Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2021/August

Status of images of pages from PD domain books on Internet Archive

I've been thinking of adding an image with examples of the individual letters of a script. I thought I could make screenshots of letters from a public domain book on the Internet Archive. However, it occurred to me that while the book itself is PD, its scanning is akin to photographing, and by using the image and not just the content, I would be using the work of the 'photographer' who scanned it (and the organisation that stood behind that activity). Would that use be OK copyright-wise?--Anonymous44 (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the scanning of something is generally going to be considered a creative act eligible for its own copyright (at least not under US copyright law) per c:COM:2D copying; the person doing the scanning might try to claim it is, but doing so might be seen as a type of copyfraud by some. If the original source material is within the PD, then the act of "converting" it to some other (perhaps more easily accessible format) is probably insufficient to establish a new copyright as a WP:Derivative work. The scanner in such a case might try to place other restrictions on the re-use of the material, but these would most likely be considered non-copyrightable restrictions that would be a matter to be resolved between the scanner and the uploader of the content to Wikipedia or Commons. I think what a person needs to be careful with in cases like this is to make sure to not enter (even unintentionally) into any sort of contract with the provider of the content that's more related to the "service" being provided than the copyright of the content. It might not be a copyright violation to upload the images per se, but it might be a violation of the "Terms of use" established by the provider of the content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The thing that I can imagine being a possible restriction in the Internet Archive's terms of use is the initial statement that 'Access to the Archive’s Collections is provided at no cost to you and is granted for scholarship and research purposes only.' Does encylopedic work such as the provision of an illustration for Wikipedia qualify as scholarship, in your opinion? In addition, I now see that the Internet Archive page says that the 1868 book, which is 'in the collections of Oxford University', was originally digitised by Google and uploaded to Google Books, then just reuploaded to the Internet Archive. In principle, I could have made the same screenshots from Google Books, too. Google Books has Terms of Service, but they only seem to apply to 'digital content you purchase through the Google Books service'. The terms of service of Google itself don't seem to include any relevant restriction. --Anonymous44 (talk) 06:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia would probably be considered "educational" as the term applies to fair use#U.S. fair use factors, but whether it would be considered a form of "scholarship" by the people at the Internet Archive is anybody's guess. Even so, Wikipedia doesn't accept any types of free licenses which say "for scholarship or research use only" and Commons is the same way. Basically, the only type of free licenses that Wikipedia and Commons accept are ones that pretty much allow anyone anywhere in the world to reuse its content for any purpose at anytime. FWIW, I'm not a copyright lawyer and nobody on Wikipedia really can or should be giving you any type of legal advice. All I can say is that I don't believe the digitalization of a work within the public domain creates a new copyright in and of itself, and I don't think claiming you own the copyright of something automatically means you do. However, there are lots of businesses who make lots of money off claiming they own the copyright over works that are in the public domain and there's no way to tell how they will respond if they start finding images they believe they "own" being uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons. If you want to read what happened in one particular case, then take a look at National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute. Then, there's also Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. which seems to be the case law that most people on Wikipedia or Commons quote when discussing this type of thing. Since PD images are generally recommended to be uploaded to Commons, you might