboratories logo.svg to {{PD-logo}} and tag for a move to Commons. As for the File:Ohio Bell.png, I'm not so sure because that looks to be more than just simple text and a bell symbol: the text looks like a marble font of some kind and there appears to be a starburst image in the "A" of "American". These might not matter per c:COM:TOO United States, but there is a clear difference between this file and the other three you've referenced, at least in my opinion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Marchjuly. So, to confirm that I understand: A Before moving any SVGs to a 'PD-Textlogo' license I should first check with the original uploader if it came from anywhere other than an original source, and obtain the permission from or have the uploader themselves do the license change.
B The format that is simply the 'Bell System logo' & a company name qualifies as 'Pd-textlogo'. Logos like File:Ohio Bell.png may qualify for that as well, but are definitely more complex than the former which makes it less clear cut and requires more examining/discussing.
Thanks for the prompt reply.--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 07:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
If you believe in good faith that a logo is too simple to be protected by copyright, then you can convert it yourself if you like. If someone disagrees with you, they either revert the change outright or they start a discussion about it somewhere. There's really no need to keep a {{PD-logo}} locally on English Wikipedia; however, sometimes a file is moved to Commons, but then subsequently deleted there for some reason. So, if you want to be sure, you can try asking for opinions at c:COM:VPC.
As for the source of the svg file, it's probably best to use a vector version officially created by the copyright holder since that is likely going to be the most accurate version with the original coloring, design, etc., but my guess is that many people don't and use files they find uploaded to other websites instead. I can't say for sure why the uploaders of those two file chose to do so as non-free content; maybe they created the svg versions from scratch and wanted them protected or maybe it was (as I posted above) just done because they weren't sure about the copyright status original logo. If they did so for the first reason, then there's no way to keep the file per WP:FREER because someone else could basically do the same and release the file under a free license. If they did it for the second reason, then may you can find the original source (png, gif or whatever they used) and make your own svg version, which you can then upload to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, with these logos, official SVGs likely never existed, as these brands/company names were mostly replaced by new ones by the mid-1990s. I'll ask the the uploaders what their reason for picking the license was, and tell them about the 'PD-Textlogo' & this conversation. Admittedly, I wasn't familiar with the concept of c:COM:TOO United States before I started editing, same is possible with them. If they won't change it then I'll upload my own under 'PD-textlogo' to the Commons and replace it per WP:FREER.--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 21:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I see no problem with changing the license to some form of Public Domain (PD) license for all variants of the logo. My understanding is that the original Bell Telephone company never file for copyright or trademark protection for its "bell" logo. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)T @ 23:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Tell Me Something Good

Here are two links to YouTube audio recordings of “Tell Me Something Good" by Rufus and Chaka Khan: 1 and 2. Are they both “properly licensed”, i.e. fully suitable for use by Wikipedia? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

