Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2021/April

Bot keeps removing image

Hi, a bot keeps removing this image File:Football Association of Bosnia and Herzegovina logo.svg from the Bosnia and Herzegovina national football team page. It claims "No valid non-free use rationale for this page" but when I click on the file description page for the image, the non free use rationale is included. Please help.Bosniantennis (talk) 04:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: sorry, I believe I just figured it out by reading a previous response, each article needs its own non free use rationale included. Bosniantennis (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Image of a sculpture for article bout court case regarding it

United States v. One Solid Gold Object in Form of a Rooster is about a court case about a non-free sculpture. Would a picture of that sculpture be fair-use. There's no free equivalent, and various attributes unique to this specific object were involved in the case, including appearance and siting. I'm not sure how well pure prose captures it. However, it's the case not the object that is the article topic. DMacks (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it would be reasonable. From a non-free standpoint, its not that the image has to be about the topic, but relevant to the sourced text in that article. So while that article is about the court case, the discussion of the sculpture in depth prior to the case itself (and presuming not discussed anywhere else on WP) would make it reasonable to have non-free image of it. --Masem (t) 20:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! DMacks (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Government maps of Sindh villages: are these allowed?

See here: [1]

I checked both Wikimedia's summary of Pakistan's copyright law for government works, as well as the site where I found these maps, and I'm still confused. I don't see any claim of copyright anywhere on the site, but it may be implied (I'm not sure how copyright law in Pakistan works). Would uploading any of these images to Wikimedia be a copyright violation?

Thanks,

3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 07:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Currently copyright applies even if not claimed with words. https://www.openstreetmap.org is also a place to look for suitable maps to use here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Image copyright questions

Hi - I'm a bit wooly about some of the finer details of copyrights with regards to imagery, hoping for a bit of advice from an expert. Please see this image, which is a part of the collection described here. The image dates to circa 1900, but the Canmore website asserts copyright - I'm assuming that we can't use it, but wondering whether pd-US-unpublished might apply? Assuming that we can't use it, what are the rules about creating an image in some sort of drawing package that essentially reproduces it - would that be a prohibited derivative work, would there be any fair use defense? Thanks in advance. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Updating Maps

These pages have many issues including an out of date map.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tahoua_Department https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tahoua_Region

If you look at the 2013 reorganization, Tahoua is defined as a region with now 11 départements. You can see an accurate map here. https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/ner_tahoua_factsheet_avril-juin_2020.pdf

But how do i find a map that would not be under copyright to correct the current out-of-date map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minimosher (talk • contribs) 10:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Upload a profile picture of a living person

Hello, I recently created a new article with the title "Chris Mould (illustrator)". I found a profile picture which the illustrator uploaded himself on his official Twitter. Can I use it or what do I need to do to remove the copyright tags in my picture information? Thanks for your help.

Marchrain13 This would not be permitted - the illustrator has uploaded it to his Twitter channel, but he presumably didn't simultaneously release it for use elsewhere. You need a picture which the photographer has explicitly made available under a suitable licence. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:Backwards copy

There's a discussion about the be or not be of a Template:Backwards copy on Talk:Christian ethics at Talk:Christian_ethics#Suspect_backwards-copy, if you have an opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Removing image from national team page due to WP:NFC#UUI#17

Hi, I'd like some clarification on this please. An editor is removing the free use rationale for the image associated with the Bosnian national team due to WP:NFC#UUI#17 . The crest, which is for the governing body of football in the country, is also emblazoned on the jerseys of national teams and is it's de facto branding. This is true of many national team pages, for example Serbia national football team, which has not been removed. However, an editor is removing Bosnia and Herzegovina national football team image based on this rationale. Any kind of clarification would be good thanks.Bosniantennis (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

This has been a problem with NFCUUI for as long as I remember. It cannot answer the question: if a child entity shares branding with its parent entity, does is lack its own branding? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

