Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2020/October

File:Reading Caste With Jack .jpg

Is this a breach of copyright from Spotify or somewhere else? [1] Associated on Reading Caste With Jack‎ which I tagged for speedy. Govvy (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: That's a Commons file which means it needs to be resolved on Commons. The file has been tagged with c:Template:No permission since which means either the uploader (or the copyirght holder) will need to further verify the license, or the file will likely end up deleted after seven days have passed. If you suspect it of being a clear copyright violation (which might lead to a faster deletion), you can tag the file with c:Template:Copyvio as well. You might, however, want to discuss this with Victor Schmidt first since they were the editor who tagged the file for speedy deletion. Lots of people upload files like this to Commons as "own work" mainly because they don't understand c:COM:L (these are technically "copyvios"); in some cases, though, the uploader is actually the copyirght holder and the matter can be resolved per c:COM:OTRS:Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS?. I think that perhaps here Victor is just giving the uploader the benefit of the doubt and a chance to verify they're the copyright holder. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Author Permission, How to add this to upload?

I'm fairly new to contributing to Wikipedia. I tried uploading a file at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload?wpDestFile=Etesync.svg and it was quickly removed. I can't determine exactly why it was removed but I assume it was because I didn't properly verify that I had the author's permission. I do, so what is the best way to show this?

The deletion log is as follows:

   15:15, 17 September 2020 Fastily talk contribs deleted page File:Etesync.svg (F3: File licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "no derivative use", "for Wikipedia use only", "used with permission", or GFDL 1.2 only.) (thank)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanleesipes (talk • contribs)  

Hello. You may want to view: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:First_steps/Contributing Hope it helps!

Katherine311MH (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Assassination Classroom DVD 1 Cover.jpg

I want to know how can I be allowed to use this file on Assassination Classroom (season 1) as well. SpectresWrath (talk) 01:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi SpectresWrath You will need to assess whether the file's use in that article satisfies WP:NFCC, in particular all ten criteria listed here. You will then add a separate and specific non-free use rationale for that particular use to the file's page per WP:NFCCE. Once you do that, you can try re-adding the file to the page. That should stop the bot from continuing to remove the file from that article, but it won't necessarily stop another editor from challenging whether that particular use is policy compliant.

My personal opinion is that the use in the individual season's article is probably OK if that's actually the DVD cover art for the first season (see MOS:TVIMAGE for reference), but the use in the list article might be a problem. A non-free file can be used more than once, but relevant policy encourages us to minimize non-free use as much as possible; in other words, one use is already considered to be an exception which means additional users are considered ot be even more of an exception and require an even stronger justification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

What if I upload the same pic under a different name to use instead? SpectresWrath (talk) 05:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why you would thinksuch a thing would be OK. It's the file that is actually uploaded, not its name, that's going to be assessed according to relevant policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Because this is the first this happen to me, so I don't know if I did it right. SpectresWrath (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

USPS copyright question

Hello,

Would a photo of stamps from the United States Postal Service website be considered public domain? Thanks.

Katherine311MH (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Katherine311MH: it depends on how old the stamps are, see commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States#Stamps. Nthep (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks for the link. Katherine311MH (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Katherine311MH: All pre-1 January 1978 USPS stamps are in the public domain and most everything from that date on are copyright with few exceptions. ww2censor (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Katherine311MH (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Generated FB Page Help

hi.

this page

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Sign%20of%20the%20Takahe/132321763472733/

has be autogenerated, but its causing our business real problems as its out of date, horrid pics etc that is not about the business.

anyone able to assist us in editing or removing this old page?

Facebook says it can't be done and that no one on here will be able to remove it.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.100.153.140 (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP 101.100.153.140. You might want to try asking about this at either Wikipedia:Teahouse of Wikipedia:Help desk (pick one or the other; don't ask the same thing at both) since this noticeboard is more for dealing with questions about media copyright matters. FWIW, I don't think Wikipedia has any control over Facebook or where Facebook gets its content; so, I'm not sure there's much that any one at Wikipedia can do to help you. All editors are WP:VOLUNTEERs so there's not much any editor can do that goes beyond actually editing Wikipedia pages. You can try contacting someone by email as explained in Wikipedia:Contact us (or here) if you can find any help here on Wikipedia.

