Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2019/June

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Image created to show use of the WebRef citation tool.

Resolved
 – (I asked to have the file deleted -- Peter NYC (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC))
File:Use of WebRef citation tool.png
A text box with the Cite Web template is displayed on top of the page after clicking on the WebRef bookmark on the bookmarks toolbar.

I created this image to demonstrate the use of the WebRef citation tool by User:V111P/js/WebRef. I believe that after removing the picture and other design elements from the original screenshot from the New York Times webpage what remains is 'fair use.'

If it is not, would removing the New York Times logo and the thumbnail picture of the author make this 'fair use'?

-- Peter NYC (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Peter NYC: we only apply fair use (WP:NFC) to images that are used in encyclopedia articles (see WP:NFCC#9). I think it would be best to demonstrate this tool on a public domain or freely licensed website. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Please add this image to Ross butler's wiki

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.74.232 (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi 109.77.74.232. Whatever you posted above looks to be nothing but one big block of random characters? Only files uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons can be added to Wikipedia articles. If the file has already been uploaded, please provide the a to the file's page or at least the name of the file. If the file hasn't been uploaded yet, then you can ask that it be uploaded at Wikipedia:Files for upload. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I am interested in uploading a brief excerpt from a podcast. The podcast got the excerpt from the State of Maryland. But the podcast itself is probably copyrighted. The problem is that it's not clear to me how to independently get it from Maryland. Is it allowed or not?Adoring nanny (talk) 01:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Quick ideas for a visit tomorrow

Thanks for this page existing. What a worms nest. I'm working on the article William Barnes, an American who lived 1860–1930. I am visiting the city where he lived tomorrow and the library has a file on him. His former workplace may also have some images. Roughly, what images can I use? I know this is a complicated question, but I'm hoping I can get some quick ideas. Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨  19:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi SchreiberBike. I'm not sure whether this response comes too late, but perhaps it might still help. It's hard to advise you on which files you can use without knowing more about the files themselves. Bascially, how a file can be used or whether it can be uploaded is determined by its copyright status as explained in Wikipedia:Image use policy. There are basically two types of files you find used on Wikipedia: "free" and "non-free". A "free" files is one which is either considered to be within the public domain for some reason or one which has been released under a free license that Wikipedia accepts per Wikipedia:Copyrights#Guidelines for images and other media files or c:Commons:Licensing. A "non-free" file is one which is still considered to be protected by copyright which is unploaded and used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. Freely-licensed and public-domain files are generally preferable to non-free ones because they are much easier to use not only by Wikipedia, but also by readers of Wikipedia who might wish to use the file in some other way; non-free files can be uploaded and used, but the relevant policy has been set up to be pretty restrictive , with non-free files generally considered to more of an exception than the rule, and limited to cases where there's no reasonable reason to expect that a free equivalent (file or text) can neither be found nor created to serve the same encyclopedic purpose as a non-free one. Sorry for being so general, but it's hard to say more without knowing more. If you do find a specific file, you'd like to use and not sure about its copyright status, you can always ask for help here or even at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: I've been there and back, but I appreciate your detailed and well-linked response. At the library I was able to get one really good image of the subject of the article, but the library doesn't know who took the picture or exactly when, only who they got it from. I will try to contact the people who gave the library the picture to see if they have more information, but I doubt it. I remember that 1928 is important in image copyright, but I don't know the details. From the age of the person in the picture, I am pretty sure the photo was taken before 1928, but I have no documentation of that. This is a complicated area of law and Wikipedia rules, so I appreciate your help. SchreiberBike | ⌨  02:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi again SchreiberBike. The brightline year is currently 1924, not 1928. You can find out more specifc details about various scenarios at c:Commons:Hirtle chart, but generally all photographs taken and first published anywhere prior to Janauary 1, 1924 (in which the photographer is known) are generally considered to be Template:PD-US. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Could someone please tell me how to correctly mark an image for deletion when the image almost certainly has a known false copyright claim?

Should I follow the usual procedure, or should I report the image and wait for an experienced editor to follow up before marking the image for deletion? I don't wish to needlessly or unfairly report a user, but I contacted the photographer of the image following the guidelines and they very politely made it clear they did not want their photo on wikipedia. I have recently noticed the image has appeared, so while the photographer may have changed his mind in the last few months and could be the user claiming copyright, it seems much more likely a wikipedia user is falsely claiming their photo as their own work (especially as the photo has been cropped). Given the photographer was kind enough to take the time to politely respond, it would seem fair that the image be deleted (should the user claiming the photo as their copyright not be the photographer I previously contacted).