What we generally want to avoid under NFCC and with NFC#UUI#17 is the re-use of the same logo across multiple team pages when none of them have a unique logo compared to the organization they are under. The example would be at many university sports program which would share the same logo/mascot/branding for all of its teams - even if the teams are independently notable, reusing that logo over and over again would violate the principle of NFCC. That said, the cases here appear to be the reuse of the logo exactly once on the national team, in additional to the agency overseeing the sport for the country. Assuming that it is unlikely any of the other national teams for that agency will be notable, the exactly one duplication of the logo is reasonable, but any more would become a problem. (eg if there was a youth team that was highlighted and having the same logo). Again, we're trying to minimize non-free here so NFC#UUI#17 is aimed for cases where clear overuse can happen. One duplication is not excessive overuse, but any more could be. --Masem (t) 00:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Except that we have plenty of cases like File:Hammarby IF logo.svg, where the logo is used on every subsidiary team of the overarching organization. Removing these has, in the past, been impossible as edit warriors keep fighting them back in. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Stop making it a massive pain to add album covers to articles

Almost none of us who contribute to entries on pages are American copyright lawyers. So would you please stop making it a massive pain to contribute music album covers without running the risk of getting them taken down for some reason you have to be an American copyright lawyer to fully comprehend? Face up to the fact that albums are commercial products, and consider that, if you were to remove these flaming hoops of BS, maybe the artists/bands might sell some more copies of the recording because more people will know what to look for. -- Eyevocal (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

We're not here to help artists sell more copies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

It is not a "massive pain" and you do not need to be a copyright lawyer. Just read the images section of Wikipedia:Non-free content. If an article about an album exists in main space, you can upload a low resolution image of the cover art, for use in that article only. What's so difficult about that? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Eyevocal: can you tell us what you found difficult? In my experience using the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard is pretty straightforward as it will walk you through this particular scenario. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Eyevocal: Since you seem to have sorted things out, just try to remember in the future that every file uploaded to Wikipedia needs to be proivided with the information listed at WP:IUP#RI. I'm not sure how WP:UPLOAD exactly works and whether it prompts you for such information, but you should check the file's page after it's been uploaded to make sure. In addition, if the file you upload is licensed as non-free content, you need to provided the information listed at WP:NFC#Implementation. So, for a freely licensed image, you need an appropriate copyright license and some general information about the image's provenance (e.g. Template:Information); for a non-free image, you need an appropriate copyright license, information about the image's provenance and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the image. For reference, most non-free use rationale templates can cover the last two steps since they typically contain parameter for the "source" and "author" of the image; you only need to add such information separately if you choose to write out the non-free rationale by hand. If you're able to add all of this information via the Upload Wizard, then great; if not, then just add to the file page yourself once the image has been uploaded. If you leave out any of the required info mentioned above only increases the chance of the file being tagged for speedy deletion by either a WP:BOT or another editor. In some cases, another editor might be able to finish what you started, but it's probably not a good idea to rely on that happening all of the time.

Finally, while there are things about Wikipedia that can be rather frustrating, try to remember that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines were established over the years because the Wikipedia community felt they were needed; so, you often will get a better response from others when requesting assistance if you somehow try to phrase things in way that doesn't seem to imply that other editors are just trying to make your life difficult. My guess is that you probably wouldn't respond too favorably to someone who posts "Stop being a massive pain by uploading files with incomplete information" on some Wikipedia page; so, try to remember that when asking for help on noticeboards like this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: And I would respond (and still do now, for that matter) with, "Then don't make it so tricky to put that information in, fcrynoutloud!" The people responsible for all this may not have been trying to make things difficult, but they're still managing to succeed. -- Eyevocal (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Others might respond to that by pointing out that quite a number of people uploading non-free album covers seem to have been able to do so for years without any issues by simply following the current guidance. I really don't want to go back and forth with you about this since it's not going to resolve anything, and I'm really not out to try and make you even more frustrated than you already are. There's a bit of a learning curve with respect to anything having to do with Wikipedia which means the ride can get a bit bumpy at first; however, if there are serious issues at play here, then they should be addressed. So, if you would like to make some suggestions as to how to make the uploading process clearer or easier to follow, then you can probably do so at Wikipedia talk:File Upload Wizard; if you want to make suggestions as to ways to improve WP:NFC or WP:NFCC, you can do so at WT:NFC (that talk page covers both NFC and NFCC); if you feel that better guidance should be given at WP:IUP#RI, then you can propose that at WT:IUP. I'm pretty sure concrete suggestions (unless they're way out there) are always going to be welcomed and treated seriously; others might not agree with them or implement them, but they will always be given consideration. My personal experience has been that the only way to change the way something is being done on Wikipedia (particularly something which has been done for a long time) is to go to the relevant policy or guideline talk page, explain what the problem is, and then try to see what others think. Simply saying "stop making it a massive pain to do XXXX" is not really giving anyone anything to work with and will not lead to any productive discussion. So, if you can better clarify what you found difficult (as Finnusertop queried above), then start a discussion about things on the relevant talk page; perhaps others will then be able to figure out a way to address the issues you raise. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Here on Wikipedia competence is required. But images are a bit complicated, so you can ask at Wikipedia:Files for upload for things like album covers. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

