Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2020/January

File:South Carolina Public Radio logo.png

I'm wondering if this file needs to be licensed as non-free. It seems to be below the TOO for the US per c:COM:TOO United States, so I converted it to PD a few months back. That change was, however, reverted by the uploader the other day with the edit sum "No!". I've queried the uploader about this, but am also curious as to what others may think. There really don't seem to be any copyrightable elements in play here, and the "shape" element actually seems to be an outline of South Carolina. If it needs to remain non-free that's fine, but it really seems simple enough for Commons and doesn't need to be locally hosted on Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 January 1#File:South Carolina Public Radio logo.png. I think this calls for FFD since a dispute exists. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

CC BY-NC-ND 3.0

I am currently working on Gordon Falcon (Royal Navy officer) and would like to insert a portrait. I have found one on the National Portrait Gallery's website[[1]] and there is a low resolution image available for download under a CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 licence here [[2]]. The non-commercial part of the licence makes it unsuitable for Wikimedia Commons because their rules are, that material can re-used for any purpose. Does Wikipedia have the same rule regarding images or can I upload it here? Please be aware that digitised copies have their own copyright under UK law.--Ykraps (talk) 09:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Hrm. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 is a non-free license as well. But unlike Commons on enWikipedia we only care about copyrights in the USA and digitised copies there do not have a separate copyright from that of an original 2D work. So I am wondering what the copyright status of the portrait itself is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Richard James Lane died in 1872 so the original lithograph is not copyrighted and indeed, you can go into the NPG and freely take photos of any of the exhibits there. I am a UK resident, bound by UK law, so I sent an email to the NPG copyright department, and they seem to think it's okay to use on Wikipedia. Why do you think the existing licence isn't sufficient?--Ykraps (talk) 10:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by "existing license". But if the portrait was made by a person who died in 1872, the correct license might be either {{PD-old-100}} if the digitised copy has no copyright under UK law (does it? The UK has a lower copyright requirement than the US but I am not sure it's that much lower). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know, yes, digitised copies of PD works have their own copyright, as do photographs of PD works. Perhaps this article might help explain my concerns better. The NPG seem to think the low resolution image on their website is okay to use on Wikipedia but from what I'm hearing, the CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 licence they have attached to the image means it isn't. I would like to email the NPG again and tell them there is a problem with their licensing but in order to do that, I first need to understand what it is.--Ykraps (talk) 11:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

With regards to images from the UK NPG, we ignore their claim on a "new" copyright of the digital version of a work otherwise public domain in the UK. See National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute. See examples at Commons of what to include when uploading. [3]. --Masem (t) 12:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Thus article The Public Domain vs. the Museum: The Limits of Copyright and Reproductions of Two-dimensional Works of Art covers the topic from an EU & UK perspective and the conclusion to section 2 and section 3 in particular contradicts the licensing claims that such copies of public domain works are copyright. It's a long read but enjoy. Just upload it to the commons using the {{PD-old-100}} license but use the highest quality image here. ww2censor (talk) 13:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I've always found that adopting the "I'll do what I want and fuck you" attitude detrimental to building relationships so what I really want to know is, what is it Wikipedia doesn't like about the CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 licence?[[4]] When I understand that, I can explain to the NPG why their assumption that I can use their work on Wikipedia under their existing licence is incorrect. And who knows, perhaps they will work with us to solve the problem.--Ykraps (talk) 12:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

A CC BY-NC-ND licence is not a free license, as it prohibits commercial use or changing the photo. As such, files correctly licenced as -NC can only be used with a fair use exemption on en:wiki (where the use of an image is essential) and cannot be uploaded to Commons. The NPG are falsely claiming copyright on a public domain image in order to make money.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, I suggest reading the NPG and Wikimedia Foundation article in mainspace above. We've been there to try to negotiate with them. I'd also point out the last main section, where the legal opinion (not via case) sides with WMF's interpretation even considering UK's "sweat of the brow" on copyright - that the mechanical reproduction of a 2D public domain work, no matter how much effort was put it, has no new creativity and thus a new copyright cannot be claimed. --Masem (t) 15:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the only discussions held, centred around high resolution images and occurred back in 2009. Since then, the NPG has released low resolution images under a CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 licence, including the lithograph of Gordon Falcon, which they are happy for Wikipedia to use. I intend to write back, thanking them for their offer but explaining that because Wikipedia allows its material to be reused by anyone for any purpose, images within need to be free licence, and therefore we cannot use it. That is how I understand the issue. Am I about right?--Ykraps (talk) 09:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Ykraps: You are...correct and incorrect depending on the circumstances regarding public domain 2D works. The difference is between a "reproduction" and a derivative creative work. If I take a selfie of me and my mom in front of the Mona Lisa, then it is derivative of the Mona Lisa. In other words, the bit of the photo that consists of the Mona Lisa is public domain, but the bits that are "not-Mona-Lisa" are copyrighted, and the work as a whole is derivative. However, if it is a faithful reproduction (legally a "slavish copy") of the work, such as a scan where there are no pieces of the copy that do not consist of the public domain 2D work, such a reproduction would not contain sufficient original creative contribution to qualify under copyright, and only the original expired copyright would apply. GMG^talk 13:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• Disclaimer: This applies in nearly all circumstances, except for one court in Germany one time recently that experienced a brief moment of insanity. GMG^talk 13:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
• Just going to add a bit more to what GMG posted since it might not be clear if you've never come across this type of thing before. A "slavish copy" in this case generally refers to a photo of only the painting itself, not any picture frame that the painting may be set in as explained in c:COM:PDART. So, a photograph of a painting which is in the public domain showing not only the painting, but also its frame isn't automatically considered to be 100% c:COM:2D copying. In such cases, if you're the photographer, you probably should provide a separate copyright license for the photo itself if it shows the the painting and its frame, or just crop the frame out on your own and use the license {{PD-Art}}; if you're not the photographer, the frame may need to be cropped out somehow prior to uploading the photo, though Commons does have c:Template:Non-free frame for those files that aren't cropped prior to upload. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm assuming we're just talking about how Wikipedia views it here. The UK's freedom of panorama laws (section 62 of Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988) means that, providing it is exhibited in a place accessible to the public, and I include something outside the painting, I can take and upload photographs irrespective of the copyright status (different to US law which doesn't permit this). As far as I know, if the work is in the public domain, I don't even have to do that.--Ykraps (talk) 09:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

According to c:COM:FOP United Kingdom, there is freedom of panorama in the UK for publicly displayed 3D works of art, but not for 2D graphic works. Since this discussion seems to be about a painting, which according to Commons seems to be defined as a graphic work according to UK copyright law, I'm not sure how FoP comes into play. Unless that is you're stating FoP would cover the frame? If that's the case, then I think you'd still need a separate PD copyright license for the frame. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