Thanks very much for any advice, and my apologies if the procedure for this sort of thing is written somewhere; I've searched but have not been able to find it. Heron5110 (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Heron5110. If you feel an image is an unambiguous copyright violation, you can mark it for speedy deletion per WP:F8WP:F9. If you're not sure, but still think the image qualifies for speedy deletion for one of the reasons given in WP:FCSD, then there are speedy deletion tags specific to each of those criteria as well. It's hard to elaborate on this next part further without knowing which file is being discussed, but a typical copyright version would be something like the uploader finding an image whose copyright is held by someone else somewhere (eg. website, book, newspaper) and then uploading a file version of it to Wikipedia under a free license as their "own work" or under a claim that copyright holder has given their explicit consent when they actually haven't. If the photographer of this particular file feels that their copyright is being violated, then they contact can directly contact the Wikimedia Foundation per wmf:DMCA takedowns and request that the file be removed from all of Wikipedia.
There are some copyrighted files, however, which are uploaded to Wikipedia as non-free content; these files are not really being claimed by the uploader as being "freely licensed" and usually provide information about the original source and copyright holder of the image. Non-free files typically don't require the consent of the copyright holder to be uploaded (most of them don't have such permission) and can be used as long as their usage complies with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. This type of file would not be considered a copyirght violation per WP:F8, but might be subject to deletion for some other reason such as WP:F7.
Sorry, for speaking only in general terms, but someone might be able to give you a more specific answer if you could provide a link to the actual file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to provide correct FCSD link. -- 04:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)]
Hi Marchjuly, thanks very much for the help. I'm almost certain the image has been uploaded under a false copyright claim as the photographer/blogger I contacted was very clear about not wanting the image on wikipedia. I'm going to mark the image for speedy deletion as suggested, but before I do, may I just check that I should mark it as WP:F9, rather than WP:F8? You reply was really helpful - it's just when I read the reasons given in WP:FCSD, I saw that 'unambiguous copyright violation' was listed as WP:F9, so I just wanted to check. For reference, this is the image I'm referring to.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Heron5110 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@Heron5110: I should posted F9 not F8; my apologies for the confusion. However, if the file you're referring to is File:Standard_Child_Harness.png, then that is a file uploaded to Commons which means it needs to be taken care of by Commons; so, none of WP:FCSD is applicable to that file. What you can do is add c:Template:Copyvio to the top of the file's page. You have to add the template to the file's Commons description page though, not its Wikipedia description page. Another option would be to go the file's Commons page and click on "Nominate for deletion". A box will open for creating a c:Commons:Deletion review. Just complete the steps and the software will do the rest. Finally, one last option would be to tag the file with c:Template:No permission since; this is sort of an delayed speedy deletion option in that it gives the uploader a chance to prove they are the copyright holder or that the file has been released under a free license by the copyright holder. They are given about a week to do so before the file is deleted. The main difference between the three is that files tagged as a copyvio may be deleted at anytime by an administrator, files tagged as lacking permission are usually given seven days before being deleted, and files sent to deletion review can be discussed by others to determine whether a file should be deleted (the discussion is reveiwed by an administrator who tries to figure out what consensus was reached). -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Thanks very much again for the help - there's no need to apologize at all; I appreciate the advice. I've gone ahead with the commons processes you mentioned to mark the image for deletion. Thanks again for the help.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Heron5110 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Washington University Bears football