"Thank you for uploading File:Cranberries Bury the Hatchet 2LP cover.jpg. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source." My opinion on this process still stands. -- Eyevocal (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• The image was uploaded without any indication about the license. The alternative, to streamline the process, would apparently be not requiring us to indicate the license of the image? Do you have another alternative? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: Make it much easier to fill in, especially if you wound up not using the Upload Wizard. -- Eyevocal (talk) 05:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• ​@Eyevocal: When you added a non-free use rationale to the file's page with this edit, you removed the copyright license that had been provided for the file. I'm assuming you did this unintentionally because a non-free file is required to have both a copyright license and a non-free use rationale. Removing the license meant that the file was now at risk of being tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F4, which is why you received a notification about it on your user talk page. Luckily, your mistake was caught by another editor who re-added the license you removed; so, things should be OK now. So, while none of this may change your opinion on the process, the latest notification was the result of an issue that you yourself created; and issue that could've been easily avoided if you had been a little more careful and hadn't removed the license from the file's page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Eyevocal: you're right, the copyright guidance on Wikipedia can be confusing and it's often poorly explained. However, the File Upload Wizard is quite well designed to help you to put the right info in when you upload the file. If you don't get that bit right first time, then that's when all the annoying warnings appear, so I understand that can be frustrating. Here's what you need to do when you upload an album cover:

• First, you're only allowed to use the album cover on an article about that album. This is just because of copyright laws.
• You have to provide information about where you got the file, who made it and give the reason why you think you can use it.
• In the upload wizard, select the option "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use."
• In the panel that appears, enter the name of the Wikipedia article where you plan to use the image.
• Then select "This is the official cover art of a work." (4th option)
• In the options menu, select "cover of a sound recording (Album, CD)"
• fill in all the required boxes.
• For "epxlain how the use of this file will be minimal" write something like "Low-res image to be used only in the article discussing this album" or words to that effect. It just has to sound like you've thought about it.
• If all the required boxes are filled in, press Upload. If you've missed anything, it will stay greyed out, so you need to find the bit you've missed.

Hope that helps, if you want to try again. That's basically it. No copyright law degree required, just a bit of thought and 5 minutes of your time. Cnbrb (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Cnbrb: I don't think it was the Upload Wizard I used in the first place. Still, thank you very much for understanding and supplying your explanation, and not being immediately dismissive. Now, if only the default picture uploading method was the Wizard and all the guff and bafflegab and wires all over the floor could be removed from the other method (or the other method itself could be removed, period), then that would save me and others a lot of grief. -- Eyevocal (talk) 05:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Great, glad that's been of some use. I do recommend the upload wizard - while it seems a little bit fiddly, it's designed to guide you through the process to put the right info in. You can always find it in the left-hand menu of every Wikipedia page, under the link marked "Upload file". Note that when you start on the first screen, the large blue button "Upload your own or a freely licensed file" is a link to Wikimedia Commons, which is a separate website for storing copyright-free or licenced images. Just to be clear, Commons would not be suitable for an album cover, so use the 2nd button, "Upload a non-free file" to keep it on the main Wikipedia site. Good luck , hope you get it sorted.Cnbrb (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

A question I would have to Eyevocal is through what links or steps they went through to upload an image that wasn't through the "Upload File" on the left menu thus evoking the Upload Wizard? I know there are ways to get to the stripped down upload page that required you to add all the extra stuff, but to the best that I know, those are not easy to get to, and we shouldn't be making those as visible to new editors for exactly the problems that Eyevocal had expressed. (Expert users should still have access to it). --Masem (t) 13:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Indie Horror Game Copyright

Is Mary from the 2012 game Ib copyrighted? If it is, is there a way to have an image of her on Wikipedia without breaking copyright guidelines? And, I found all of the images on ibgame.fandom.com. I know that kouri is very protective of their artwork and media so they will not get stolen from so I'm curious. Thanks in advance. Thank you!— Preceding unsigned comment added by RemiruPlushie (talk • contribs)

The publisher of the game owns the copyright to all the images from the game. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Logos that adapt each year

Hello B, and your child, B-bot. I'm fairly new year and I'm wondering what you do with logos that change each year. I've added the non-free logos, which are posted on the pages to help define the pages. The logos are low-res and used only for identification. I added new logos for the 2021 year (the logos often change), and b-bot marked (flagged?) the old logos. I would prefer that they remain, because some logos revert back, but maybe you've dealt with this and have a different take. Let me know what you think. Comm260 ncu (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Comm260 ncu. If you've got a question about B-bot, then you can ask B (the administrator who operates that WP:BOT) at User talk:B.