1924

As I understand it, copyright protection for items older than 95 years have become public domain on January 1, a practice which will continue every January 1 for some decades to come. My question is, what does that do to Wikipedia's restrictions on photos made during 1924. Previously, 1923 was the cutoff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Works (excluding sound recordings) published in the US before 1 January 1925 are now public domain as copyright has now expired, so any images on Wikipedia that were published in 1924 and used on Wikipedia with a non-free rationale those could now be amended to reflect their public domain status ({{PD-US-expired}}). Nthep (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Very good. Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

File:L3Harris Technologies logo.svg

Does this need to be {{Non-free logo}}? L3Harris Technologies is based in the United States where c:COM:TOO United States is pretty high. The text element is non-copyrightable, and the geodesic dome/sphere imagery might not be as well given c:Category:Geodesic domes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Amaranth Advisors Logo - What is the license I should use to upload with?

Hi, I am working on Amaranth Advisors and looking to get a better version of their logo (the company went bankrupt in 2007). I've found an svg of their logo in this file and extracted it from the pdf: http://wsj.com/public/resources/documents/amaranthletter.pdf I checked the trademark office and found that the logo has been abandoned back in 2007. What is the license I should use to upload with?

• Trademark info:
• Word Mark /A/AMARANTH
• Goods and Services (ABANDONED) IC 036. US 100 101 102. G & S: INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT AND ADVISORY SERVICES FOR FUNDS AND FINANCIAL SERVICES IN THE NATURE OF TRADING AND INVESTMENT FOR OTHERS IN THE FIELDS OF SECURITIES, FUTURES, OPTIONS, DERIVATIVES, COMMODITIES, AND CURRENCIES
• Mark Drawing Code (5) WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS IN STYLIZED FORM
• Serial Number 78222345
• Filing Date March 6, 2003
• Current Basis 1B
• Original Filing Basis 1B
• Published for Opposition February 1, 2005
• Owner (APPLICANT) Amaranth Advisors L.L.C. LIMITED LIABILITY JOINT STOCK COMPANY DELAWARE One American Lane Greenwich CONNECTICUT 068312571
• Attorney of Record Howard J. Shire, Esq.
• Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
• Register PRINCIPAL
• Live/Dead Indicator DEAD
• Abandonment Date April 27, 2007

Thank you WestportWiki (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

It's {{PD-textlogo}} and can be uploaded at Commons. Only simple text (the greek alpha is text) and shapes. --Masem (t) 19:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. WestportWiki (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding File:BE_VISION_Mickey_Mouse_1965.png

This image is of interest because it was generated by the BE VISION computer graphics package in 1965 and is significant in the history of graphics algorithms because it is a candidate for being the first documented demonstration of hidden line removal of curves. The current wikipedia treatment of hidden line removal does not recognize this contribution. The origin of this JPEG image is that I generated it by clipping it (as a screenshot) out of a rendering of a PDF of the 1965 paper (https://ohiostate.pressbooks.pub/app/uploads/sites/45/2017/09/bevision-weiss.pdf) it was published in. The image is an orthographic projection of a 3D model which was apparently manually constructed using mathematically techniques by the paper's author, the computer scientist Ruth A. Weiss. The fair use question is complicated by the fact that the subject of the 3D model is the notorious Mickey Mouse. Seriously. This is also my first attempt at an image upload to WikiPedia and I have no idea what I am doing and how to comply with the rather bewildering attribution requirements. Could someone walk me thru how to deal with this? Many thanks!! -- BookLubber (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@BookLubber: you should introduce some sourced text about the image's history and significance in the article hidden line removal first. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi BookLubber. There are ten non-free content use criteria which need to be satisfied each time a non-free file is used. You've provided a non-free use rationale for the file required by WP:NFCC#10c; so, the file is now unlikely going to be deleted per WP:F6. The rationale you provided, however, isn't a valid rationale because non-free files cannot be used in drafts per WP:NFCC#9 (see also WP:DRAFTS#Preparing drafts) and are required to be used in at least one article per WP:NFCC#7; so, that's why file has been tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F5. There's really no way around WP:F5 accept to find an article where this file can be used. Finding such and article and adding a rationale specific to that particular use is still no guarantee per WP:JUSTONE, but it should at least stop the file from being deleted per WP:F5 or WP:F6.

What Finnusertop is referring to has to do with WP:NFCC#8. basically, just adding the file to any article and then adding a rationale doesn't automatically make a file's non-free use policy compliant and you're going to have to establish there's sufficient contextual significance to justify its non-free use in whatever article you try to add the file to. Generally, the best way to do this would be to add sourced critical commentary specifically about the image to whatever article you want to use it so that seeing the image significantly improves the reader's understanding of said content while omitting the image would be detrimental to that understanding. In other words, simply saying this is an image used in a paper written by Weiss and then providing a link to the paper by Weiss is not really going to be enough; you're going to have to show that reliable sources (i.e. others besides Weiss) actually refer to the significance of this image in the history of graphic algorithms or as being a candidate for the first documented demonstration of hidden line removal, etc. and provide content which is better understood by actually seeing the image. This might be hard to do because the content should be more then a simple description of the image, i.e. its 3D model of Mickey Mouse, and because there is already a free equivalent image apparently showing the same thing being used in the article about hidden line removal; so, the content you add is going to need to establish that this image shows or represents something related to hidden line removal that some freely licensed image is unable to do.

I'm not sure why Weiss wasn't mentioned at all in the article "Hidden line removal" until you added that sentence about her, but it could be that reliable sources don't refer either her as being a significant person when it comes to hidden line removal. Perhaps this has to do with the fact that as a woman she never received proper recognition from reliable sources over the years for her contributions to her field. Maybe this has changed now and perhaps someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing or Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists might be able to help find the sources needed to support not only the use of this file, but also establish her notability per WP:NPROF. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@BookLubber: Whether you did so intentionally or just by mistake, you removed the copyright license from the file' page with this edit when you were adding a non-free use rationale to the file's page. All files uploaded to Wikipedia (regardless of whether they are non-free or free) are required to have a file copyright license or they can be speedily deleted per WP:F4. If you're intent was to change the file's copyright license to something more appropriate, I suggest you do so asap so as to avoid the file being deleted for this reason. If you just removed the license by mistake, you should re-add it or another suitable license asap for the same reason. FWIW, the license you removed was {{Non-free software screenshot}} which is probably not the best one to use for something like this since the file is not really a software screenshot per se. You can find a list of other non-free licenses that might be more appropriate to use in Category:Wikipedia non-free file copyright templates. I'm not sure if there's one particular license that best fits this file; so, you may have to use a more general one like {{Non-free fair use}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly Wow, so much for your help! My head is slightly swimming with the set of nested challenges trying to make a non-trivial contribution to wikipedia is entailing. Some points:

• The BE VISION software generated images by driving a film printer, since driving high-res video displays was still a challenge at the time because of RAM resources and such, so this basically *was* the equivalent of a screenshot at the time. Would you continue to suggest {{Non-free fair use}} over {{Non-free software screenshot}}? So I've deployed "Non-free fair use" but can't tell if I did it right
• The BE VISION software achieved two advances (hidden line removal of curved lines and AND hidden line removal of concavities) which the existing image of a lego brick in hidden-line removal does not depict
• I have included in the Draft:Ruth A. Weiss article a quotation which seems to establish the notability of the BE VISION work.
• It seems like there is a chicken and egg problem here. Ruth A. Weiss is being rejected because of a lack of content but the image content keeps being removed because Ruth A. Weiss is just a draft. Gack! The vigorous culling process which these bots are doing is liable to have the effect of exhausting me and relegating Ruth A. Weiss and her notable contribution to continued obscurity.

So am I to understand that the way to get Ruth and this image into WP is to do the following?

1. add the image to hidden-line removal by expanding its treatment of the history of the field?
2. add Ruth A. Weiss by establishing her notability because she did BE VISION and it was notable?
3. finally add image to Ruth A. Weiss because it isn't possible to add a non-free image to a Draft?

Is this what needs to happen to get a stub established for Ruth? For clarity, I don't know her from Eve and have no horse in this race at all! I'm just trying to get this cool piece of work she did lodged in WP and the headwind is pretty strong! (Thanks again @Marchjuly !)

BookLubber (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

If you believe the Ruth A. Weiss meets WP:GNG or WP:BIO and want to create a Wikipedia article about her, then you can try. If you think this particular image is Wikipedia notable in it's own right and you want to create an article about it, then you can also try. In either case, you're going to need to somehow show that either subject has received WP:SIGCOV on it's own for such an article to be ultimately kept if its notability ends up being questioned at WP:AFD. I don't really have any strong feelings either way about the notability of either subject, which is why I suggested you ask for help WikiProject Computing or WikiProect Women Scientists. If you're able to successfully create either article (particularly the second of the two), then you might find it easier to justify the non-free use of this file in one of them; however, you should work on creating one of the two articles first. Whether an article written about Weiss is ultimately accepted may depend upon whether she Wikipedia notable for her entire body of work as an academic/scientist or whether she's only Wikipedia notable for her association/connection with this one particular accomplishment.

I think it's going to be quite hard to justify the file's non-free use in the "Hidden-lines" article. There is already a free equivalent image being used to illustrate this concept and I don't think this file provides a significant improvement in understand over that. So, unless you start trying to turn that article into one that's primarily about Weiss or about this image, it's likely going to be hard to incorporate enough content about this particular file into the article to justify its non-free use in a manner that doesn't disrupt the overall flow and balance of the article. Trying to do that kind of thing might just end up being reverted by others. In other words, you shouldn't try to reshape/rewrite the existing article to such a degree just to incorporate this particular non-free image, but rather really only try to add this non-free image to the existing article if it can be done in a way which significantly improves the reader's understand of pretty much what's already in the article in a way that cannot be done by any free equivalent.

Just for reference, a non-free file which is deleted for some reason is not gone forever; it's only hidden from public view and can be restored at a later date if warranted. So, if this file is deleted, you can always request that it be restored per WP:REFUND once whatever issues that led to its deletion have been resolved. So, focus on getting one of the two articles I mentioned above created first, and then worry about the image.

Finally, you can choose the file copyright license that you think is most applicable, but the file needs to have a license to avoid speedy deletion per WP:F4. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Nelloptodes gretae

A picture is reuired for Nelloptodes gretae. There is a fair bit of traffic to this page because this insect is named for Greta Thunberg and links from her Awards and Honours section, which I have just rationalised. The owner, Natural History Museum, London is happy to provide an image with the following proviso: We can provide you with an image but we need the image to be credited wherever it is used. You can find the image in the link below and the credit is within the name of the file. [5]https://nhm.box.com/s/kymjozb8j6af2pmhuwfhvysxinarh6ah What are my options? Ex nihil ^(talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

You need to ask them whether you can sell the image for money and alter it. If yes, then it's a fair game for Wikipedia. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ex nihil. What Jo-Jo Eumerus is referring to is WP:CONSENT. You'll need to get the consent of whoever took the photo. Another possibility might be, however, would be for someone else to take a photo of the insect, and then upload it to Wikimedia Commons per c:Commons:Licensing. I don't think you can copyright an insect, but you can copyright a photo of an insect; so, someone could do just like what these people did in c: Category:Insects. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

File:SeanLester.jpg

According to this source given for this file, the photo is originally from the United Nations Library. Could that possibly make it c:Template:PD-US-no notice-UN or some other form of PD? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Copyright permission for single use

I uploaded an book cover image for a book page I created: An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States, by Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz. The publishing house granted me permission to use this for the page. Going through the upload process, it appears there are only two categories I can check: one to make the image available generally, and one to state it is available through Fair Use. My situation is neither. Also, the publisher has allowed this use if specific rights information accompany the image, underneath it. Could someone provide guidance. Thank you. --PaulThePony (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi PaulThePony. If you're going to upload the cover art as non-free content, you don't really need the permission of the publishing company to do that. As long as each use of the file complies with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, you should be OK. For book covers, it's generally OK to use non-free cover art per item 1 of WP:NFCI when the book cover is going to be used for primary identification purposes either in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone Wikipedia article about the book in question. So, if you want to use the file for that purpose in An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States, then you should be fine. If, however, you want to use the file for other reasons or in other articles, then the justification for non-free use becomes much harder as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3. In such cases, it's generally not considered sufficient just to discuss the book, but rather sourced critical commentary about the book cover itself is needed.