There is an article titled Sign of the Takahe which might be the same as what you've linked to above, but that article is not owned by your business and you don't have any editorial control over it. If the content of the article is outdated or not in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then you can discuss your concerns at Talk:Sign of the Takahe or maybe at Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board. Perhaps some other editors can help you sort things out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Is this map public domain?

Regarding File:Map_Shewing_Line_of_Route_Between_Lake_Superior_and_Red_River_Settlement_(1869).jpg. It is dated 1869 (in the description and on the map itself). Of course the photo of it was taken more recently. The attributed authors are Simon James Dawson (1820-1902) and A.L Russell (1807-1887). I think that "Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic" licence is likely incorrect and that there are no such restrictions on the use of this work. Thoughts? Sancho 02:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Sanchom: I've provided the file with the correct licence based on the map's age and country of origin: {{PD-1996}}. In fact {{PD-Canada}} might also be appropriate. ww2censor (talk) 10:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I Am... Sasha Fierce deluxe editions covers

Hi! I wanted to ask if it was okay to upload these images:

• https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71qE3zsFO3L._SL1500_.jpg

• https://target.scene7.com/is/image/Target/GUEST_eca1b05e-8806-45bb-b14b-8d2bbbc0b02b?wid=488&hei=488&fmt=pjpeg

• https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71Lg2BtAwDL._SS500_.jpg

I want to have them on the page "I Am... Sasha Fierce". Thank you. Moonlighttt (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm by no means an expert on these matters, but I would say probably not. The article in question already has File:I Am... Sasha Fierce.png. If you look at it's description page you will see the fair use rationale is pretty extensive. This is what is needed to make a claim of fair use, alternate images from the same album seem like just decoration and are not essential to the reader's understanding of the subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Moonlighttt: Any images for this album would have to comply with all 10 requirements in our strict non-free media policy. The current image does that being used as identification in the infobox of the article in question. Those images you link to are essentially similar to the one already in the article so unless you can justify another, no, you cannot upload and use them. Additional album covers are usually not permitted unless they are significantly different and reliably sourced sufficient critical commentary (per criteria 8 of NFCC) can be made in prose to justify them. ww2censor (talk) 10:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 October 2 § File:Hick Hargreaves and Co. Ltd. advert.jpg

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 October 2 § File:Hick Hargreaves and Co. Ltd. advert.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Copying between Wikipedias

I have some related questions about the guideline Copying within Wikipedia. Within that document, what does 'Wikipedia' on its own mean? Does it mean the English Wikipedia, or does it refer to the collection of wikipedias? Does it include wikipedias in the incubators? My particular issue is whether it applies to copying from the English Wikipedia to a wikipedia in the incubator, especially as to whether it is appropriate to leave an instance of the template {{copied}} on the sources talk page. This applies to templates and modules as well as articles. --RichardW57 (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

There have been related discussions at User talk:RichardW57#Importing and a debate at (and about) Template_talk:High-use/num. --RichardW57 (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi RichardW57. This noticeboard mainly deals with image and other types of media copyright matters; so, you might want to also ask about this either at Wikipedia talk:Copying within Wikipedia or maybe even Wikipedia talk:Copyrights. My personal understanding is that in the context of Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia the term "Wikipedia" is, for the most part, taken to mean "English Wikipedia". As you probably already know, there are different Wikipedias for lots of different languages and then there WMF projects like Commons, Wikitionary, etc. Since English Wikipedia seems to not only be the oldest, but also the largest in terms of the number of pages and editors, I think that even out in the real world most people mean "English Wikipedia" when they say Wikipedia. I think the distinction between English Wikipedia and these other projects tends to only really be made by Wikipedians who have some familiarity with how things work and want to discuss things like Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Copying from other Wikimedia projects and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Translating from other language Wikimedia projects. So, I would say, in a general sense, that "Wikipedia" refers to "English Wikipedia", while "other Wikimedia projects" refers to everything other than English Wikipedia on that particular page. I think "Copying within Wikipedia" was just chosen as the title to keep things simple. Policy and guideline pages are pretty much created by editors much in the same way that any Wikipedia page is created; someone thinks such a page is a good idea and starts it out, and others come along over the years and try to build on that first edit. If you look at Wikipedia talk:Copying within Wikipedia/Archive 1, you might gain some insight into the reasons the page was created.