In short no, and it wouldn't matter even if they were. I see no indication that either of these uploads claim to be under a creative commons license. Even if they did, I don't see why these accounts should be officially linked to the publisher or writer or performers in a way that they would have legal ownership so that they could release the rights to the song. GMGtalk 16:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Link (1) above has this in the "SHOW MORE" section: "Licensed to YouTube by UMG (on behalf of Geffen); EMI Music Publishing, ASCAP, UBEM, CMRRA, SOLAR Music Rights Management, UMPI, and 6 music rights societies." I have enquired previously about this type of statement have been was told that this was adequate attribution. Would you not agree with that? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: The video may be licensed for YouTube, but there's no indication it's licensed under creative commons. Compare this video, the last video I personally uploaded to Commons, where in the "see more" it explicitly states that it's licensed under creative commons, and includes a link that gets you specifically to CCBYSA 3.0. GMGtalk 21:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, yes I see that explicit statement. But would one not assume that the Rufus and Chaka Khan video is licensed for YouTube? YT must know what its account holders are doing, surely? Hasn't it actually added that information itself? Doesn't that also mean the video can be viewed legally by anyone using any link to it? If this is not the case, I'd suggest that the text at WP:YT needs to clearly explain this? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh. Wait. Do you mean linking to it? I assumed you meant uploading it. We may be talking at cross purposes. GMGtalk 21:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely. I am only considering links. Like the one in "External links" at Tell Me Something Good. Apologies if that wasn't clear. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Ah. I've been spending too much time on Commons. Yeah, the BrownPrider Funk link looks legit. I mean, they claim to have all their ducks in a row, and I would presume if they were violating copyright, with 210k subs and 150m views, you'd think they've caught wind of it by now. That's not exactly a throw away account. I'd say you're probably okay to link to it. GMGtalk 22:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, so how about link (2) above which simply has a bland statement "Provided to YouTube by Universal Music Group" and then later "℗ A Geffen Records Release; ℗ 1974 UMG Recordings, Inc." and "Auto-generated by YouTube."? Is that equally ok? equally legal? I'm keen to get to bottom of this, having been indeffed by User:Fram last year for posting links without checking properly. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The second link has <1k subs, and makes no claim on their about page that they've sought permission to properly use the content. That's the kind of account that flies under the radar spamming copyrighted content. It looks like it's almost an auto-generated collection of material, since if you look at the videos, they all have different uploaders, meaning the "topic" don't mean anything as far as integrity is concerned. But YouTube isn't great at removing copyrighted content in general; they are good at banning accounts that repeatedly upload it. Again, I'd say the first link is probably okay. I wouldn't touch the second link with a 10 ft pole. GMGtalk 22:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I tend to agree strongly with you. I trust User:Arbor to SJ takes note. But those two "videos" are essentially audio only. (Is anyone going to argue that a separate copyright statement is required for any still image content, usually a record cover?) I guess it's a bit less clear cut for videos such as this one, which has the same clear license statements for "Music in this video", but says nothing about the video content (which seems to be the original official video)? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Umm...Yes. There would normally be separate copyrights. If you want to get way in the weeds, there would be a copyright for the writing of the song, the performance of the song, the recording/mixing of the song, the cover art to the work, the performance of the music video (possibly many copyrights), and then for the recording/producing of the music video. But presumably, when large corps are involved, those copyrights would usually be fairly centrally controlled (the artist usually gets boned in this process).
But the corps have been milking these songs for decades, and they're likely to get as much out of a YouTube video as they would out of Spotify, so it's not beyond the pale for them to give permission for use on Youtube in exchange for profit sharing. And again, when a channel gets to a certain level of notoriety uploading copyrighted content, and they claim to have their ducks in a row, it's hard to say that they don't, because they're still there. That process is a little opaque for us, since it goes 1) get permission, 2) upload copyrighted content, 3) don't get a DMCA takedown notice because you have permission. GMGtalk 23:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

A couple of responses to the long discussion above:

  • "Licensed to YouTube" simply means the record labels allow the song to be used on YouTube videos - not that a video clip containing a song is official. In YouTube's words: "The entities listed in the “Licensed to YouTube by” field are the music rightsholders who have agreed with YouTube to allow YouTube to use identified music in official and user-generated videos, and share in the revenue those videos earn on the platform."
  • Also, this 2015 article by Vice explains why YouTube has so many "auto generated by YouTube" videos for songs: "...YouTube's licensing deals with record labels allows it to dive through back catalogs in the aim of bringing more music online. The labels have an incentive to make sure their artists (and the labels themselves) make money, which is why they signed the agreement with YouTube in the first place." Arbor to SJ (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Reply to my own comment: I did notice that BrownPrider Funk, which uploaded the older video of this song from 2010, is a verified YouTube channel ("an established creator or is the official channel of a brand, business, or organization"), so the other video should also be a copyright compliant, acceptable external link. Arbor to SJ (talk) 07:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks for the clarification, Arbor to SJ. Happy for the discussion to get much longer, if necessary. So it seems either of those links are fine to use as External links. If one has better quality audio, as you suggested, I'd be keen to see the evidence. If the consequences of posting copyvio YT links are so serious, for both Wikipedia and for individual editors, I really think the sort of information you have presented above should be added, as useful guidance, to WP:YT. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I have thought about the issue of whether auto-generated YouTube videos are legitimate. On YouTube, it appears that there are many videos of the same design as the second linked video where the audio portion is music and the video portion is a static image of an album cover and textual information about the song/performer/album, along with a larger image of the album cover and a grayish gradient that makes up the background of the video portion.
Examples:
In the case of CD Baby, the CD Baby Help Center has an entry about videos for songs being created on YouTube. Specifically, there are artists who are signed up with CD Baby in a manner that includes downloads and streaming. YouTube Music is automatically supplied with albums and songs from these artists, though it is possible for artists to opt out. It is also mentioned that the videos that YouTube creates from these audio tracks are separate from any user account that an artist has on YouTube. The help center also has an entry about how artists can be paid for having their music on YouTube Music. The first method mentioned is the system where YouTube creates videos from audio tracks supplied by CD Baby.
On Music Weird, there is a blog entry about auto-generated YouTube videos that may if nothing else be of interest. Since it was written in 2014, there is a note indicating that the blog entry was updated in 2016 and that CD Baby sends music to YouTube (possibly in addition to other streaming sites.)
From what it appears, at least some of these auto-generated YouTube videos are not necessarily viewable in all countries, possibly due to copyright issues. The previously-linked Vice article indicates that YouTube has entered into license agreements with third parties in order to be able to automatically generate and post videos that incorporate music, at least with regard to those parties. Still, it would be useful to know if auto-generated videos like the ones previously mentioned (in addition to this video of "Tell Me Something Good") can in general be considered legitimate for purposes such as external links in Wikipedia articles. --Elegie (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it would be useful. That's why I asked. User talk:GreenMeansGo seems to have doubts. Arbor to SJ sems to think think it's perfectly ok, and actually preferred. But many thanks for the info. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I mean, I'm not really carrying the banner either way. But I do think that when in doubt we should err on the side of caution. GMGtalk 17:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. Good advice. I'm sure you'd find some editors who would typically say "never link to a YouTube video, just in case". It's just that, for me, if an article is about a piece of music, I don't see how all the background information in the world is really as useful as providing access to the music itself. Copyright permitting, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Determining as to whether a YouTube video is legitimate on copyright grounds is not always easy. One factor that comes to mind is if a video has been posted on the official channel for a record company or rightsholder or artist, which would suggest that a video is more likely to be legitimate.
The second video of "Tell Me Something Good" in the original posting and the YouTube videos that I previously listed (such as "Loving You") may be what YouTube calls an "Art Tracks." In the YouTube Help entry What is an Art Track?, it is mentioned that an Art Track video has album art and text about the recording title, artist, and album. (There is a visual diagram in the help entry that may be of interest.) It is also mentioned that Art Tracks are automatically generated. The help entry mentions that for YouTube to have "a single official, label-sanctioned YouTube version of every sound recording" is the goal of generating and posting Art Track videos.
The information in the help entry, along with information in another YouTube Help entry about creating Art Tracks indicates that uploading the data (recording, artwork, and metadata) for an Art Track has to be done via specific methods and it is implied that the functionality is only available to partners of YouTube who are managing content of theirs via YouTube's Content Manager. In other words, it may well be the case that uploading content for Art Tracks cannot be done by arbitrary YouTube users. Such a restriction would likely increase the chance that the content of an Art Track video is legitimate copyright-wise. (If it is possible to find legitimate streaming versions of music on YouTube by specifically seeking out Art Track videos, that would be great.) --Elegie (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
What you say may be fair and accurate. But it sounds more like your working hypothesis. I was seeking a straight answer to the question about clear statements such as: "Licensed to YouTube by UMG (on behalf of Geffen); ...." etc. etc. Are these statements indicative of legally published audio copies? The consensus answer seems to be "yes". In which case that's a quick and easy way to determine suitability for Wikipedia articles. This is the second time I have asked and the second time I've got a "yes". If there is a serious problem here, that no-one has spotted, I'd very much like to know. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
A written guide from a reliable source (or from YouTube itself) on how to find legitimate audio recordings on YouTube would be useful. However, I do not currently know of any such official guide. From what I can tell and from what has been said previously, YouTube has help information that indicates that certain videos ("Art Tracks") are most likely legitimate. In addition, it is mentioned that a music rightsholder can "claim" a video that incorporates their music. (From what I understand, it may happen where a record company or music publisher or other rightsholder allows the usage of their music in a non-official video with the arrangement that the rightsholder receives advertising revenue in conjunction with the video being viewed. In addition, YouTube mentions that uploaded videos are scanned for certain copyrighted content that is stored in a database as part of the Content ID system. As such, my guess is a video may be marked by YouTube as incorporating certain music without any action on the part of the uploader.) At the same time, this information is not all on one page.
For finding legitimate audio recordings on YouTube, there is a complication that would seem to apply to videos that were uploaded by arbitrary users (as opposed to being uploaded to an official channel) and which are not "Art Tracks": namely, that a rightsholder may have approved the use of their music in a video (possibly automatically via Content ID) but at the same time, the video incorporates other content (such as a slideshow of photos of a singer) that has not been properly licensed. Going with videos that are "Art Tracks" or which were uploaded to an official channel may be easier. --Elegie (talk) 08:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Georgia (US state) government works

  1. Are works by the government of the US state of Georgia public domain?
  2. Are works by public universities in Georgia public domain?
  3. Is this picture public domain?