As for you question about former logos. it generally depends on the file's licensing (i.e. the copyright status of the logo). If the logo you're updating is uploaded locally to Wikipedia as non-free content, then you're going to need to meet WP:NFCC for it to avoid deletion. If it does meet the NFCC, then there are two ways to upload the new file.

1. If the change in the logo is relatively minor (e.g. a minor color change, straightening, change from 2020 to 2021) and has to do with a not really copyrightable element (e.g. simple text) so that the old and new logos are pretty much identical, then you can probably just update the existing non-free file by going to it's file page and clicking on "update version". So, for example, I think it would've been OK to do this for File:Minnesota-marathon-logos—2019—lake-wobegon-trail-marathon.png and maybe even for File:Minnesota-marathon-logos—2019—med-city.png since the changes in those logos seem to be fairly minor. Uploading the new logo as a separate file is OK, but perhaps not necessary. If you do decide to update an existing file, make sure to also update its file's non-free use rationale accordingly if there are any changes (e.g. a new source url, new description) in the provenance of the file. You might also want to consider requesting that the file be renamed if necessary.
2. If the change in the logo is a major change (e.g. completely different logo), then it's best to upload it as a new separate file altogether since there might be another possible non-free use for the old logo.

Regardless whether you update or upload as a new file, the old logo or the old revision of the file will end up being deleted per WP:F5 and WP:NFCC#7 if they're not being used in at least one article. There's really no way to use an old revision of a file; so, those are almost always going to end up deleted. A non-free former logo which is a separate file, however, sometimes can be used as long as it is considered to meet WP:NFCC#8 (see WP:NFC#CS and WP:NFC#cite_note-4). Basically, just replacing the old logo in the main infobox and then moving it to somewhere else in the same article (e.g. a former logos section) isn't going to be considered OK unless there is sourced critical commentary specific to the logo itself or specific to the brand change that was made added to the article is support; moreover, if the change is relatively minor (e.g. change in sponsor name or date without changing the main elements of the logo), then even sourced critical commentary might not be enough per WP:NFCC#3a (see WP:NFC#Number of items).

All of what I posted above only applies to non-free content. If you're updating a freely licensed or public domain content that was uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons and the updated version would qualify for the same licensing, then you should follow c:COM:OVERWRITE and most likely upload it as a separate file. Former logos which have been uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons are not subject to WP:NFCC and thus are much easier to use in Wikipedia articles. You need to be careful here though because Commons doesn't accept any type of fair use (i.e. non-free content) per c:COM:FAIR and fair use content uploaded to Commons will end up deleted, sometimes fairly quickly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Very helpful, Marchjuly! I'll let the old ones be deleted by B-bot. Your knowledge base on this subject is vast. Is this the niche in which you've specialized here on this online encyclopedia? I'm always curious to know how others have gotten bitten by the Wikipedia bug. Comm260 ncu (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I only know what I know from editing myself and looking at edits made by others, and from seeking assistance from more experienced editors when I get stuck or otherwise have a question. Each editor probably has an niche area they focus upon (intentionally or unintentionally) and the ones who respond to queries here and at WT:NFCC or WT:IUP tend have a good familiarity with images and how they generally should be OK to use. Most of the heavy lifting in such areas, however, was probably done years ago when the respective policy and guideline pages were being developed; so, if you can find someone who was involved in those discussion, you usually can find someone who knows not only what the policy/guideline is, but also why it is what it is. Often the way to find such people is to check the policy/guideline talk page (including archives) and see what might've been discussed before. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Telemundo Houston 2013 logo.png