Why was the logo removed from this page, Washington University Bears football? It is the athletic logo for the university. It was not removed from the Washington University Bears page. Across Wikipedia, the football pages include the athletic logos. Help me correct the copyright error, if there is one. Americanfootballupdater (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@Americanfootballupdater: Each non-free image must have a separate fair use rationale (FUR) for each article that it is used in (WP:NFCC#10c). As the logo has no FUR for use in Washington University Bears football the bot removed the image. Add an additional FUR to the logo page and then you can re-add it to the article. Nthep (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
@Nthep: Thank you. Americanfootballupdater (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
@Nthep: Does it appear that I have added the FUR correctly? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Washington_University_Bears_athletic_logo.png Americanfootballupdater (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Assuming the logo is used by the football team then yes. Nthep (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
The logo should not be used in the football article per WP:NFC#UUI #17. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
@JJMC89: Then why is it acceptable for Alabama Crimson Tide football or Ohio State Buckeyes football or any other program that you look up? I am trying to follow the rules and policies but I do not understand how this would violate. Americanfootballupdater (talk) 22:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I did read your WP:NFC#UUI #17 but I would not view an individual sports team as a child entity. They represent the university in a single sport wearing that logo. Each team wears the same logo. They are all the child of the university, Washington University in St. Louis, that has a different logo. Americanfootballupdater (talk) 22:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
@JJMC89: @Nthep: How can I change the licensing section for this image to be "This image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain. Although it is free of copyright restrictions, this image may still be subject to other restrictions. See WP:PD#Fonts and typefaces or Template talk:PD-textlogo for more information." like the logos of Ohio State, Alabama, Colorado, and others? Americanfootballupdater (talk) 22:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi Americanfootballupdater. There are basically two types of files you find used on Wikipedia: "free files" and "non-free files" and how these files can be used depends upon their licensing. A "free file" is one which is considered to be in the public domain for some reason, or a copyrighted file which has been released by its copyright holder under a free license. A "non-free file" is a copyrighted file which has not been released under a free license, but has uploaded for use as non-free content. All files used on Wikipedia are subject to Wikipedia:Image use policy, but non-free files are further subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, which is quite restrictive. This means that free files are generally much easier to use than non-free ones, and why it's hard to compare files just based upon the fact that they are used in a similar way in similar articles. The logos of the two examples you mentioned above (Alabama and Ohio State) are not licensed as non-free content (you can check this by clicking on File:Alabama Athletics logo.svg and File:Ohio State Buckeyes logo.svg, and checking the licensing of the file's page), but File:Washington University Bears athletic logo.png is, which means only it is subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. The Wikipedia non-free content use policy strives to keep non-free content use as minimal as possible; there have been some previous discussions about this type of logo use and the consensus appears to be that files like this are generally considered acceptable in the main article about a school's athletic department since that's where any sourced critical commentary about the school branding, logo, mascot, etc. is most likely to be found; such files, however, are generally not considered OK for individual team, sport, season, etc. articles unless they are specific to said team, sport, season, etc. per item #17 of WP:NFC#UUI. There might be examples where you'll find a non-free file being used in this way, but that's not necessarily an indication that it should be being used in this way; it could just as easily the file was re-added despite being previously removed, or that the file's non-free use was never assessed.
One thing about the Washington file is that it actually might be considered to be too simple to be eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:TOO#United States. Sometimes editors upload files as non-free content when it might actually not have been necessary to do so. The Washington logo is basically text with different colors, which are things not typically eligible for copyright protection (at least in the United States, the country of origin for the file); so, a possible way to resolve this would be to convert the file's licensing to {{PD-logo}}. @Nthep and JJMC89: Can either of you think of any reason why this file can't be converted to PD? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
The license has already been changed. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. Converting it to PD seems fine to me. @Nthep: Are you OK with this? Unless someone disagrees about this being PD, this file probably can be either moved or re-uploaded to Commons instead since there's no need for it to be kept locally if it's PD in the United States. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: How can I go about the process of deleting and re-uploading to commons? Americanfootballupdater (talk) 00:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I uploaded to commons and moved the upload log from the Wikipedia file. I changed the 2 references so that everything points to the commons file. Americanfootballupdater (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I write because I knew there've been so many misunderstandings about capying and pasting an image from one article to another that was related to the same subject. I need to if there's a possiblity of using one same image in several related articles. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by F. E. Puricelli (talk • contribs) 05:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi F. E. Puricelli. It sort of depends upon the file you want to use is licensed. If the file is licensed as public domain or a free license, then basically all you need to worry about is Wikipedia:Image use policy#Adding images to articles. If, on the other hand, the file is licensed as non-free content, then the way you use the file is going to have to satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. There are ten non-free content use criteria which need to be met each time a non-free file is used. A non-free file must be used in at least one article per non-free content use criterion #7, but it can be used in other articles if the respective uses are considered to comply with relevant policy. Generally, Wikipedia prefers that freely licensed or public domain images be used whenever possible, but there are some exceptions made for certain types of non-free usage (see Wikipedia:Non-free content#Acceptable use); however, since a single non-free use is already considered an exception so to speak, it can become increasing harder to justify each additional non-free use in some cases. This doesn't mean that it can't be done, just that can be a bit hard to do. It would be easier to provide you with more specific feedback if you can clarify which file you want to use and where (i.e. which article(s)) you want to use it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
The image File:Revolution, IDW Publishing and Hasbro, May 2016.jpg for Hasbro Universe and Hasbro Comic Book Universe. -- F. E. Puricelli (talk) 08:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm having the same problem with File:Valmieras FK logo.png on Valmieras FK and Valmiera Glass Via (basketball). Both the football club and the basketball club use the same logo, but the bot has automatically removed the logo on the basketball one twice now. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff)

To be fair, the bot did leave a good edit summary with a clear explanation of why (No valid non-free use rationale for this page.) with links to a number of locations. You need (i.e. MUST have) a non free use rationale on the image page for every article that the image is used on. That image didn't have a usage rationale for the basketball team, so it was removed. - X201 (talk) 10:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @F. E. Puricelli and AngusWOOF: Did you check the WP:NFC#Implementation page that JJMC89’s bot left in the edit summary when it removed the files? Non-free use is not automatic and each use of a non-free file is required to meet all 10 non-free content use criteria listed in WP:NFCCP. One of these criteria is WP:NFCC#10c which requires that a separate specific non-free use rationale be provided for each use; so, if a file is non-free file is used multiple times, it needs a rationale specific to each particular use. Files missing rationales can be removed per WP:NFCCE which is why the bot removed the files. Whether a rationale can be written for these additional uses depends on whether all ten non-free content use criteria can be satisfied as explained in WP:JUSTONE; so, just adding the missing rationale to the file’s page doesn’t automatically mean the particular use is policy compliant and the file’s you may be challenged by another editor or nominated for discussion at WP:FFD. You can probably ask JJMC89 about this on his user talk page. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Marchjuly, thanks, I put in the second rationale on the image file page. Hopefully that's what is expected. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