My suggestion to you is that unless the book publishing company is willing to give its WP:CONSENT to release the file under a free license that Wikipedia excepts per WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files, i.e. a license which allows anyone anywhere in the world to download the file at anytime and use for any purpose (including commercial reuse), then you should upload the file as non-free content (fair use has a slightly different meaning when it comes to uploading files to Wikipedia) using the license {{Non-free book cover}} and the non-free use rationale {{Non-free use rationale book cover}}. If, on the other hand, the publishing company is willing to give its consent and agree to release the file under a 100% free license (note: "For Wikipedia use only" or "For non-commercial use only", etc. types of Creative Commons licenses aren't acceptable), then you should upload the file to Wikimedia Commons per c:Commons:Licensing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

That is most appreciated counsel, Marchjuly! Thank you. PaulThePony (talk) 05:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I have run into another problem. I had tried to upload the image but realized I needed the information you supplied first. I then went through the process, uploading the image with proper information but when I try and submit this, I am told it is an exact copy of another image--the one I tried to work with first. I can't seem to find both images in one place. What should I do? How do I delete one? Overriding the alert is not an option, as far as I can tell. PaulThePony (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Your contributions history only has record of you uploading File:Indigenouspeopleshistorycover.jpg. You cannot upload a new file using the same file name because such a file already exists; so, if you want to uploaded an updated version of this file, click on "Upload a new version of this file" found near the bottom of the file's page. This will overwrite the current version of the file with the newer version. Ideally, you should only overwrite a non-free file when the change from one version to another is not really anything major (i.e. the newer version is not a completely different file altogether), but in this case it really doesn't make any difference either way since this is a completely new file and having it deleted so that you can just upload another file under the same name is not really necessary.

If all you want to do is edit/tweak the file copyright license or the non-free use rationale, you can do so by simply clicking on "Edit" for the relevant section and making the changes just as you would make to any Wikipedia page. If you're not sure how to complete any of the parameters in either of these templates, you can often find information on how to do this on the template's page. One thing about non-free files is that they are required to be used in at least one article per non-free content use criterion #7; those which are not used in at least one article are going to be eventually tagged for speedy deletion per speedy deletion criterion F5. So, don't put off adding this file to at least one article for too long because if you do the file may end up being deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly. With apologies, I did read what is just above but found I was having problems (seemingly) unrelated to copyright issues, so I posted another query separately, and thanks for letting me know it's best to keep it all together. I'll respond more at the 'new' thread although may just move all that here. PaulThePony (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Here is that thread, now deleted elsewhere, titled: "Adding requisite information to an image file page in order to bring it into the article page"

I believe I identified the reason for use.

On a positive note, a bot did resize the image so it is acceptable. With thanks to the bot! haha== Adding requisite information to an image file page in order to bring it into the article page ==

In preparation for adding a non-free fair use image for book page, An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States, I've encountered several requests which apparently must be resolved before I can bring the image into the page.

This is the article page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Indigenous_Peoples%27_History_of_the_United_States

This is the image file page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Indigenouspeopleshistorycover.jpg

In two places, it indicates the article/page needs to be identified. Such as: "This is the front cover art for the book {{{Article}}}." How do I get to a page that allows that input? Clicking "Edit" or "Edit source" doesn't lead to that.

In the file page it states: "The book cover art copyright is believed to belong to the publisher or the cover artist."

I've articulated this explicitly. Is there another place I need to state this such that the file page will read, "The book cover art copyright belongs to the publisher or the cover artist."

I am asked for the "Source." Does this mean the web page which I found the image (in this instance, on the publisher's page for the book) or the name of the file in my computer? When I put the URL I got an alert that it was blacklisted. It was a URL for Beacon Press's image of the book.

I am told, "No purpose specified. Please edit this image description and provide a purpose."

Thank you so much for any assistance. I've clearly run into some road blocks! :P --PaulThePony (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@PaulThePony: Did you read my answer to your same question above? Generally, you don't need to start a new discussion thread each time you post; if your question is related to another discussion currently ongoing on the same page, it's usually better to keep everything in the same place. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Now that we're all in one place :), I'll clarify that the issues are more of "how to do what" than what permissions I ought best to use. I mean step by step, especially when encountering a road block. I simply don't know what to do exactly, as the contents above indicate. Are there some alerts I can just ignore? To be more specific, for now, from the book page, what do I click on to get to the page with the image I want to bring in? And, how exactly do I set the image into the infobox? I looked here but the coding didn't work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAy_kBBqs0U. I searched in the Commons for "infobox image" and "page image" and "import image" but none of those terms yet exist. Finally for the moment, the publisher requested I place the following text as the caption to the image of theirs:

"An Indigenous Peoples’ History of the United States

Copyright © Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz

Reprinted with permission from Beacon Press, Boston"

Is this acceptable to the reviewing editors?

--PaulThePony (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Another editor named JJMC89 did a very brief cleanup of the rationale you added to the file's page. If you want to see what they did, check here. I've gone a done a bit more clean up here, but the file should really still have a source added to the rationale in place of the generic boilerplate information currently provided. The way you can do that is to go to the file's page and click on "Edit" for the summary section. All you need to do is a a link to the source to the |source= parameter; basically just add the link after the equal sign |source=add link here. If you know enough to complete the other parameters listed as "Optional", then the more information you can provide the better; if not, you can leave them blank. Same goes for the "Override" parameters. The three most important parameters are |article=, |use= and |source=; so as long as these are completed the boilerplate info added for the other parameters is OK. You don't need to add any specific information about the file's copyright status , etc. to the article; adding it to the file's page is all that's needed for Wikipedia's purposes.

I also fixed the syntax for the file in the article; you don't need to use the "thumb" syntax for infoboxes per H:INFOP#Troubleshooting and WP:IBI, but the main problem was that you weren't using the exact name of the file; you were telling the software to add File:Indigenouspeopleshistory.jpg, which doesn't exist. That's why there was a red link where you wanted File:Indigenouspeopleshistorycover.jpg to be displayed. The other problem was with the MOS:CAPTION; you don't really need a caption for something fairly self evident like a book cover, album cover, etc., but you shouldn't add visible editorial comments directly to articles like you did. Anyway, things seem OK now so hopefully all your questions have been answered. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Marchjuly. When I caught that I'd left "cover" out of the image file title I went to change that and you'd beat me to it! :) I am now clearer on why I was having some problems. I'll speak only to the most recent instructions. When you instructed me to click "Edit" I didn't realize that meant to click on "Edit source" specifically. So having those two options got confusing in this case--I took what was in quotes literally. The other is that I saw no section or line items identified as "Optional," only those that exist without a heading and then an "Override" section. There again, a literal read on what you were describing. Thank you for helping me fill the category "Source." Is the info to be the image's URL (that's what I put in), or Beacon Press's URL, or Abe's Books'? Assuming the URL that I entered is what was needed, we're all set I guess. With great appreciation for your patience and guidance. --PaulThePony (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Non-free use of an image from a paywalled journal.