I'm looking for some feedback on whether this file needs to be licensed as {{Non-free logo}} or whether it's OK to convert to {{PD-logo}}. The file was originally used in the main infobox of KTMD, but was replaced by File:Telemundo Houston 2018.png which is from Commons. The two logos are basically the same so they either should both be "PD-logo" or "Non-free logo". If it's a case of the former, then coverting the non-free one to PD and tagging it for a move to Commons is probably OK. If they both should be non-free, then things are a bit tricker to sort out. In that case, the Commons one will probably nominated or tagged for deletion from Commons, but that would need to be done on Commons. Moreover, there would no way to possibly justify using both of these as non-free logos in the station's article per WP:NFCC#3a or WP:NFC#cite_note-4. This means the older version would needed to be deleted outright or updated by the newer version. Is there any reason why this logo shouldn't be considered to be OK as "PD-logo" given c:Category:Telemundo logos and c:COM:TOO United States? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Is this image fair use or not?

Hi, I was wondering about something. I was wanting to upload a picture of Dr. Martin J. Tobin so I could use it in his Wikipedia article, but I don't know if the image I want to use is available under fair use or not. Here's the image, and one of the news articles it's used in. It's a high quality screenshot of the Derek Chauvin trial livestream. I would love to know whether the image is fair use or not. Thanks! --Mrmbag0703 (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Mrmbag0703: No, we don't allow copyright images of living people, because it fails the first criteria of our strict non-free policy requirements. Someone can take a photo and release it under a free licence. ww2censor (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Image

Is this image in the link below able to be used? https://www.firedepartment.net/directory/wisconsin/lincoln-county/merrill/city-of-merril-fire-department/images/city-of-merril-fire-department-logo.jpg

ISupportThinLines (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

ISupportThinLines: I can't see the logo but it's most unlikely unless the logo is quite old. ww2censor (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

IMDB

1. In an article on an actor, are there any copyright issues with using data from IMDB to make their filmography table?
2. Would there be any copyright issues with making a user script that (not en masse but when you're writing a brand new article on an actor and want some data) scraped the IMDB filmography page, trimmed a bunch of the data, reversed the sort from IMDB's newest to oldest to Wikipedia's oldest to newest, and inserted a table in the article?
3. Is this whole idea too unpopular to succeed, since IMDB is "unreliable" and in theory we should be pretending IMDB doesn't exist and building the filmography table from reliable sources instead? If acceptable from a copyright perspective, I see a user script like this as being useful for populating an actor's initial filmography table, then it can be iterated and tweaked, and reliable sources added.

Thanks for your thoughts. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

1. Probably not, basic info, uncreative table, but I wouldn't do it anyways since IMDb isn't really RS.
2. Probably not? It's mostly basic info anyways. Pinging Chlod (sorry, but you make userscripts) about the userscript stuff, mostly on if it's even feasible or useful because I know about as much as a fly does about coding.
3. Prolly will need consensus on another noticeboard if that idea is worth it or not since it changes how new actor BLPs and film/TV articles are made. I see the value for the initial population, but also wonder if it's in compliance with BLP. No issue on copyright from what I can see.

Hoped this helped, Sennecaster (What now?) 16:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: I assume that there would be no copyright issues concerning the script. It simply takes data from an existing website and creates output based on that. If, in the first place, the data is basic information, then you could argue that the wikitable created by such a userscript would also be basic information - both of which wouldn't have copyright issues. There's some funky language in IMDB's Conditions of Use that make it confusing on what exactly is copyrighted within their database, which makes this a bit hard to interpret for me. Other web scrapers (such as the Internet Archive or youtube-dl) remain uncontested, so I guess you could just not worry about it. Chlod (say hi!) 17:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

1. @Novem Linguae: No unless, possibly, you copy the list, see below.
2. There are copyright issues. See Wikipedia:Copyright in lists. The original list is copyrighted if there was originality in compiling it. Suppose an actor has acted in thousands of films, short films, and commercials. If IMDB only lists a couple of dozen or hundred because the rest are trivial (I don't think IMDB has every short film or commercial for instance), then the original list may be copyrighted. If IMDB lists all films the actor has acted in then it would be simply replicating facts and compiling them without originality (such as listing them in alphabetic or chronological order). However, if the original lists ranks them by some creative criteria, e.g. which are the "best" films, it would again contain originality.
3. IMDB is not a reliable source and there are alternatives to using it. See Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