want to ask about this at c:COM:VPC; in the end, however, I guess it might come down to how much of risk you're willing to assume by uploading the content since you're likely going to be on your own if anything happens as well as where you live since the courts in Germany at least seem to feel differently about digitalization per Reiss Engelhorn Museum and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute (see this and this as well). -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I suppose I'll ask at the Village pump then. Apart from that - I understand that Wikipedia does not allow such restrictions in free licenses, but the Terms of Use of a site don't per se imply a license and create restrictions for images on Commons, do they? It's as if I were to steal a camera and used it to make a photo, which I then released into the PD - it wouldn't stop being PD and permissible on Wikipedia because I've used illegal means to create it, would it? It would just be a problem between me and the authorities. And it would surprise me if Internet Archive were to sue either me or Wikipedia over this, given their stated purpose of 'universal access to all knowledge' and 'a free and open internet'. The problem is what you said about Germany, b/c I'm in the EU, the images could be claimed to be copyrighted by Google, and I wouldn't trust Google 'not to be evil'.--Anonymous44 (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I think your concerns about the images have already been answered over at c:COM:VPC#Status of images of pages from PD domain books on Internet Archive and Google Books. As for the Terms of Use of a site don't per se imply a license and create restrictions for images on Commons, do they?, I think websites can pretty much decide their "Terms of Use" as they please, but how legally binding they are is anyone's guess. However, if you click on something which states you agree to a website's "Terms of Use" and then knowingly violate those terms, then I guess it's up to the website to decide if they want to try and pursue action against you. Commons only accepts content that is 100% freely licensed or 100% PD per its "Terms of Use", and content which is deemed to not be as such can be removed per c:COM:DG. As to whether "illegally" procured content can be kept by Commons, that might depend upon c:COM:PCP and c:COM:NCR, and how they are applied by the Commons community. If you're concerned about the legality of doing a particular thing and how it might affect you personally, then you probably should seek outside input from a lawyer or someone familiar with such things and not rely on what anyone posts on Wikipedia or Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I have ever even been asked to click on Internet Archive's Terms of Use in order to use it, I sought it out only b/c you brought it up. However, I'm still a little confused by two of the things you said. First, 'Commons only accepts content that is 100% PD per its "Terms of Use"' - do the 'Terms of Use' really determine whether the content provided is in the PD? In this case, Internet Archive has Terms of Use, but I don't think this means that it owns the copyright over the works (or even the German courts' 'copyright of scans') that it provides. Or perhaps by 'its Terms of Use' you mean 'Commons' Terms of Use' (although the relevant page seems to be a redirect to Wikimedia as a whole)? Second, as to illegally procured content - as far as I can see, the c:COM:PCP and c:COM:NCR are both exclusively about copyright, not about a general legality that applies to every step of the process. I might have used a pirated version of Microsoft Paint to create the image, a stolen laptop to upload the image, resided in a house obtained by fraud, used a stolen sandwich to power my brain cells, maybe I'm an escaped convict with a death sentence under a jurisdiction with capital punishment and have no legal right to be alive in order to upload the image, etc. As to asking a lawyer - well, frankly, I'm fine with volunteering my time and effort in order to contribute to the world's knowledge, but also having to pay for a lawyer's advice just to be able to afford this luxury is where I personally would draw the line. I get that nobody here on Wiki can assume the legal responsibility for my actions, but if I literally paid a lawyer each time in my life I wanted to know what the law says, I would be a lot poorer now. --Anonymous44 (talk) 02:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