At Wikipedia:Files for upload#Salem Bland, User:142.160.131.220 requested that a 1925 painting from Pfaff, L. R. (1978). "Portraits by Lawren Harris: Salem Bland and Others". RACAR. 5 (1): 22. ISSN 1918-4778. JSTOR 42630123. be uploaded to be used as primary identification of Salem Bland. The journal article that the image appears in is on JSTOR, where it is behind a paywall. I placed the request on hold out of concern that it did not meet WP:NFCC#2, the respect for commercial opportunities criterion. The requesting user responded, so I am now bringing it here for further discussion. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@AntiCompositeNumber: I don't think there is a WP:NFCC#2 problem. Almost all sources for non-free content are commercial in one way or another. Many of them (virtually all books, newspapers, magazines etc.) even cost money to be accessed. But the NFCC#2 limitation is not supposed to block all these sources. It pertains to special cases when the copyright holder is intrinsically in the business of selling images. This is basically photo and news agencies, and even then not for all uses. An academic journal sells articles, not photos. Furthermore, they probably use the photo in their journal under a similar fair use (or fair dealing) as we intend to. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I would agree with Finnusertop here. NFCC#2 is meant to be for images that you alone would normally pay for out of a press corps or stock image resources like Gettys images. An image within a paid-for work but where the image itself isn't being offered for sale separately would just like be pulling screenshot from a non-free movie, and thus should be fine with all attribution, etc. --Masem (t) 22:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

French Copyright Law

Seeing advice from a knowledgable experienced Wikipedia administrator who preferably is fluent in French and English as a part of the English Wikipedia or French Wikipedia. My French is rusty as it has been two decades since I was in France.

After reading both the French and English versions of copyright law found as sources on the page Copyright law of France and through internet research it seems that French copyright must be "œuvre de l'esprit" a work of the mind. The legal website ICLG.com states in regard to French copyright that for a work to be protected it must be "the expression of the author’s personality".

The files File:Croix_de_guerre_1914-1918_with_silver_star_from_World_War_I.jpg and File:Croix_de_guerre_1914-1918_with_silver_star_and_bronze_palm_from_World_War_I.jpg are pictures of 100-year-old French military medals taken in France and posted on an all-French blog in France. Thus the question becomes how is a picture of a medal covered under French copyright law? The picture does not in any way represent the "oeuvre de l'esprit" of the photographer nor is it an "expression of the author's personality". The picture was taken merely to convey information for the blog.

The files are tagged as not meeting "contextually significant" under "fair use" copyright law in the United States. I addressed those concerns on each respective talk page. However, it occurred to me that these pictures might fall in the public domain due to the nature of how the French copyright law is written. I thus ask an administrator who is knowledgeable with French copyright law, even if it is necessary to reach out to an administrator from the French site, to look into this matter.

I request a response on my talk page. Thank you for your time. Boston1775 (talk) 08:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Boston1775: Before even worrying about the copyright status of the medals themselves you must address the copyright status of the images. There is no evidence on the source websites they are freely licensed and because could easily be recreated by someone with access to the medals, so they immediately fail WP:NFCC#1 and are unacceptable for us to keep. c:User:Ruthven can advise you on what the copyright situation is of the medals but being French government items they are likely still in copyright. ww2censor (talk) 12:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. I understand the difference between the copyright of the medals themselves vs the copyright of the photo. The copyright of the medals is irrelevant since to post the photo there must be copyright permission or fair use or the phot must fall in the public domain. That much I understand. There were two questions surrounding the photos of the medals and let me recap just to make sure I understand your comment.

1. There was a question by c:User:JJMC89 that the pictures were not contextually significant. I provided a rationale why this was not true on the talk page. That has not yet been responded to by an administrator
2. There was a question about the photos being in the public domain in France because they fail the "œuvre de l'esprit" a work of the mind standard held by the French government. Your answer did not address this issue because I think you thought I was talking about the medals themselves and not the photo. I was referring to the photos. It is my understanding that I should reach out to c:User:Ruthven as to this matter.
3. It seems that although you did not answer either of the first two concerns you brought up a third concern challenging the photos because they failed WP:NFCC#1 which was not a concern mentioned on either of the respective file pages. (As of this writing that issue still has yet to address on either file page.) However, WP:NFCC#1 covers a few areas. First is there a free equivalent? No not in the combination of silver star and bronze palm desired. Second, can the image be recreated? No. How in world are you going to recreate a photo of a very rare 100-year-old French medal whose recipients are all long dead and for whom the medals most likely sit in storage somewhere with their heirs? The medal has not been awarded since 1918 over 102 years ago. Your comment states "Anyone with access to these medals". The rarity of these medals is what makes it impossible to create a free equivalent. In addition, your comment does not address that there were many variations of the Croix de guerre. Unlike lets say the "medal of honor" which are identical for all army recipients the Croix de guerre came in variations. So not only would you need access to a medal awarded over 100 years ago, you would need access to the very specific combinations requests. One with only a single silver star. And the other with a silver star and a bronze palm.

Please confirm if my understanding of your comments is correct, in that you did not answer either initial concern and added a new one for which I replied to above. I will add the relevant part of this response to the talk page of the articles. Boston1775 (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Boston1775: Your first and third comments are both related to the use of non-free images. I introduced you to WP:NFCC#1 because it is the first of the 10 non-free policy criteria that MUST all be satisfied for an image to comply. If an image fails one, it fails, full stop. The "critical commentary" is criteria 8 WP:NFCC#8. Certainly according to my reading of 119th Field Artillery Regiment#Military Decorations the prose is quite sufficient for the reader to understand the topic and the use of a non-free images is not necessary for that understanding. Your rational is not sufficient to counter that required criteria.

Now to return to criteria #1 alone. This point has been discussed many times before on this page, the essential part of the policy is "or could be created" and the point is that is there is ANY reasonable possibility such an image can be created then we cannot use the image. Your argument that this is an old medal that is no longer awarded carries no weight as it is obvious that, as you found an image online, it is possible to make such an image. Even when access is difficult it makes no difference. All sorts of rare and unusual medals are displayed at historical or local museums as well as being sold at military related auctions and even found in garage sales. For instance I have my grandfather's Easter Rising medal and have seem them in exhibitions and for sale at auction, so it should not really that extremely difficult for someone to get access to one.