   To address 2; IMDb has very little creativity to it. There's no opinion in the ordering and every list is incomplete anyways. It's not reliable, but that isn't really a copyright question and I think Novem Linguae understands exactly why IMDb is not RS. However, idea's actually pretty cool. Possibly a village pump though since even media copyright disagrees on its merit? Sennecaster (What now?) 03:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

bot deleting image

What is the problem that caused this edit? אילן שמעוני (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@אילן שמעוני: the file page File:Euphoria by ClockUp game title cover.webp must contain the name of the article in which the image is used. Here, "euphoria" wasn't enough because the article is called "euphoria (visual novel)". I've returned the image and added a table that helps having all the necessary information. You should include the source where you got this image from (most probably a website you downloaded it from). Don't worry about the size of the image. And automated tool will fix that for you. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks! אילן שמעוני (talk) 04:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I would like to add a historical photo, but I don't know if I can

Hi, some colleagues have kindly advised me to write here on this matter. Can you help me?[2]--Mhorg (talk) 10:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I have a couple questions about those images. Were they ever published in the United States, and when were they published (or even if they were published) in Spain? (I assume they were taken there, correct me if I'm wrong). The commons:COM:CRT page is a comprehensive guide to how copyright law in each country applies and can help you decide for yourself. Unfortunately, I'm going to need more information because this could be copyrighted under US law thanks to URAA restoration. Sennecaster (What now?) 11:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Sennecaster thanks so much for the help. Unfortunately I don't know anything about these photos... I know they are on the internet, I know they were used for music albums.[3] As for CRT[4] I think there are the 70 years from the publication of the photo, if I understood correctly. Is there anything else I can do? Should I try to contact the photographer (his relatives)?--Mhorg (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The 70 years start from the date of death in Spain. If it was published/the photographer died before 1987, it's 80 years. If it's over 120 years, we can assume PD-old and upload it to commons. You can still upload it locally to Wikipedia, as long as you provide a fair use rationale. :) Unfortunately, Spain and the US have long copyright history and relations, so it pretty much applies US law at that point. Safest bet is local upload to Wikipedia with a fair use rationale. Sennecaster (What now?) 16:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay... I'll try to upload it in that way... meanwhile I try to understand more about the history of the photo. Thanks again.--Mhorg (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I made it... I hope everything is ok...File:Rosario_Sánchez_Mora,_la_dinamitera,_while_preparing_the_dynamite.jpg--Mhorg (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

It needs to be smaller (WP:IMAGERES) but a bot will take care of that. Nthep (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Unsure if photograph is suitable for use on Wikipedia.

I was asked to edit and update a Wikipedia page for someone. Kitboga_(streamer) The person of which the page is about asked that I update his picture there, and said that I was to use the photo found on this article: https://www.wired.com/story/kitboga-twitch-streams-coronavirus-scams/

The Wired article is the only place from which this picture is available. However: the photo was provided to Wired by the creator, the file information for that photo clearly states "Courtesy of Kitboga" AND I have been given explicit permission by the creator to distribute this photograph for free use on Wikipedia, for anyone to use and for any purpose.

I am still concerned that this photo is not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Please forgive any formatting issues.

Regards. Kman (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

He'll need to submit his approval through WP:OTRS but I would be very careful about that because it appears you have a WP:COI and I'm hoping not WP:PAID. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

There's absolutely no WP:COI nor especially WP:PAID. Kman (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

If you have spoken to the subject in question and he has asked you to edit his Wikipedia information for him, that is a COI. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Kman: The thing to be rather careful of is that the copyright holder of a photographs of a subject is normally copyright of the photographer, not the subject, unless there is evidence the copyright was transferred by legal means. ww2censor (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood logo

File:Planned Parenthood logo.svg was uploaded locally to Wikipedia as {{Non-free logo}}; the same logo, however, can be found on Commons as File:Planned Parenthood.svg and File:Planned Parenthood.png uploaded as {{PD-logo}}. The non-free version was originally uploaded in 2014 and predates the Commons files by about five years. Is it safe to assume that the local version can be converted to "Pd-logo" per c:COM:TOO United States (the US is the country of origin)? Is there any point in doing so since that would just create a local version of an already existing Commons file and Commons probably doesn't need to svg versions of the logo? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps just tag it as {{Now Commons}} so it just gets deleted. ww2censor (talk) 10:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Would that work for a non-free image? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Leland W. Carr C. 1930.jpeg out-of-copyright in public domain?