As for using templates like {{Copied}}, I think it comes down to WP:ATTREQ. The licensing for all WMF projects seems to be the same in that the content posted on any project pages can be freely re-used as long as proper attribution is given. Templates like "Copied" are one way of doing so, but it could also be done by simply leaving an edit summary providing attribution to the original source of the content. In some cases, attribution may not be necessary, but not properly attributing something that requires it is technically going to be considered a copyvio. Most of the time this kind of thing is much easier to fix than problems related to Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources because each time someone clicks the "Publish changes" button to make an edit to any Wikipedia page or any Wikimedia project page, they are agreeing to wmf:Terms of Use#7. Licensing of Content which isn't the case at all for content found on most external websites. Original text content on any Wikimedia project page is already released under a license that's accepted by all Wikimedia projects; so, all that's needed is to provide attribution, which is much much easier to do than WP:PERMISSION. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC) -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

It would have been clearer if the examples of other Wikimedia projects had include a wikipedia. --RichardW57 (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Just going to add this after seeing what you're discussing at Template_talk:High-use/num. I'm not an administrator so I might be wrong here, but I don't think you need to be worried about the "chain of attirbution" being broken because the original source of the Incubator content is deleted. Deletion doesn't automatically mean gone forever, but usually just means hidden from public view. So, unless the source content needed to be WP:SUPPRESSed for some reason, any administrator should still be able to see the page history of a deleted page and verify that WP:PATT is still being met if necessary. For example, suppose an article orginally created on English Wikipedia is subsequently translated into other languages, who properly attribute the original article as required. The English Wikipedia article, however, ends up being nominated for deletion several years later at AFD. If seems unlikely going to make much difference in the AFD discussion that the article was translated in other languages when it comes to figuring out whether to "keep" the article; moreover, even if the article is deleted, and the attribution links turn WP:RED, administrators and those who can see deleted content will still be able to confirm that attribution was properly given. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The man on the Chiang Mai baht bus won't be able to see the attribution, so I think the copy will become a copyright violation, but your (@Marchjuly:) suggestion seems to be that an administrator will respond to a complaint by somehow publishing the attribution, rather than by deleting the violating copy. I fear we'd get a stern lecture about the benefits of re-inventing the wheel. --RichardW57 (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that proper attribution needs to be capable of being verified by some man on a bus; there should be no issues as long as an OTRS volunteer or an administrator can verfiy it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• Failing to provide the legally required attribution is not a copyright violation per se, but a violation of the terms of the CC-by license.
• If (for example) an article on the English Wikipedia is translated to another language Wikipedia and the source article is subsequently deleted, the required list of authors still exists, but is only visible to administrators. This is an unavoidable problem, since deleting administrators cannot be expected to check all ~300 other-language Wikipedias to see if translations exist. When copying within en.wiki, to prevent attribution issues, use of the {{copied}} template on the source article will alert administrators to the fact that the source article should not be deleted. I have never heard of anyone using this template for coping between different-language Wikipedias. (The template only exists on ~27 of the over 300 wikis listed at meta).
• On en.wiki, when copying/translating from an other-language Wikipedia, attribution is provided via an edit summary, and the template {{Translated page}} should be placed on the talk page of the destination article. — Diannaa (talk) 13:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
• Attribution is required for all creative content, including templates. Many templates will only contain material that is not copyrightable and therefore attribution would not be required for those.— Diannaa (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Would this logo be considered as not meeting the threshold of originality?

The Otamatone logo seems to include text, with the "e" being in the shape of the head of an Otamatone. -- Ljcool2006 (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

That logo is for a Japanese company which means there are two things that need to be considered for this to be licensd as {{PD-logo}}: c:COM:TOO Japan and c:COM:TOO United States. In either case, I think that final "e" would be likely considered complex enough or artistic/creative enough to push the logo over the threshold of originality for both countries, but some might argue that this is too simple to be protected in the US and thus is OK to convert to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. The file is only being used once and that use does seem to be OK per WP:NFCC; so, it might be best to just leave the file licensed as is. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

external link or fair use?

Hi. I've searched fruitlessly for an old image of Gonggong (the image currently in the WP article is of someone else, originally intended as a stand-in until I could find a proper image). An image is relevant because dwarf planet 225088 Gonggong has been named after him, and part of the reason for the name has to do with its appearance. Would it be acceptable to use {{External media}} or a fair-use upload until a free image is found?