Other than the recent court case relating to annotated state laws, I cannot find anything one way or another. Thank you in advance for your guidance. Levivich? ! 05:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Levivich.
  1. No, I don't think Georgia is one of the states where all works created by state employees as part of their official duties are automatically considered to be WP:PD, at least not per Copyright status of work by U.S. subnational governments#Georgia and per this. In other words, I don't think there's a Georgia equivalent to {{PD-NJGov}}, {{PD-FLGov}} or {{PD-CAGov}}.
  2. I don't think simply being a work of a public university means that it's automatically going to be PD. It's possible though that some works might be simple enough or old enough to be PD for those reasons.
  3. If you scroll down to the bottom of the source website, you'll see "© 2019 Georgia Institute of Technology" which applies to all content on the website unless indicated otherwise. Some websites (even official U.S. government websites) occaionally use content they didn't create; so, if the original source of the photo (i.e. the photographer) has released it under a free license or as PD, then I believe the GIT wouldn't have copyright ownership over it.
Why are you looking for an image of Patricia Mokhtarian? Just curious. -- 05:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick answers, Marchjuly! I'm writing her BLP, got her name from the WiR list. The GA Tech pic is most recent (and in my opinion best) of what I've found online; I wonder if they'd be open to releasing it. Your answer to #2 got me thinking. My backup picture is from the University of California Davis [5]; is it PD under {{PD-CAGov}}? I could have sworn I read somewhere that UC released it's stuff to the public domain. Levivich? ! 07:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Plaster cast of a public-domain sculpture

This is a photo on Commons of a plaster cast of a statue from the early 25th century BC. Is the cast public domain, and thus free for the photographer to photograph and upload on Commons, or does some kind of copyright attach to the cast? A. Parrot (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I would consider the casting process to be a slavish mechanical reproduction of a 3D piece of art, which at least under US terms would not be eligible for a new copyright. (Just as a photo of a 19th Century or earlier 2D work would not be copyrightable). --Masem (t) 01:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

A 1962 issue of The Kansas City Times included a photo of Herbert Maryon with the Emesa helmet. How would I go about determining if the photo is still under copyright? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

There is no reason not to assume that such a photo is still under copyright. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Orangemike. Why is that, and how would I check to be sure? --Usernameunique (talk) 06:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Have a look at this table. The photo will only have a lapsed copyright if the copyright was not renewed; and if it was (for example) from a wire service like the AP, that is highly unlikely. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Does copying a sentence from wiki for a project break any copyright laws or can I just put the source on the page and use it?

≈±≤→§§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.1.149 (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Because the license is CC-BY-SA-3.0 on the wiki, if you incorporate text into your book, then the book has to also be CC-BY-SA-3.0 to be legal. You may wish to release your book under this license, and it will then be legal. On the other hand if the sentence is super simple, eg "the sky is mostly blue" then copyright does not apply. You may also be able to use this quote under fair use, if you are commenting on the Wikipedia text. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Concerning video game model renders

Hi, I want to upload a 3D model render I made using built-in tools from a video game (namely Team Fortress 2) solely for use in a personal userpage top icon template. I'm hesitant, however; because it's a render I just made today and I'm concerned if it should be considered my own work or a non-free image.

Should I be worried about uploading it for free use on a topicon template? I really don't want my topicon image taken down, assuming I'm still trying my hand at getting the hang of Wikipedia's file uploading policies.

Thanks,

- pivotman319 (give me a heads up thru user talk.) 15:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Assuming you are basing it on copyrighted assets, it would be a derivative work and thus still under copyright, and it would be removed from WP. --Masem (t) 15:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
That settles it then. Thanks for the clarification! - pivotman319 (give me a heads up thru user talk.) 15:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I had permission to use a picture, but...

I don’t know how to file the thumbnail picture for Vader Episode I: Shards of the Past (File:VaderEpisode1SOTPthumbnail.jpeg) properly. I asked for permission from the creator (Star Wars Theory) via email if I could use it for the draft article, and he said yes. I thought I filed the picture the correct way (Wikipedia-use only with permission from rights holder), but apparently not. What do I do? I’m new to this kind of uploading.
- Stinkyjaden (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Stinkyjaden

@Stinkyjaden: Wikipedia does not accept permission for use only on Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia has a goal of creating reusable content, acceptable permission must allow reuse by anyone for anything including commercial use and derivative works. See WP:COPYREQ. —teb728 t c 20:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

CC BY-ND 2.0?

Hi, is Creative Commons BY-ND 2.0 acceptable for Wikipedia? It's a image about a living person (https://www.flickr.com/photos/disneyabc/29085169948/) --Heubergen (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately no. No-derivative and non-commercial licenses are not compatible with Wikipedia's license, and so are not "free" for our purposes. You can use an image under a claim of fair use if it meets Wikipedia's non-free content criteria, but images of public living people normally don't. GMGtalk 21:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2019/January&oldid=881986305"