Complying with the non-free criteria can sometimes be difficult and people do try to form their arguments to get around the very strict policy which may not seem very fair but that's it. ww2censor (talk) 11:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I agree with you in regards to WP:NFCC#8 as it was explained to me by an admin exactly what is entailed. So since it fails that standard everything else is moot as you say. However, I received permission from both blog holders so now I just hope they get the WP:CONSENT forms in time. However, we still disagree in regards to WP:NFCC#1 because unlike a rare coin or Easter Rising medal, they are all the same. One Easter Rising medal is a carbon copy of another. But the Croix de guerre is unique in they are different from each other. One can not get a hold of on Croix de guerre and turn it into a different Croix de guerre. But I do respect your opinion. I believe the admins agree with me on WP:NFCC#1 although I am just guessing because if they thought it failed #1 then they would not have listed #8 as not being met as per your statement, to which I agree, that if it failed #1 then rest is moot. Thanks again for the discussion and conversation. Boston1775 (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Boston1775 and Ww2censor: Hi all, sorry for the late response. As said before, here there are two copyright issues: 1) the photograph itself, which copyright belongs to the photographer, and 2) the medal. The latter is an "oeuvre d'esprit" for sure, and is protected by the French law. However, I reckon that it is an anonymous or pseudonymous work (the identity of the author has never been disclosed) or even a collective work (one author for the figure of Marianne, another one for the star, etc.), thus by Article L123-3, the medal falls in the public domain 70 years after publication (70 years after the death of the last author in case of collective work of known authors, i.e. there is a signature on the medal). Resuming: if the photograph of the medal is under free license, you can upload the file to Commons. Cheers --Ruthven (msg) 21:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ruthven: Thank you for your insight into French Copyright law. Very much appreciated. Is there a wiki tag for a free license that I can use? Right now it was put under non-free use with permission and I am waiting on both blog holders to submit a WP:CONSENT; however they both gave permission (one via email and one via a post on the blog) and while it has been explained to me ad nauseam by both ww2censor and whpg that Wikipedia needs the consent form for legality purposes, would changing the tag to free license (if one exists) still require the consent form? I'm guessing yes but never can hurt to ask. Boston1775 (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Boston1775: The written consent is for the photograph of the medal, which belongs to them. In the consent, they will mention a free license, that will go with the file. In the Permission field, you can mention that the medal is under PD-France + PD-1996. --Ruthven (msg) 22:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC) PS: Have you noticed that we already have some "croix de guerre" under Category:Croix_de_guerre_1914-1918_(France)?

@Ruthven: Yes but not one with just a silver star or one with a silver star and a bronze palm. I'm trying to find medals that are exactly in appearance as those awarded to the 119th Field Artillery unit. At least that was my goal. So now I just hope the consent forms come in assuming they are willing to fill them out. Also not sure how long the turnaround is once the form is sent. I think they are up for deletion on the 17th UTC time. It didn't help matters that it took me two days to contact the blog owners and then another day to realize I had to send the consent form. But it is what it is I guess. Boston1775 (talk)

There used to be a noticeboard called WP:PUF where concerns about the licensing of “free” files were discussed, but this is now done at WP:FFD; so, you can pretty much change a file’s licensing to pretty much anything you like, but that doesn’t mean the licensing is acceptable and that another editor won’t challenge it. The same thing goes for Commons; files are deleted all the time because their licensing is not considered sufficient or is otherwise deemed unacceptable. If you can get the copyright holder(s) to email OTRS, you can probably convert the file’s licensing and add {{OTRS pending}} to the file’s page; this would sort of be a temporary state where the file is temporarily treated as “free” until an OTRS reviews the email. If you do something like that though, you might want to add one license for the medal, and a separate license for the photo and make it clear on the file’s page why you’ve done this. You can use {{Information}} to do this. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for the OTRS pending suggestion. And yes I will add a license for the medal as well. Boston1775 (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

You should really only add the "OTRS pending" template after an email has been sent to OTRS. From what you posted above, it doesn't appear that the copyright holders have actually sent such an email yet; so, you should ask them to do that asap. They should send it from an official email account, ideally one that can be directly connected to them and the source of the photos. Moreover, they need to understand that cannot have the license "cancelled" after the fact if they change their minds since the free licenses that Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons accepts are non-revocable. They also need to understand that they cannot place any restrictions like "non-commercial use only" or "for educational/Wikipedia use only" on the file since Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons doesn't accept those types of licenses. Basically, they will be agreeing to let anyone anywhere in the world to download their photo at anytime and use for any purpose.

When they email OTRS, they should include the name of the url of the file's page in their email. They don't need to send separate emails for multiple files as long as they are the copyright holder for all the files, but they need to send something asap. If an OTRS volunteer goes looking for the email and cannot find it; they will likely remove the pending tag and the file(s) will once again be eligible for deletion. Once you hear that an email has been sent, you can replace the non-free use rationale for the file with Template:Information and replace the non-free copyright license with the free-one the copyright holders decided they want to use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes I already sent them the forms. One of them doesn't speak a word of English but I have limited french and google translate helps. I sent him the French version. The other person and I have been communicating back and forth on his blog since he doesn't list his email. I sent that person the web address for the WP:CONSENT. I sent both of them the URL for the 119th Field Artillery page since they need that to fill out the form. But since they do not send the form to me, there is no way to know when they send them. I assume that since they both replied to me in 24 hours with my initial request, they will do the same with the form within at most 48 hours. I posted the OTRS pending and it says there is a 16-day backlog. So now the question is since it won't be processed until after the removal date of January 17 (which I assume is done by a bot for simplicity purposes) I was wondering if I can remove the warning to avoid bot removal. Had I done this correctly, the OTRS pending would have been placed before the warning of removal negating the problem. As far as licensing, I doubt that will be an issue. These are regular individuals who took pictures of medals that I do not believe are their own to write an article and they did it for publicity purposes so I know for a fact they couldn't care less where the picture ends up. Boston1775 (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:CONSENT is just a template or example of one possible way to word a permissions email, and not necessarily a form that needs to be completed. Anything email which essentially states the same thing is probably going to be OK. WP:OTRS deals with all Wikimedia projects, not just English Wikipedia, so it's multi-lingual and permission emails in French will be accepted. Moreover, Commons is a multi-lingual project and there are French versions of pages like c:COM:L and c:COM:EMAIL, etc. Since there are only so many OTRS volunteers to deal with all the emails OTRS receives, there often is a backlog with emails being answered in the order they're received. Whoever emails OTRS usually gets an automated reply containing an OTRS ticket number, and this ticket number can be used for find out the status of an email at WP:OTRSN or c:COM:OTRSN. OTRS volunteers are, however, required to sign an agreement regarding the privacy of the information they read in emails and they won't post any of that information on any public pages or discuss specific with anyone other than the person who sent in the email. So, you might be able to found out if an email has been received, but that's about it. Moreover, if you're made privy to any of the personal information contained in these emails by those you sent them, you should be really careful about posting that information anywhere on Wikipedia. Finally, generally on Commons the "OTRS pending" is given thirty days or so to be verified either way; if it's no verified within by then, the template is often removed and the file once again becomes eligible for speedy deletion.