This image is what I'm thinking of. It's a clip from a page of this book. It's the best I've been able to find -- most modern representations depict Gonggong as fully human. which contradicts the description given by the astronomers who named 225088 Gonggong, or if not fully human don't attempt to be faithful to tradition and don't match the description either.

Note there is no similar difficulty with his minister Xiangliu, after which the moon is named, but for some reason Gonggong has proven recalcitrant. (It's been a year and a half since I started searching.) — kwami (talk) 09:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: A non-free image is unlikely going to be allowed per WP:FREER if an equivalent freely licensed image that serves bascially serves the same encyclopedic purpose can be created or found. The image currently being used in the infobox does seem to be doing what any non-free would likely do (we are after all taking about a fictional character so to speak; so, it's not like there are actual photos of Gonggong that are going to be found) and I think it would be rather hard to justify a non-free replacement.

As for external media, things like FREER and WP:NFCC don't really matter since technically the file is a WP:EL; what you will need to be concerned about, however, are WP:ELNEVER and WP:COPYLINK by making sure you're not linking to anything that's clearly a WP:COPYVIO. You might want to ask about that at WP:ELN if you're not sure whether the website you want to link to is a copyvio. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Not sure of the legalities

An acquaintance has found a photo of a notable person (science fiction writer Cleve Cartmill) in her mother's effects, and posted it on Facebook. Cartmill died in 1964, and this is the only good photo of him that anybody I know in the science fiction community has ever seen. Complication? We don't know who took the photo (it's from 1958, at the World Science Fiction Convention of that year). Is there any way it can it be used here? (There are only three other photos showing up under a Google image search, all uncredited and frankly of lower quality.) --Orange Mike | Talk 15:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Orangemike: If the subject of the photo is decesased and it's unlikely that a freely licensed equivalent image can be created or found per WP:FREER, then it's probably OK to upload the photo as non-free content for the type of use explained in item 10 of WP:NFCI as long as it's going to be used for primary identification purposes either in the main infobox or at the top of Cleve Cartmill. You could use the license {{non-free biog-pic}} and the non-free use rationale {{non-free use rationale biog}}. If, however, there are free equivalent images of Cartmill (it doesn't have to be a freely licensed version of the same image, but only one that can serve essentially the same encyclopedic purpose even if it's lower in quality) that can be found, then a non-free one is not going to be accepted regardless. Other than the FREER issue, the only concerns I can see regarding possible non-free use would be WP:NFCC#4 and WP:NFCC#10a; posting the photo on Facebook probably meets WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion, but you might need to find out a little more about the provenance of the file per WP:NFC#Sourcing if at all possible. The other images you found may be of a poorer quality, but they might be preferred if their provenance is clearer.

The above assumes that you want to upload the file as non-free content. If, on the other hand, you want to upload the file to Commons, then you will need to meet c:COM:L, which is going to be harder to do if you can't figure out the provenance of the file. Commons doesn't necessarily require photos be previously published, and it's possible that this could be c:Template:PD-heirs if your friend's mom was the original copyright holder of the photo and that copyright ownership passed to your friend when her mom passed away. You may, however, want to ask about that at c:COM:VPC just to see what others might think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Since we don't know who took that photo, I don't think PD-heirs could apply. The provenance of the other photos is even more murky, AFAIK. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it should be OK to upload as non-free linking to the Facebook page where it can be seen; however, as you're an admin and have been editing for quite some time, you already know pretty much nothing on Wikipedia is an exact science in that different people might see the same thing differently. The subject has been dead for some time and it seems as if you've reasonably tried to find a free equivalent. The more information you can provide about the provenance the better, but there's no way of knowing if someone someday might challenge the file's non-free use. Another possibility: per c:COM:HIRTLE unpublished works by an unknown author (assuming US is the country of origin) become PD 120 years after creation, but those published without a copyirght notice between 1925-1977 can be {{PD-US-no notice}}. So, it's possible that the photo could be PD and this might be worth asking about it at c:COM:VPC since that where such a photo should likely be uploaded. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Without any evidence this image has previously been published and as the heirs don't know the photographer the current state of the image File:Cleve Cartmill at Solacon (1958 Worldcon).jpg as non-free is entirely appropriate. ww2censor (talk) 09:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The only problem I can see with that file is its size. A bot should come around a tag it with {{non-free reduce}} within a few days, but the tag can be added manually as well. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I've tagged it for reduction. ww2censor (talk) 10:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Having trouble with a Microsoft Screenshot