So, I'm updating FedEx logos and noticed the File:FedEx Office Logo.svg is uploaded as a fair use logo. Now, we concluded that the FedEx logo itself is a 'Text Logo' and not eligible for copyright. Is the little asterisk thing enough for it to exceed threshold of originality?--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 22:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Images I had uploaded in the past are getting deleted

I uploaded several images years ago that were screenshots taken from the old 1940s Superman Cartoons. I uploaded them because editors had requested that the associated articles have images. Now, some of these articles have had these images removed and some of the images themselves have been deleted from the commons with the explanation that they do not have enough information about source or authorship. I also noticed that video files of the cartoons have been added in some cases.

The images in question are screenshots taken by myself of cartoons that are in the public domain and viewable at The Internet Archive. So I don't think I am violating copyright by uploading them, am I wrong?

Are the images even needed in the articles anymore? Should I just focus on making sure the video files are added, or is it useful to have an image as well?

I am not sure what to put in the "author" field. Since I took the screenshot, is the author myself? Or is the author the original studio that produced the film? I tried to fix the author and date information for this image, but I am not sure I did it right.

I don't know what to do with these images I uploaded. I don't want to leave orphan images in the Commons for no good reason. I am willing to fix the information fields, but if it is better that I delete them, since no one is using them, I am willing to do that. I just need help evaluating what to do. Tea and crumpets (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tea and crumpets. If the files were deleted from Commons, there's not much that can be done about that here. Even though there is fair amount of overlap between Commons and Wikipedia, and they are both run by the WMF, they are separate projects with their own policies and guidelines. Commons tends to take a "deletion when in doubt approach" as explained in c:COM:PCP whenever reasonable concerns are raised about one of its files. Since you uploaded the files, you should've been notified of any issues with them on your Commons user talk page; if the files were deleted the file links should now be WP:RED, and clicking on them should at least tell which Commons administrator deleted them and why. The next step would be to ask for clarification on that administrator's user talk page. Commons, like Wikipedia, has a way where deletions of files can be disputed (see c:COM:DRV), but it's probably best to at least try and discuss things with the deleting admin first. If it turns out a mistake was made or you're now able to resolve the issue(s) which lead to the file(s) deletion, the administrator may just decide to restore the file without any need of formal discussion. One important thing to understand is that Commons is really only concerned with how files uploaded to it are licensed; it's not really concerned with which articles the files are being used or whether they are contextually relevant to the subject of the article. Commons also hosts files for use by all Wikipedia projects (not just English Wikipedia); so, if your question is about the whether it's contextually OK to use a particular file in a particular article, you may have to discuss that on the relevant article's talk page.
Finally one last thing, being publically available on a website such as the Internet Archive is not the same as being in the public domain, and being available for download "free of charge" is not the same as being "free of copyright". When you take a screenshot of something, for the most part you're just basically creating a "2D reproduction" (see c:Commons:2D copying) of some other content. So, no new copyright is being created for the screenshot and only the copyright of the original content needs to be considered (think making a photocopy of a page from a book at your local library; the photocopy has no copyright, but the book might still be protected by copyright). On the other hand, even if the screenshot is considered to be a WP:Derivative work establishing a new copyright for it, you would only hold the copyright over the screenshot itself, not the original content. So, there are two copyrights which need to be considered in this case as explained in c:COM:Screenshots and you will need to show that both are freely licensed or within the public domain for the entire file to be treated as freely licensed or in the public domain. A cartoon released way back in the 1940s might seem like such a long time ago, but being created 80 years ago doesn't automatically mean the cartoon is no longer under copyright protection as shown in c:COM:HIRTLE; it's possible, but it would depend on other things besides just being 80 years old. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
@Tea and crumpets:
  • The reason for the deletion of a file is stated in the deletion comment in the logs for that file. It's in the logs at Wikipedia if the file was hosted at Wikipedia. It's in the logs at Commons if the file was hosted at Commons. Also, if the file was the object of a deletion discussion, the discussion can provide more information. In such case, the deletion comment in the logs usually links to the page with this discussion.
  • The reason for the removal of a file from a Wikipedia article is usually stated in the edit comment in the history of the article.
  • A few examples:
    • Example 1: "File:Showdown title screen.JPG". You uploaded this file to Wikipedia on 16 June 2007. The logs for this file on Wikipedia show that it was deleted on 16 July 2018 for the reason "File without a source". This probably means that, in the description page of the file, you had neglected to specify and to link to the source of the video from which you copied this screenshot. The source of a file must always be provided. Other people must have the possibility to check the source and the copyright status of the file. This verification is not possible if the source is not provided. A file whose source is not validly specified cannot be kept. But there are millions of files, and some files that do not comply with the rules remain until someone eventually notices the problem and takes action. Your file remained on Wikipedia until someone noticed the lack of source. I don't know what copyright status template you placed on the description page when you uploaded the file, but it seems that, at some point between 2007 and 2017 (can't be more specific, because only administrators can see the full history of the deleted description page), someone placed a non-free media tag in the description page, probably a template like Template:Non-free film screenshot or similar. Without seeing the history of the description page, we can't tell who did that and why it was done, but maybe we might guess that, because the source was not mentioned, that person could not check the source and the copyright status, but they still tried to save the file from deletion by tagging it as if it were used in fair use in the article Showdown (1942 film). However, they apparently neglected to also include a template with the required "non-free use rationale", which must specify exactly why the use of a non-free image is used in the particular article. Such lack of a use rationale template is detected by bot. So, on 22 May 2017, a bot detected this problem and, by this edit, hid the image from the article. The bot did not delete the file and it did not remove it from the article. It merely hid it in the article. That allows users to look at the matter and to take appropriate action. Finally, on 16 July 2018, an administrator deleted the file because of the lack of source. If the file was actually a public domain image, you can request its undeletion on Wikipedia or, preferably, you can upload it to Commons, but this time do not forget to specify the source and all other necessary or useful information.
    • Example 2: "File:Japoteurs2.JPG" You uploaded this file to Wikipedia on 16 May 2007. Apparently, at some point between 16 May 2007 and 20 September 2007, while the file was still on Wikipedia, someone placed a fair use note in the description page. We can see a remaining trace of it in the logs for this file on Commons, in the truncated upload comment. Anyway, a user copied the file to Commons on 20 September 2007. On 27 January 2008, in Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Japoteurs2.JPG, the file was nominated for deletion on Commons, for the reason "The Superman character is likely still copyrighted". And the file was deleted for this reason on 6 June 2008. This deletion reason refers to a distinction between the copyright on a character and the copyright on a film. The idea is that if the character was already copyrighted before the film, the character can still be under copyright even if everything else in the film is in the public domain. Practically, that would mean that, from the public domain film, you could probably upload screenshots of scenes where the copyrighted character is not present, but not screenshots that include the copyrighted character. For more details, you can find discussions about this topic on Commons. I don't know if there's something specifically about the Superman character. I you don't find anything and you want to discuss the matter, you can always start a new discussion at Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.
    • Example 3: "File:Superman cartoon showdown.JPG". You uploaded this file to Wikipedia on 19 June 2007. Note that it potentially has the same problem as File:Japoteurs2.JPG mentioned above in example 2. And it may have had also the same problem as File:Showdown title screen.JPG mentioned above in example 1, if you had not specified the source when you uploaded it. It seems that you added the source only recently, on the Commons file. The file probably did not have a source when it was on Wikipedia and someone probably tagged it with a non-free media tag without a non-free use rationale, because the file was spotted and hidden from the Wikipedia article Showdown (1942 film) on 22 May 2017 by the same bot edit that is already mentioned above in example 1. By the way, the hidden link of this file is still present today in the current version of the article, as seen in the code of the article, at the top of the "Plot" section. The file was copied to Commons rather recently, on 30 September 2018, and that may be why it has not been the object of a deletion request yet.
  • You can do yourself the research about your other files. In the description pages of the files that can be kept, please check if any useful information is still missing or if something needs to be fixed. About the files that should be deleted, you should probably request their deletion.
  • About your question on authorship, the authors are the people who created the film. You can mention the main creators mentioned in the credits, or at least the director or other main creator. The studio is a useful information also. The date is the date of the film.
-- Asclepias (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I will continue to investigate it. I can't remember for sure, but I think when I originally uploaded the files I put in a public domain licensing tag, but no source or author information. I still believe the cartoons themselves are in the public domain (as stated in both the Wikipedia articles and the Internet Archive pages for the cartoons), but there is that question about the superman character being copyrighted for the screenshots. I'm going to try and make sure I put the source and author information into all of my uploaded images. Tea and crumpets (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

"Keith Raniere": using magazine cover to illustrate section on that magazine article?

Keith Raniere is a executive coach who was today convicted on seven charges including sex trafficking. A critical event in the subject's life was a 2003 Forbes Magazine exposé. Because of the ramifications of this exposé, our biography features a full section of three paragraphs on the 2003 Forbes publication and its effects on subject's life.

File:ForbesMagazine October2003 FrontCover KeithRaniere.png was uploaded to illustrate this section. It shows an evocative image of a man cloaked in shadow, the image well illustrating the article's tone and point of view portraying Raniere as a shadowy cult-like figure. Suprisingly, the image was been removed by an editor with the summary "nonfree magazine cover depicting living person in BLP, commentary in article does not relate to the cover itself".

I would like a third opinion on this. My thinking is that the article greatly benefits from including the cover as it helps our readers understand the 2003 exposé, its tone, and its impacts. I believe this is truly a case where a picture is worth a thousand words and the reader would suffer if the image were replaced with any text description of the cover.