One thing to understand though is that files which end up deleted are not really gone forever; rather, they just hidden from public view and can be restored at a later date once whatever problems led to their deletion has been resolved. So, if if OTRS verification takes a long time and the files end up deleted, they can be restored if the permission emails are verified by OTRS. Same goes for if the files end up deleted because the permissions email sent in is deemed insufficient; the files can always be restored if another permissions email is sent in that is acceptable. If an OTRS volunteer reviews an email and finds it insufficient for some reason, they almost always let the sender know and explain what the problem is; they also usually replace "OTRS pending" with {{OTRS received}}. If the OTRS volunteer reviews a permissions email and finds everything to be in order, they will replace "OTRS pending" with {{OTRS permission}}. There's not much anyone can do know except to wait for an OTRS volunteer to check the email.

As for As far as licensing, I doubt that will be an issue. These are regular individuals who took pictures of medals that I do not believe are their own to write an article and they did it for publicity purposes so I know for a fact they couldn't care less where the picture ends up., you never know how people are going to respond if a file they've uploaded under a free license to Commons or Wikipedia starts showing up at various websites online or people start trying to use it to make money. So, it's best they understand the terms of WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files and COM:L right from the start and know fully what they're agreeing to as explained in WP:NEVERSUE and c:COM:PCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Possible issue at Darryl Castelino

At the New Pages Patrol we have come across a possibly unusual copyright situation. Please see Darryl Castelino. The question is whether the entire text from his military award should be copied. A member of the team found the source site's copyright policy but we are undecided on whether too much has been copied, and if so, has it been done appropriately. See also this discussion: [6]. Thanks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Doomsdayer520: Those restrictions might not be a deal breaker, as was decided for this license that includes some of those. The text could even be in the public domain, because certain works by the Indian government are. But unless someone can confirm either, I'd treat it as a non-free text, which can be quoted in part but not in full. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image for article in review?

I received a notice that an image file I uploaded is orphaned; I uploaded it to be used on an article which is currently in review Draft:Zentera Systems. Do I need to wait for the page to be reviewed and moved into article space before I can re-upload the image? Please let me know how to handle this via my talk page. Michiriu (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Michiriu. Non-free files can only be used in the article namespace per Wikipedia non-free content use criterion #9; so, as further clarified in Wikipedia:Drafts#Preparing drafts, this means that it's best to wait until a draft has been approved as an article before trying to add non-free files to it. Non-free files are also required to be used in at least one article per non-free content use criterion #7 and those which aren't are subject to speedy deletion per speedy deletion criterion F5.

If the file you want to use in the draft is currently being used in another article, then you don't need to worry about this; simply re-add the file after the draft has been approved as an article. Be advised, however, that a draft being approved as an article and a particular non-free image being deemed OK to use are not really the same thing; so, even if you re-add the file after the draft has been approved, another editor can still challenge the non-free use of the file in the new article as explained in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions#Misunderstanding the non-free content criteria if they feel the particular non-free use doesn't meet all ten non-free content use criteria.

If the file is not being used in any articles and is subsequently deleted per criterion F5, don't panic. Files which are deleted aren't gone forever, but rather are only hidden from public view and can be restored at a later date as explained in Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. All you will need to do after the draft has been approved is to request that the file be restored. You can do this by discussing things with the administrator who deleted the file or by making an undeletion request. Most F5 deletions are considered to be uncontroversial and such files usually are restored upon request; however, there are cases where such a request is declined because the intended non-free use is considered to unlikely satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy.

Finally, if the file you're referring to is File:Zentera logo.jpg, then there's really no need for that logo to be licensed as non-free content because it's pretty much seems not eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law. Basic text logos such as this, particularly those originating in the US, are almost always considered to be too simple to warrant copyright protection as explained in c:Commons:Threshold of originality. So, you can most likely go ahead and change the file's licensing from {{Non-free logo}} to {{PD-logo}} and replace the non-free use rationale provided for the file with Template:Information. I would also add Template:Trademark and Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons to the file's page, right below the copyright license as well since this file seems more suitable for hosting on Wikimedia Commons than Wikipedia. If you have any questions about any of this, feel free to ask them below. I've responded to your question here because it's better to try and keep anything related to this discussion all in one place and not split it up between this page and your user talk page; so, you should try to do the same. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly - wow! Thank you for the quick, comprehensive and clear guidance! I'll be able to take care of it with the info you provided. Thanks! -- Michiriu (talk) 04:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I've refactored the file File:Zentera logo.jpg as {{PD-textlogo}}. ww2censor (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Questions about Twisted Pair film poster.png

With the file, Twisted Pair film poster.png, the uploader (Cardei012597) claims that Neil Breen, the creator and rights holder, released it into the Public Domain. The permission column links to the official website for the film of the poster: https://www.twisted-pair-film.com/. Thing is, I see no place on the site that indicates the poster being released under such a license. The uploader could have gotten permission to upload it under the license, but an OTRS ticket would have to be arranged. Is this a copyright violation?
- Stinkyjaden (talk) 09:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Stinkyjaden

@Stinkyjaden: it's exactly how you say. Tagged for speedy deletion for lack of permission. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 January 22#File:CGP Grey stick figure.png

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 January 22#File:CGP Grey stick figure.png. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

getting a permission from a photographer

I have a photograph I would like to upload and I intend to email the photographer the standard permissions form and I beleive he will sign but so far as I understand it I need to upload the photograph first so that the email permisisons can include a link to it. I therefore don't know what to click when asked on the upload page about the copyright status of the image. (I am asked whether it is free, fair use, or neither, but don't I need to check a box that says it is pending permisison or somethig? Maybe I am uploading in the wrong place? the form I was going to email the photographer is this one:

I hereby affirm that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of XXXX as used here: [Exact URL of the page or file on Wikipedia], and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work. I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daisythedog (talk • contribs) 13:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Daisythedog: if you are using Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, chose free and chose the "GNU Free Documentation License". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

File:WPER WJYJ.gif

Radio station logo uploaded as non-free, but seems too simple to be eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:TOO United States. The "problem", however, is that someone uploaded a completely different file (perhaps by mistake) and then reverted back to the original file. The "other file" is a bit more complex, but still probably enough to be non-free, at least in the US. If either of these really need to be non-free, the other unused/revision file will need to be deleted anyway per WP:F5; however, if neither of these need to be non-free, then the file probably should be split into two separate files. Any opinions on whether these need to be non-free and how to best split them if they don't? -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Use of copyrighted caricature - with permission - as image for person infobox

Dear wikicolleagues, I would like to use a caricature by David Levine published in the New Yorker of Dr Kari Stefansson, as the image for an infobox to add to the page about him on Wikipedia. The reason is that Mr Levine's caricatures signifiy not only a likeness but also that what the person is doing is noteworthy. There is no other illustrator whose work and style captures this in the same way. The noteworthiness of Dr Stefansson's work in population genetics is indeed the is the purpose of the page itself.