I am trying to take a screenshot of Microsoft Minesweeper and it keeps saying that the image should be replaced with a smaller image. However, despite many iterations, I have shrank it to 383x204, and it still says it needs to be smaller. At this size, the text is starting to become unreadable, which is important to the game. Any suggestions? Many versions of this file can be seen on the file's information page as I tried to keep resizing it to get the warning to disappear. As a comparison, another screenshot is 396 x 251, both dimensions which are bigger than mine and it does not have that warning. Any suggestions? Brandenads (talk) 10:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The message won't automatically disappear. Its a template that was placed on the image. - X201 (talk) 10:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I updated the template as per the instructions on it. First time working with non-free images for me.

I want use logo in another article

I want to use this logo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kerala_Blasters_FC_logo.svg on another article which is about clubs reserves and academy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerala_Blasters_FC_Reserves_and_Academy Is there any way to use the logo in this article .thanksWhiteFalcon1 (talk) 12:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I solved this problem . ThanksWhiteFalcon1 (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

What copyright tag for an image from CalTech?

I uploaded an image from CalTech (university). The image is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aerial_view_of_LIGO_facility_in_Hanford,_Washington.jpg

The source of the image is CalTech university: https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/WA/image/ligo20150731a

CalTech has this policy on image use: https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/WA/page/image-use-policy

That policy says: "Unless otherwise noted, images and video on Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) public web sites (public sites ending with a ligo.caltech.edu or ligo.mit.edu address) may be used for any purpose without prior permission, subject to the special cases noted below. Publishers who wish to have authorization may print this page and retain it for their records; LIGO does not issue image permissions on an image by image basis. ..."

I presume these images are okay to upload to Wikipedia?

I received a msg from a bot that the image I uploaded is missing a copyright notice. What copyright notice should be used when the image is provided by a college, and they say "anyone can use this image"?

02:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Bumping this. Anyone have any input? Noleander (talk) 00:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Organizations' logos

The JJMC89 bot removed from the page Armed, far-right organizations in Italy the images for the logos of the Ordine Nero and Terza Posizione terrorist organizations, giving as reason the following: "Removed WP:NFCC violation. No valid non-free use rationale for this page. See WP:NFC#Implementation." However, not only have these two non-commercial logos been disseminated by the organizations themselves, as widely as possible, in their pamphlets, writings, etc, (they simply denote ideology the same way similar logos do) but the images are already used in the articles for Ordine Nero and Terza Posizione, respectively. We can use them in an article about each organization but we cannot use them in an article about the collective field of these organizations? Something must be amiss. -The Gnome (talk) 11:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi The Gnome. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy generally does allow copyright protected logos such as those files to be used per item 2 of WP:NFCI when the logos are used for primary identification purposes either at the top of or in the main infobox of stand-alone articles about the organizations they are supposed to represent, but generally doesn't not allow such logos to be used in other articles or in other types of ways. Non-free logos are not really allowed in list articles, in particular, per WP:NFLISTS, WP:NFTABLES and MOS:LOGO because the logo is almost always just being used to illustrate a single entry in a much larger article about a more general subject and is considered to be more WP:DECORATIVE than not.

The reason that particular bot removes files is because they either fail (1) non-free content use criterion #9 or (2) non-free content use criterion #10c. Most likely the files that removed in this case had to do with (2) and sometimes this can be fixed by simply adding the missing non-free use rationale for the concerned use to the file's page; however, as I stated about, such a type of non-free use is almost never allowed and it's highly unlikely that the remaining nine non-free content use criteria would be considered satisfied even if the issues with #10c were resolved. If you want, you can add a non-free use rationale to the file's page if you think the particular use does satisfy relevant policy; that will stop the bot from removing the file, but another editor who disagrees with your assessment could challenge the use by tagging the file with {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} or by starting a discussion about the file's non-free use at WP:FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