I have an old newspaper clipping from The Detroit News C. 1930 of a portrait and caption of Judge Leland W. Carr that I have scanned and would like to include on his page in Wikipedia. My question to you: Is this 80-90 year old clipping in the public domain and, if so, why is my scan rejected for upload? Thank you. Paukenspieler (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

It will depend on if the copyright was renewed or not. See WP:COPYEXP. RudolfRed (talk) 19:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at FFD concerning use of non-free images

I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 April 24#File:Beach Boys Maharishi.jpg concerning the use of non-free images that appear to serve as the main means of visual identification of the article subject – in this case, deceased individuals, or cultural events – yet there is no accompanying 3rd party commentary on the images or their significance. I had originally considered raising the issue here first, but FFD seemed a more suitable venue. If any editors wish to weigh in there, please do. JG66 (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@JG66: You should add individual {{Ffd}} templates to each file you've nominated for discussion per the instructions given at WP:FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Could've sworn I did – but then it is something of a new area for me. Done so now. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Improper use of copyrighted image?

Hello, this movie poster for Tampopo is uploaded as "own work." This poster is apparently by Ping Zhu for Janus Films I find it very doubtful that the uploader has the rights to this work. Is there a place to flag potential violations such as this? Thanks. Thixotrofic (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Thixotrofic: you can mark it for speedy deletion under criterion F9 or if you think it should be retained you can delete the current information and add a fair use rationale instead. Nthep (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Thixotrofic: The issue with this file's licensing has been resolved by another editor who converted it to non-free use. Just reference, this type of "own work" claim isn't all that uncommon. Sometimes it's just because the uploader doesn't know any better and misunderstands the meaning of "own work"; it's not attempt to try and "steal" someone's copyrighted content. You can in the future convert the licensing to non-free yourself if you think it was just an honest mistake and the way the file is being used would satisfy WP:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw it got updated. I know about non-free justification but didn't make the connection to try to convert it myself. Will look out for doing so in the future. Thixotrofic (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Question on newly-discovered Mozart allegro

A student editor that I support, Helicopter331 raised a question that I'd like a second opinion on.

For my article Mozart Allegro in D major, my partner and I were planning to add an image of the first few measures of a score of the piece. There is a score available on imslp.org. We wanted to screenshot the first few measures and use it in the article. I was wondering if this is considered fair use? It states that the copyright is Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 and I believe that the work itself is in the public domain. Please let me know your thoughts.

I agree with them that the work itself is PD, and that the (admirable) work the authors did don't constitute enough to create a new copyright over the allegro itself, so that the CC-by-NC-ND licensing only applies to the first and last page, or maybe the collected work as a whole. Thoughts? Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Ian (Wiki Ed), you are correct. The notation is in the public domain due to age and no additional copyright was attained by the transcription. Please upload as PD. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Finnusertop, thanks! Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

External image

Back in July 2020 I inserted an external image into the article Grob G104 Speed Astir using the external image template. See my diff. I did this because existing photographs of the subject are of very poor quality. (I was acting in accordance with permissions and guidance at Template:External media.)