As I know it is a copyrighted illustration, I have written to the copyright holders (Mr Levine's heirs) and explained what I would like to use it for. They sent me a low-resolution image (per my request) and agree that its use for this purpose on Wikipedia is fine and indeed in line with Mr Levine's professional desire when he was alive to promote the discussion of important ideas by the people that are thinking and realizing them.

The conditions that the copyright holders put on the illustration's use are that it appear in full, with Mr Levine's signature, and that the copyright be noted. It has also been reduced in resolution, and I would note those conditions in the informational legend and permissions fields that would accompany its use, as well as the fact that the rights holders are Mr Levine's heirs and anyone wishing to get an actual high-quality reproduction can do so by purchasing one from them. Furthermore, it is relevant to say that a low-resolution version of the illustration is and has been since 1999 available on the New Yorker website, and no one to my knowledge has reproduced it.

Can anyone suggest whether and how I can upload this illustration for use on this page with these terms?

With thanks in advance for help and suggestions,

Lehmansson (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Lehmansson Do you want to use the image in David Levine or in Kári Stefánsson? There are potential non-free content issues with both uses. Since Stefánsson is still living, a non-free image of him is almost not going to be considered OK to use per WP:NFCC#1 (see WP:FREER). Generally, it's pretty much always assumed that it's reasonable to expect that a freely licensed equivalent image can either be found or created that can serve pretty much the same encyclopedic purpose of primary identification in the main infobox of an article as any non-free one, which means that a non-free one would not be considered OK to use. There are always some exceptions of course (like the ones mentioned in items 1 and 9 of WP:NFC#UUI, but these are really exceptions that require quite a strong justification. It might be possible, if there was significant sourced critical commentary about the caricature itself that could be added to the article that you might be able to try and justify the file's non-free use in the body of the article, but again that would be a pretty exceptional case in my opinion.

If you're talking about using the file in the Levine article, then I don't see you you'll be able to justify that per NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. There's already one non-free file being used for primary identification purposes of Levine, so another is not going to be needed for that; moreover, there is already a non-free image being used as an example is particular style/work and another is not going to be needed for that.

Just for reference, copyright holder permission isn't really needed to upload and use a non-free file; it's nice to get perhaps, but not required. It will only matter if you want to upload the file under a free license that Wikipedia accepts. So, if the copyright holders want to release a low res version of the caricature under such a free license, then the file's use would not be subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and would be much easier to use. However, the copyright holders would basically need to agree to give their WP:CONSENT for the file to be released under such a license, i.e. basically agreeing in advance to allow anyone anywhere in the world to download the file at any time for any purpose. So, any restrictions like "Wikipedia use only", "Non-commercial use only", etc. wouldn't be allowed. Note this wouldn't mean that the copyright holders are transferring their copyright ownership to Wikipedia or anyone else; just that they are making a freely licensed version of the caricature available for others to use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly,

Thanks for the fulsome reply. I am however still not entirely clear how to proceed. First to clarify, this is for the article on Stefansson, not Levine. With regard to the Levine illustration, I can make the argument that there isn't another photographic image that would impart the same information or relevance, though in essence you are saying that I would need to get the copyrightholders to release a low-res version per a free license. This may be possible but could take time and I may see if they would be willing to do that.

But in a general sense, while there are tons of photos of Stefansson on the web, virtually all are - pretty much by definition - by photographers who hold the copyright. I doubt if any would mind their work being used for this purpose with proper attribution, but it seems like in the end I run into the same problem. I do not have any means of taking a picture of him myself, so perhaps I will need to get in touch with the company to see if they can upload one, though I would rather remain anonymous vis a vis them.

Thanks for all of the links in any case - I now have a good lay of the land!

Lehmansson (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

For the purpose of primary identification, pretty much any photo of Stefansson is likely going to be considered sufficient as long as it is something released under a free license Wikipedia accepts. So, basically anyone could take his picture and then upload it under such a license. He could even have someone take his picture or take a selfie and upload it to Wikipedia under such a license. There are ways, as described in Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, to ask others to release a version of their work under a copyright license, and sometimes they agree to do so; however, if they don't that still doesn't make uploading their work as a non-free image automatically OK.

You're talking about a caricature of someone, which is more like an artwork than a photo of someone. Whether this is sufficient for personal identification purposes is a bit iffy in my opinion, but as a work of art it might be able to be justified if it has in its own right been something which has been the subject of critical commentary in reliable sources. Perhaps there was something about the caricature and how it depicted Stefansson that was the subject of some controversy, etc. that could be described and supported in the article. Simply wanting to use it though in lieu of a photo as a way of identifying Stefansson, however, seems like it would be hard to do per WP:NFCC#1 because you'd either have to argue that this caricature better identifies Stefansson than any actual photo of him possibly could. For a fictional or cartoon character that might be the case, but I'm not sure the same could be said for an actual living person because if that were true then caricature would be being used instead of photos like this, this or this, etc. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 January 28#File:CKQQ-FM Q103 2010 logo.jpg

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 January 28#File:CKQQ-FM Q103 2010 logo.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 January 28#Non-free former CKQQ-FM logos

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 January 28#Non-free former CKQQ-FM logos. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Media is missing permission information

Hi, I uploaded an image (using the "insert > images & media" function on the page edit) that was deleted as is missing permission information. I am now not sure of the best way to proceed. e.g. if I should send an email with copy of written permission to OTRS or if I should try to re-upload the image, e.g. this time using the upload wizard providing all required information? File:HeadShot2016.jpg IntoTheFuture1402 (talk) 08:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@IntoTheFuture1402: who made the image (who took it, if it's a photo)? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: Thanks for the reply - A photographer took the photo. We have permission from the photographer to use the photo.— Preceding unsigned comment added by IntoTheFuture1402 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The photographer/copyright holder needs to give their WP:CONSENT to make it clear that they understand the terms of WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files and c:COM:L. If you want to find out more on how they can do that, please look at c:COM:OTRS. Basically, what the photographer/copyright holder is going to have to do is agree to release the file under a free license to allows anyone anywhere in the world to download the file at anytime for any purpose, including to commercial and WP:DERIVATIVE use. They also need to understand that they cannot change their mind at a later date per c:COM:LRV. The photographer/copyright holder still will retain copyright ownership over the photo; they would only be making a version of the photo available for free use by anyone who wants to use it in some way under the terms of the free license chosen by the photographer/copyright holder. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)