There were also problems with the way those two particular files were being used in Years of Lead (Italy). There's pretty much no way to justify using a non-free file as a quasi flag-icon in an infobox even once per WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8, but multiple times would also not be allowed per WP:NFCC#3a. So, I've removed the files from that article as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed, helpful pointers, Marchjuly. Much appreciated. Ι believe the justification offered by the original uploader is misguided since this is about a strictly free-to-use image sumbolizing a specific political ideology. The hammer and sickle, for instance, is neither copyrighted nor a non-free image. Same goes for the rose flower used by socialist parties, or the swastika, and so on. There has never been any trade mark or copyright warning to my knowledge about such symbols. Plus, these are logos used by terrorist organizations. By definition, as outlaw entities, these organizations have absolutely no copyright on anything they write or draw. -The Gnome (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

You might be right about whether the images are public domain because they are too simple or for some other reason, but I don't know whether being the logos of "terrorist" organization matters when it comes to copyright. That's an interesting question though and perhaps someone else can clarify that. Copyright laws do, however, vary from country to country (sometimes quite a bit) and different countries may also not be in agreement as to who or what is a terrorist organization. Some organizations may have a political wing as well as a paramilitaristic wing to them as well so it might argued the logos are for political parties. Anyway, if you think the files should be PD for whatever reason, you can (1) be bold and change the licensing yourself, (2) ask about it c:COM:VPC to see how Commons might treat such a logo or (3) start a discussion at WP:FFD to see if you can establish a consensus that they're PD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

In terms of US law, I'm not aware of any conditions that we ignore copyright from terrorist orgnizations, unless they originate from states that are not in compliance with certain international treaties (see [2]), and even then, Jimmy Wales has stated that WP should presume such works are copyrighted or otherwise apply sane logical principles (eg threshold of originality principles). So just because these originated from terrorist organizations in Italy doesn't make them non-copyrightable, nor does the fact that they use existing imagery make them non-copyrightable. Italy would have a very low threshhold of originality (US is much higher) so these would not be free images, and thus need to be treated as non-free and as such, have to meet NFC for multiple uses. --Masem (t) 14:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

There have been some previous discussions about this type of thing at COM:VPC such as c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/08#Files allegedly authored by rebel/terrorist groups and c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2014/01#«Terrorist organisations» have no Copyright?, but not sure if those help to clarify things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again, Marchjuly. I went over these discussions and, unfortunately, they are, as you said, not much help. The point contributors here do not seem to understand is that if an organization has been declared as criminal, neither its members nor the organizations itself can lay claim to some legal rights about any aspects of their work, be it the organization's history, its actions, its m.o., the logo, and so on. This situation is arguably the same everywhere in the world. -The Gnome (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, I would bet serious money, Masem, that no entity, legal or otherwise, holds the copyrights of these Italian, terrorist organizations, or, for that matter, that no terrorist organization in the world could possess such rights. Any issue of image copyright here, indeed of a non-free image, seems patently absurd. -The Gnome (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Masem and The Gnome: I've asked about this at c:COM:VPC#Copyright law and illegal organizations to see what the Commons community might think about this. Commons doesn't non-free content of any type per c:COM:FAIR, but there's no reason for files like to the two mentioned above to be treated as non-free if they're not eligible for copyright protection and Commons can accept them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Copyright belongs to whoever created the logos, not to the organizations in question (unless explicitly transferred to the organizations by contract). Even if the creator belonged to a terrorist organization (which we don't know), that wouldn't have any bearing on its copyright status according to U.S. law. Unless the logos are explicitly freely licensed by the creators, or they are too simple to copyright, we must treat them the same as any other logos with respect to copyright status. Kaldari (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Kaldari. Let me just say that the ownership of the logos and symbols has been, historically and explicitly, the organization itself in every case - and this a applies to terrorist or criminal organizations of both the right and the left, in Italy and elsewhere. I do not recall, having studied the issue of terrorism at some length, a specific person, member of said organization or not, ever claiming at any time the creation of or having any kind of intellectual property over a symbol/logo used by a terrorist organization. No fee has ever been paid to such a person either. Media around the world routinely use symbols of terrorist ideology or affiliation (the Red Brigades' flag, the Ordine Nero symbol, the NSDAP's swastika, etc) all the time, without attribution to any copyright - ever! (The only copyright attribution might be to certain artist's depiction of a aymbol. E.g. Andy Warhol's "Hammer and sickle" painting from 1976 is copyright protected.) The issue we're debating here has been resolved decades ago in all sources. There would not have been an issue to discuss if the original files had entered Wikicommons accompanied with the correct description. -The Gnome (talk) 11:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