Any guidance on how to include the image would be appreciated. Feoffer (talk) 01:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Feoffer I agree with the removal under the current version of the article. Contextual significance is not about using an image in order to avoid discussing it. It's about if the text of the article necessiates the reader to see the image in order to follow what's discussed. If what the cover depicts – "an evocative image of a man cloaked in shadow, the image well illustrating the article's tone and point of view portraying Raniere as a shadowy cult-like figure" – truly was important, one would expect the article text to actually discuss this. That, in turn, is only possible if reliable sources have found the cover important and interesting enough draw similar cnclusions. If what the cover represents is only your interpretation, then it's original research and doens't belong. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Feoffer, I also agree with the removal. For use of that to be justified, reliable sources would have to somewhat extensively discuss the cover image itself. Sometimes that's happened; for example, the "darkened" OJ Simpson magazine cover was itself extensively discussed by reliable sources, so we can justify putting that in a relevant place where the controversy over that image is discussed, so readers can see for themselves the controversial image. But in this case, it's decorative and unneeded, and so fails NFCC #1 and #8. We do not include magazine covers just because the magazine ran a cover story about something. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Feoffer, the NFCC are pretty clear on this: Unless the image on the cover is the only one available, and it is unlikely that a free image could be created to replace it, it cannot be used to generally depict a living person's appearance. The cover image would be justified in the article only if there was third-party reliable-source commentary on it. Daniel Case (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Addendum: Actually, since he's been convicted of federal charges, his booking photo or prison ID photo would be PD, and not a BLP vio to use since he's now notable primarily for his crimes. Daniel Case (talk) 00:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

File:DFBTriangles.svg and File:German Football Association logo (1995).svg

Is there any reason for these to remain licensed as non-free given the fact that File:Deutscher Fußball-Bund logo.svg and File:DFB-Logo 1945.svg are licensed at Commons as being {{PD-logo}}? Of course, the Commons files might be incorrectly licensed, but it seems these two non-free files would also be PD if the Commons files are OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Marchjuly, I think in the US those images would be pretty clearly {{PD-logo}}, but for Commons files must also be free in their country of origin, which in this case presumably is Germany. I don't know what Germany's standards are for something analogous to the threshold of originality, but I suspect Commons would have some information on various countries' regulations around it. That might be why it's at issue, though. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. I think {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} is indeed a possibility, but that would be unnecessary if the Commons file’s are OK. I’ll check on Commons to see if I can find out anything more about Germany’s TOO. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
See c:COM:TOO Germany but take note of de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen/angewandte Kunst#English summary. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Copyright holder posting their own text on Wikipedia?

Hi! A few years back I requested the page history of a certain article be revdelled as copyright violation, but subsequent events made it seem pretty clear that the person who posted the information on Wikipedia, and so irrevocably agree[d] to release [his] contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL, was the same person who had originally written the text that was "plagiarized".

I have two questions: Does this technically mean that the person was revoking his original presumed right to his own text and placing it under a different license by reposting it on Wikipedia? And does a Wikipedia editor's having agreed to the Terms of Use and saying that text they add is either theirs or is available under a compatible license or in the public domain, and not saying that it is available under a compatible license or in the public domain or providing appropriate attribution, count as on-wiki admission to their real-world identity for WP:OUT purposes? (My concern about the latter point is why I'm not linking to the actual article in question.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

(This is off topic here since this has nothing to do with media copyright.) They wouldn't be revoking any original rights but multi-licensing it: original copyright + CC BY-SA 3.0 + GFDL with any reuser being able to pick the license of their choice. This is acceptable; however, since it was previously published, we need evidence that the user is the copyright holder. WP:DONATETEXT lays out options for verifying this. On the outing concerns, I would say that it is not sufficient to consider it an admission of identity. Email me if you would like me to look into the case that you are referring to. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
No and no. Someone contributing here must release their own rights and any incorporated material must have been similarly released, or must be PD, or fair use (I'm talking about text contributions, not images). The original creator of the text must have previously given permission in some way or the use must be "fair" and so the original author may not even be aware of the WP edit. Any presumption that the contributor is the original creator would be wrong. Thincat (talk) 09:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

File:TomohiroKatoconfrontedbyPolice.jpg

Could anybody check if I corrected what was demanded and if not delete him right away. I don't give a iota if it gets deleted don't worry. Kindest of the kindest regards. --LLcentury (talk) 11:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Can I upload these images?