My external image has now been removed from the article and it has been suggested to me that it may have been illegal or unwise for an image from that source to have been made available, regardless that it was inserted using the external media template. I would appreciate some advice on the status of this image when access is provided using the external media template. Thanks for your help. Dolphin (t) 13:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dolphin51. It's not clear what you're asking. Are you asking about the copyright status of that particular photo? There is a copyright notice in the lower right corner of it which states that "Image Copyright © Marcelo484"; so, I think it's safe to assume it's copyrighted. Even if there was no notice, all photos published after March 1, 1989, are considered to be protected by copyright under US copyright law; so, a photo taken in 2009 is almost certainly still under copyright protection and linking to a website showing that photo is not going to change that. Whether you should link to the photo depends upon WP:COPYLINK and how you think it applies to this photo. Some websites do host content that they didn't not create without obtaining permission to do so from the copyright holder. Sometimes such a thing is allowed under a claim of fair use, but other times there might be some license laundering involved; it's those cases where the latter is considered likely that a link isn't allowed per relevant Wikipedia policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Marchjuly. The background to my question is that in Template:External media under the sub-heading Copyright it says “If you are uncertain about the copyright status ask for help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.” Dolphin (t) 22:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The question is still the same: Are you asking about the copyright status of that particular photo? As I posted above, in my opinion, it should be treated as "copyrighted". -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Dolphin51: Actually the template details {{External media}} give some clear reasoning on this matter. The second paragraph of "When to use" clearly states: The {{external media}} template should be removed as soon as a replacement of adequate quality and accuracy is available in WP:COMMONS. At that time, the link included in this template may be considered for inclusion as a regular WP:External link in the ==External links== section and because there is a suitable image already in the article your was removed. You can always ask the removing editor User:NiD.29 about for more clarity but their edit summary seems quite clear to me. ww2censor (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Ww2censor. I acknowledge your quotation “The template should be removed as soon as a replacement of adequate quality and accuracy is available in WP:COMMONS. The key word is the adjective “adequate”! In the case of the Grob G104 Speed Astir the image in the Infobox and the two now available from COMMONS are clearly, unarguably, not adequate. (Have you looked at them?) Dolphin (t) 22:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Determining whether a photo is "adequate" is sort of a content dispute (not a copyright dispute) that probably is best resolved through talk page discussion. Disagreements over external links need to be resolved according to WP:ELBURDEN and WP:DR. If a consensus is established in favor of adding a link, then it probably will be added; if not, it won't. An external link to copyright violating isn't going to be allowed per relevant policy, but an external link to non-copyright violating content isn't going to be automatically OK because it isn't to a copyvio. One thing about the image you're linking to that perhaps you didn't consider instead might be WP:PERMISSION. The website where you found the image has a way to "Contact photographer for terms of use." Maybe if you try that, the photographer would be willing to upload either this image or an equivalent image of the glider to Wikimedia Commons. Some editors have had success in procuring higher quality images for Wikipedia articles by simply reaching out to copyright holders and asking. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much Marchjuly. That's good advice. Dolphin (t) 11:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Dolphin51 - why are you starting the same discussion in four different locations? The outcome of this discussion won't overturn the fact that none of the links has any legitimate reason for being present.

This particular link fails for two reasons - it exists only as decoration (the caption provides no information beyond that it "is"), and wikimedia commons has three different images of the same subject - more than adequate to illustrate the page. Two of them show the subject in its entirety, even if they are not 100% ideal.

I posted a table of all of the affected pages I removed the links from, with the reasons why each was problematic at WT:AIR.

2 links were leeching directly to the image, with no copyright information. A third image was also leeching, but there was copyright info on the image.

This was where the statement of some of the links being illegal came from.

6 links were to search engine results.

5 links lacked copyright information.

Several links were to enthusiast sites that likely do not even have permission to use the image being linked to.

14 of the 27 links did nothing beyond provide an image of the subject, which was duplicated by wikimedia.

the other 13 only had value by way of identifying a specific variant that was in most cases also covered in wikimedia.

There was an average of 19.26 images per subject from these pages in wikimedia. The median was 11 images.

All of the links were from pages with at least one image in wikimedia. Only three had 3 or less.

100 images were in wikipedia for one of the pages, and 69 for another.

I did not go beyond pages I had recently edited for other changes, and did not check to see what other pages you have added these to - perhaps I should? - NiD.29 (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Dolphin51: you have an opinion and just happen to disagree on the use of such images but as Nid.29 has stated the matter well and also pointed to an extensive discussion on this topic, I'll leave you to figure it out there. ww2censor (talk) 09:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

My thanks to all three Users who replied here. I will reply to NiD.29 on his Talk page and make an offer of how I think I can help. My thoughts now are how risky it can be to insert an external link into an article. At External media Wikipedia authorises the insertion of external media, grants permission for doing so; and even seems to encourage Users to do so. I certainly interpreted it as encouragement to go ahead, be bold and insert external images. There is a rather vague sentence or two about not violating copyright but not much really. One resource is offered - "If you are uncertain ask for help at Media copyright questions"; which I did.

NiD.29 has explained a lot to me. I now see that there are serious risks regarding hotlinking, theft of bandwidth, and others. There is nothing at External media to alert Users who, in good faith, wish to make use of the template to improve articles. NiD.29 determined there was a problem with the source to which I linked. He provided some links to documents I needed to read. Significantly, none of that information appears to be linked to External media. When I asked my question at Media copyright questions no-one commented on hotlinking or theft of bandwidth. I am beginning to think that External media contains inadequate information for good faith Users who are likely to fall into these traps. External media should be promptly supplemented with a lot more supporting and explanatory material. On the other hand, perhaps the best thing would be for External media to be taken down until it is re-worked to provide good faith Users with the guidance they need to avoid embarrassing Wikipedia by linking to "unsatisfactory" places on the internet. Dolphin (t) 12:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)