P.S. By the way, since the conversation has been moved to a better place by Marchjuly, I believe it'd be appropriate to keep it in one place. I copied my comment above there, for that purpose. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Swapping out a privately held company logo for a new one, on behalf of my employer

Hi, I am trying to replace an old company logo with a brand new one, on behalf of my employer, Inspire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspire_(company). The new logo is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Logo-vertical-lockup_(1).png#filelinks. I personally do not own the log, my employer, ClinicaHealth, d/b/a Inspire, does. How do I appropriately disclose that fact, and swap out the old for new? We have filed through our company lawyer to trademark the logo and its variants. We began using this mark in about late August 2020. Any suggestions are welcome. Thanks.

John Novack

JTNwriter (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@JTNwriter: I have added non-free logo, non-free rationale logo, and non-free reduce tags to the file description page. I wanted to add a source to the rationale, but I can't find a source; your file does not match the logo at the inspire.com website. You should have used a more descriptive name. —teb728 t c 18:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The Dawoodi Bohra Geometric Shape and Text Logo Copyright

Hi, I see that Quora's logo is placed in the public domain because it is not originally creative and has a bunch of text / geometric shape to it (ref: Commons:File:Quora_logo_2015.svg).

I wanted to ask if this logo of TheDawoodiBohras.com could be in public domain, too? The reasoning is: The geometric pattern that forms the central theme of the logo is taken from one of the floral designs uncovered during the renovations of Al Anwar mosque of Cairo (see: Commons:File:Al-Hakim_Mosque_-_Cairo_2.jpg), and the rest of it is text.

Thoughts?

If it is really from there, then you are fight, the logo would not have copyright. However the pattern in the mosque photo does differ from the logo, so is there really one the same there? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Big Ten Network logo

The Big Ten Network logo has changed as of October 23, 2020. How do I type up the copyright for the new logo without infringing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Matoushek (talk • contribs) 23:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Public Advertisements + Political Campaign Signs

What rules pertain to uploading a photo taken of a publicly displayed physical poster or printed political campaign sign?

Very common in photos with the candidate: File:McCain25April2007Portsmouth.jpg File:20081102_Obama-Springsteen_Rally_in_Cleveland.JPG

And also in photos where the sign is the main subject of the photograph: File:Obama_Sign_Arlington_Virginia.jpg

The design of the sign is sure to have its own non-free copyright. The poster might show a printed non-free photograph taken of the candidate, etc.

Is there a fair use provision here? Freedom of Panorama?

Are these photos "non-free" as a result? Must using them meet every point of the non-free content criteria policy?

PKAMB (talk) 08:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Two relevant things. One is that the posters are very simple, and would be too simple for copyright. PD-simple template would apply. Secondly if they don't make up the main part of the picture, then its inclusion does not matter. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Marks such as the Obama Logo are not "too simple for copyright"... they're non-free and marked as such on wikipedia File:Obama_logomark.svg

The sign/logo in this photography is the main subject of the photograph, which would be useless without the non-free material. The sign/logo's inclusion does matter. File:Obama_Sign_Arlington_Virginia.jpg

PKAMB (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Copyright for the Big Ten Network logo

If I had the copyright typed up correctly, I don't know if I truly did it right. Can you help me see if I got it right? David Matoushek (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)David Matoushek

I have added a Licensing section to File:Big Ten Network Logo 2020.png with PD and Trademark tags. I don't know where you got the rest of it. It doesn't look much like what I see at https://btn.com/ —teb728 t c 03:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC) pinging David Matoushek —teb728 t c 03:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

1924 image question

As US has changed it's copyright so anything before 1 January 1925 is public domain, does that mean that File:Mary Barkas.jpg is public domain now? And would it be acceptable for Commons, or is it not PD in other countries? Joseph2302 (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

It looks most likely the portrait would have been drawn in Europe and, with the artist dying in 1953 it will be in copyright there until 2024. So it is not suitable for Commons until at least then. Do we know if it was published in addition to being drawn in 1924? If so (evidence?) it could be changed to {{PD-US}} and {{PD-US-expired-abroad}} (I'm not an expert). But I wouldn't risk this because it may end up being deleted and bureaucracy would ensue. Stuff happens. If, however, you are keen to establish it is indeed PD in the US then give it a try! Thincat (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Using a figure/picture from a journal article.