I would like to upload images of judges from the website of the Slovenian Constitutional court, where images are published and page states that images can be freely used in the media (this is only stated on the Slovenian version of the website: [1]). Does that mean these images can be uploaded to Wikipedia?Sredina (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Sredina, it looks like that is a nonfree license. A free license must permit anyone to reuse and modify the content, for any purpose. Since their licensing restricts the photographs to use in "media", that is not sufficient to be considered a free license, since it restricts the purpose of use and does not state modification is permitted. However, given that they apparently want the photos distributed, you might have some success with contacting them and asking them if they'd be willing to release under a free license such as CC-BY-SA. If they're willing to do that, the images would then be free content and free to use here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.us-rs.si/mediji-in-javnost/fotografije/sodniki-6444/

Canadian coinage

This file File:Canadian Dime - reverse.png was removed from Schooner by User:JJMC89_bot for WP:NFCC violation. According to its page "Non-free media information and use rationale for Coins of the Canadian dollar: usage is allowed by the RCM's intellectual property policy". What is the violation, and what can be done to put the image on the page? --Cornellier (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cornellier. JJMC89 bot is operated by JJMC89 so you can ask him if you want to be 100% sure, but basically the bot removes files from articles where they are lacking a non-free use rationale. Each use of a non-free file is required to have a separate specific non-free use rationale by Wikipedia non-free content use criterion #10c and those missing a rationale may be removed per WP:NFCCE.
Sometimes this issue can be resolved by simply adding the missing rationale to the file's page, but there are actually ten non-free content criteria which need to be met for each use; so, sometimes even providing a missing a rationale is not sufficient to meet the other nine criteria.
For coins, I think that non-free use is generally considered acceptable when the file is used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of an article about the coin itself, or perhaps in an article about the country's currency in which the coin is a part of. In other articles or other types of non-free use, it can be much harder to justify the non-free use of the file because the context for non-free use required by non-free content use criterion #8 is lacking. Generally, it takes some sourced critical commentary about the non-free file itself so that the reader's understanding of the subject matter is significantly improved by seeing it to the degree that not seeing the file would be detrimental to that understanding. Most of the time a wikilink to the relevant article about the coin is considered sufficient per WP:FREER and item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI.
The file was being used in an image gallery in Schooner#Gallery, and this type of non-free use is pretty much never going to be allowed per WP:NFG because NFCC#8 is almost never met in such cases. The primary reason the file was added seems to be just to show that a schooner appears on the Canadian dime, but there's no content at all (sourced or unsourced) about that anywhere else in the article, and it seems more than sufficient to simply link to the coin's article (if necessary) instead of using the file. If you disagree and feel the non-free use in the article does meet all ten non-free content use criteria, provide a rationale explaining why and then re-add the file to the article. If another editor disagrees with your assessment, they can dispute the rationale or nominate the file for discussion at WP:FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Marchjuly thanks very much for your excellent explanation. It was I who added the image, the intention being to document the importance of the schooner in Canadian culture. Does this (to cite criteria 8) "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic"? Probably hard to argue, and as you point out, the statement could be made without the image. --Cornellier (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
To your original question:
In the case of a two-dimensional pictorial representation (such as a photograph or illustration) of a three-dimensional work of sculpture (such as a the design/engraving on a coin), there are two distinct copyrights: there is the copyright on the design/engraving (the result of the creative work of the designing/engraving artist) and there is the copyright on the particular photograph or illustration (the result of the creative work of the photographer or illustrator who took the particular photograph or made the particular illustration of the object).
In the case of images of the boat side of the Canadian dime coin, as regards the copyright on the design/engraving, this design/engraving is generally considered by Wikimedia to be in the public domain. This design was created by artist Emanuel Hahn and it was first issued on coins in 1937 [1]. This makes images of it accepted on Wikimedia Commons (and on Wikipedia) as both PD-Canada and PD-US (for more details, see the box at the top of Commons:Category:Coins of Canada), on the condition that the other copyright, the copyright on the image, photograph or illustration, is also cleared, i.e that the particular images, photographs or illustrations, are free.
Specifically about the file "File:Canadian Dime - reverse.png", the reason why this particular file is not free is not because of the public domain design/engraving, but it is because this particular photograph is not free, because it does not have a free license from the photographer. The matter is confused by the fact that the original image was overwritten by another one, but none of the versions were free. According to the statement by the uploader of the original version, User:Keith Edkins, that version was his own photograph [2]. If that is the case, he could have released it under a free license. However, he did not. Apparently, he did not consider the design/engraving as free and he wrongly believed that he could upload his own photograph without a license. The current image was uploaded by User:Joeyconnick, who merely sourced this image as taken from "Royal Canadian Mint", without a specific link [3]. The file "File:Canadian Dime - reverse.png" should not even be accepted on Wikipedia, because it is a non-free photograph. (A free photo of a non-free sculpture can be a fair use illustration in the article about the non-free sculpture. But this is a non-free photo of a free sculpture.)
Because the design/engraving is free, you could simply, yourself, take a photograph of a dime and upload your own photograph to Wikimedia Commons with a free license and then use it in any Wikipedia article where it would be relevant. You can also find a free image and use it. Currenly, Wikimedia Commons does not seem to have images of the dime where the boat is very clear. It is surprising. It is possible that Commons had other free images of it that may have been deleted by mistake. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@Asclepias: Yes, you're correct about the there being two copyrights in play. If the coin imagery itself is really PD, then Wikipedia shouldn't keep this or any similar non-free files per WP:FREER if the only reason it's non-free is because the photographer wants to claim copyright ownership over their photo. If the uploader and photographer are the same person, they can simply release the photo under a free license; a PD copyright license can be added for the coin, and a CC (or whatever) can be added for the photograph. I think the best that the photographer/uploader can do in this case is to require attribution. If the uploader and the photographer are not the same person, then the file cannot be kept without the WP:CONSENT of the photographer. Since this file has multiple versions, I cannot see the original version which was replaced. I also can't tell whether the newer version is also a photo or comes from a website. If it's also photo taken by the editor who uploaded it, then I think what I posted above still applies. If it's a photo taken from a website, then things get a little trickier. It's possible that a photo from an official Canadian government website taken by a Canadian government employee might be PD, which means the photo might be able to be kept; however, if the image can from some other website, then the photograph would likely be considered protected by copyright, which means it cannot be kept with the photographer's CONSENT. I'm going to ping Keith Edkins who uploaded the original file and Joeyconnick who uploaded the latest version to see if they can help sort this out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Apparently the design/engraving is not free, as per c:COM:CUR Canada, so the use of the image (which is from the RCM) under a non-free use rationale, given no free alternative is available, would hold, wouldn't? —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
If the coin imagery is still protected by copyright, then it most likely would be OK as non-free content if it's used in a way (or in ways) which satisfy all ten non-free content use criteria. This would probably be the case if used for primary identification purposes at the top or or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the coin itself, but other uses in other articles might be a bit harder to justify. I don't think there would be anyway to justify non-free use in an image gallery of an article about schooners just to show that a schooner appears on the back of the coin per WP:FREER, WP:NFG or WP:NFC#CS, but that's just my opinion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