Hi there. Looking for some advice. There is a journal article with creative commons licensing that has a figure I would like to add as a picture to wikipedia. Is this possible?

The source article is: Udmale, Parmeshwar; Ichikawa, Yutaka; Nakamura, Takashi; Shaowei, Ning; Ishidaira, Hiroshi; Kazama, Futaba (2016-07-01). "Rural drinking water issues in India's drought-prone area: a case of Maharashtra state". Environmental Research Letters. 11 (7): 074013. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/7/074013. ISSN 1748-9326.

Thanks in advance for any insight and advice! Melansonk (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Do you mean an image in the paper linked to from https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/7/074013/meta ? If so, yes, it is an open access paper with a licence suitable for Wikipedia. Thincat (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Michelle Smith (fashion) and Michelle Obama portrait

Hi, I’m hoping for some help with understanding if and how I can use a non-free image. I wrote a new entry about Michelle Smith (fashion), the designer who made the dress in Amy Sherald's portrait of Michelle Obama, and it would be nice for the reader to see the dress or at least a detail of the pattern in the section that discusses the dress’s style. However a bot removed the file, so either it’s not allowed or I didn’t place it correctly, but I’m not sure which, even after reading the guidelines a few times! Eep. Might someone kindly advise me? Thank you so much! Innisfree987 (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

PS, just to show how much I don’t know: the portrait is now owned (I think!) by the US Government—and I thought government images were all public? I know I must be missing something, thank you to anyone who can set me straight! Innisfree987 (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

If the image, File:Michelle Obama by Amy Sherald.jpg is to be used for two articles there needs to be a non-free use rationale separately for each article. However, this may not be thought suitable and it may end up only being allowed for one article (or none at all). A detail of the pattern, as a separate image, on one article would stand a better chance. The ownership of the painting is immaterial to copyright – to be public domain the artist would have to be a US government employee. Thincat (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Got it for USG images, thank you Thincat. As for providing the rationale, I’m totally unfamiliar with the process—I did see that it was necessary but not how to do it. Do I add it to the article’s talk page or? Thanks for your help! Innisfree987 (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

No, not the talk page but on the file description page at File:Michelle Obama by Amy Sherald.jpg. The instructions are at WP:Non-free use rationale guideline and File:Stpaulsblitz.jpg is a file with two rationales. Thincat (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

You may be disappointed to find that if you have the same image in two articles that someone will think that is one too many. Try it, though, if you like. Maybe adopt your suggestion to crop a portion of the image and save it quite separately with a NFUR for Michelle Smith (fashion) where you have "sourced commentry" (Piet Mondrian) about the artistic style? If you want help on cropping, etc. by all means ask at my talk page. Thincat (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Innisfree987: A couple of things.

1. Non-free use rationales go on the file’s page. See WP:FUR for more details.
2. Non-free files lacking a rationale for a use can be removed per WP:NFCCE. There are both WP:BOTs and human editors who review this type of thing; so, the longer a file is lacking a rationale, the more likely it’s going to be removed per WP:NFCC#10c.
3. Providing a rationale is WP:JUSTONE of the ten non-free content use criteria and all ten need to be met. Failing one of these criterion means the particular use isn’t policy compliant. In this case, there’s a possible problem with item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI. There’s a stand-alone article about the painting where it can be seen and there’s also a hat note linking to that article in the artist’s article; so, it’s questionable whether two or more non-free uses of the file actually are justifiable.
4. Unless this was clearly a work for hire that involved a copyright transfer agreement, it’s not automatically going to be public domain per WP:PD#US government works. Unless the artist was officially an “employee” of the US government at the time and not a “private contractor”, she likely retained all or some copyright ownership over the painting. Where the painting is being displayed doesn’t matter if the artist still owns its copyright.
5. The infobox image of the artist is a copyright violation. Commons doesn’t accept fair use per c:COM:FAIR; so, unless the WP:CONSENT of the copyright holder of that image can be verified per c:COM:OTRS, the infobox image will be deleted.

— Marchjuly (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both! I think the main confusion came from the fact that the file was already used two places but didn’t have two rationales, so I thought I was looking in the wrong place. Really appreciate all this guidance and assistance, will read up on the linked policies! Thank you! Innisfree987 (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)