OMG Systems Modeling LanguageTM - Version 1.5

Wiki Helpdesk Agent,

We would like to share the system modeling language knowledges of SYSML Version 1.5 PDF related to system engineering and model based system engineering with professional people in Wiki website. We hope that they could learn new system engineering modeling language and new business/technical approach to develop commercial and military systems via model based system engineering. We like to upload that SYSML Version 1.5 PDF to Wiki that is in free public domain source at the following site as https://sysml.org/docs/specs/OMGSysML-v1.5-17-05-01.pdf. We contacted and discussed with the OMG Group personnel and they do not have problem with it since that file is free for public download anyway. Please let me know what we could do to upload the file to your Wiki site. We tried a few times but we could not upload the file since Wiki delete it automatically due to the copyright issue.

In addition, we found another way to refer wiki audiences who are interested with SYSML Version 1.5 to click on the external link (https://sysml.org/docs/specs/OMGSysML-v1.5-17-05-01.pdf) on the page we created with WIKI but Wiki deleted my page also.  

Please help.

Thanks.

V/r Charles Nguyen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolenep99 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Jolenep99, having looked at the document, under the "Licenses" section it does look like they might be trying to describe something that might qualify as a free license, but just a couple paragraphs later they state that it's "All Rights Reserved" and no distribution is permitted. So the license status is at best unclear, and that being the case, we could not presume it is indeed freely licensed and accept it. If the copyright holder really does want to release it under a free license, they might consider using something standard like the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, and removing portions later saying it's actually "All rights reserved", but the copyright holder needs to clarify their intent before anything could be done here. (Also, it is not correct to call Wikipedia "Wiki".) Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Also, I just had a look at the deleted edits, and the problem there was not copyright infringement but promotion. Please do be aware that promotional material is not permitted on Wikipedia, and that includes "About Us" style pages. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

i have a question regarding this logo File:Logo-WBTCBig.png. I asked about it here User talk:Jeff G.. But I am confused about the license. Can it come under this Category:Non-free files uploaded as object of commentary ? Saha ( talk ) 17:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Arnabsaha2212. Perhaps the easiest thing to do here would be to license the file as {{Non-free logo}} and then convert the {{Information}} template you added to {{Non-free use rationale logo}}. The file is being used in the main infobox for primary identification purposes, so it should be OK to do that. Trying to claim that the file is public domain per {{PD-logo}} instead is a little more involved since it depends upon how the concept of threshold of originality is applied under Indian copyright law. There's not a lot of information about this in c:COM:TOO India. This might be a borderline case in the US per c:COM:TOO United States, but it probably wouldn't be publci domain in the UK per c:COM:TOO United Kingdom; so, it depends upon just how close Indian copyright law is to the US or the UK. Regardless of whether you choose to license the file as non-free or public domain, all files need to have a copyright license; otherwise, they can be deleted per WP:F4. Moreover, all non-free files also need to have a separate specific non-free use rationale for each use; otherwise, they can be removed for uses lacking such a rationale per WP:NFCCE or even deleted per WP:F6. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: thnx for helping. i have added and edited the Information. please check whether its correct or not. :) Saha ( talk ) 10:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
@Arnabsaha2212: All is in order now. I've removed the deletion tag. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2019/June&oldid=904723125"