When I posted Commons only accepts content that is 100% freely licensed or 100% PD per its "Terms of Use, the its was intended to mean "Commons"; I thought that was fairly clear, but my apologies if it wasn't. As for "Commons Terms of Use" if it's the same as the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, then it's the same and that's what you're agreeing to anytime you edit Commons or any WMF project. The other stuff you're asking about are hypothetical moral questions that I don't have any idea as to how to answer or how they might pertain to image copyirght. If you want a more definitive answer and don't want to contact a copyright lawyer, then maybe there's a university near you has faculty member who specializes in copyright law or maybe there's a free legal consultation service where you live who can help. You could also always search online and see what you come up with. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I was interested not in the moral aspect of the hypothetical questions, but in their Wikipedia policy aspect, since they were analogous to my possible violation of IA's Terms of Use. But in any case, I think that by this point I've got as much clarity about my issue as it's possible to get. Thank you very much and happy editing.--Anonymous44 (talk) 11:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Upload on behalf of someone not on the internet

Hi folks! If I have media from someone who does not have an account (and does not want to get one), how do I properly upload it to commons. Specifically I have photos of a lead hammer which my stepfather took. He doesn’t have a website to upload them to and put a license statement on, nor could I get him interested in uploading them to commons himself. Do I have him email the VRT to release them? Or can I credit him while uploading from my account? I apologize if these are answered elsewhere I’ve been away for some time and searching Wikipedia documentation is not like riding a bike. Protonk (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Protonk: You can upload the image to the wikimedia commons attributing your stepfather, assuming he owns the copyright. He can then send the Volunteer Response Team an email, without needing a wikipedia account, verifying his release of the image under a free licence we accept. Details for doing that are found here and you should add this template {{OTRS pending}} to the image when you upload it so they know a verification email is on the way. ww2censor (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Protonk (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

use of logos

Dear all,

i want to use three logos of ekyklos (KYKLOS IDEON) https://ekyklos.gr/whoweare.html because i will create an page for this think tank. i have already uploaded the files https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kyklos_logo.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ElladaMeta_IV_Sept_2020_a.png and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ekyklos.watch_a.png but the files have been nominated for deletion. What can i do? Msofianop (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Msofianop: The images are on the commons so their status must be addressed there, not here. If you did not create these logos yourself, then you cannot release them under a free licence just by copying them from a website. This appear to be what you did by adding them to Flickr and then uploading here. We would need the copyright holder's permission and besides which there does not appear, as yet, to be an article where they might be used. Even then the organisation may not be considered notable enough for an article. ww2censor (talk) 11:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Use of Screenshot image from Government Audit/Annual reports

I have a doubt regarding the use of screenshot image from Government Annual reports, Can I upload it to the commons attributing the Gov agency which published the report, or can I upload it as fair use? —Echo1Charlie (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Your question could be interpreted in two ways:

• If you are asking about using a screenshot of a government report, then the question of whether it is free or not depends on which gov't, as not all gov't have public domain or free license aspects. The US government does make all published material public domain, for example. You can see a list of what PD-gov templates that Commons has here c:Category:PD-Gov license tags (I don't know of a single page that lists each gov't and the license applied to their work.
• If you are asking about using a screenshot within a government report, you first need to address which gov't it is and the PD nature of their work. The second question becomes if that is a screenshot created by the government, or if it is a third-party screenshot included in the report. If it was a screenshot of software made by the gov't that would generally be fine to be PD if PD-gov applies. If it was the latter, then that image would be copyright (the gov't publishing it would not necessarily erase that) and would need to be uploaded as non-free. --Masem (t) 16:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Echo1Charlie Why do you want to upload an image of an annual report. If you are using it as a source then you can refer to it using {{Cite report}}. If there is some reason to have an image then it's going to depend on which country and what the copyright riles are for that country's government publications. Nthep (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Masem and Nthep:, Thanks for responding, sorry my query wasn't clear. I meant taking screenshot of this picture at p.71 (p.69 on report) in this source (https://www.mod.gov.in/sites/default/files/MOD-English2007_0.pdf) and uploading it. The report is published and is available on their website so it is in PD. So can I upload it to the commons with attributes or can I upload it as fair use again with attributes? —Echo1Charlie (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Based on the language of c:Template:EdictGov-India there are limits of what government information from India qualify as public domain, and I would read this as not falling in those limits. (Just because its offered freely doesn't mean its free of copyright). You would have to use it as non-free and the additional requirements that fall from that. --Masem (t) 18:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you much appreciated —Echo1Charlie (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Where to use this template {{EdictGov-India}}, in author/owner field or in license field? —Echo1Charlie (talk) 18:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Masem and Nthep: Sorry to bother you, in which category does this work fits? (https://www.drdo.gov.in/arjun-mbt-mk-ia) copyright policy https://www.drdo.gov.in/copyright-policy —Echo1Charlie (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC) Can I upload this work to commons with this {{EdictGov-India}} license tag? —Echo1Charlie (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I fixed the link to the commons template. The key question to ask if this report is "the report of any committee, commission, council, board or other like body appointed by the government if such report has been laid on the Table of the Legislature, unless the reproduction or publication of such report is prohibited by the government". It does not sound like this is that type of report, but you would have to check that. If it is, then you can upload it to commons using the EdictGov-India template there. If it isn't, its a non-free work and the best license for it would be Template:Non-free fair use. --Masem (t) 19:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Masem: Hai I uploaded this file here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arjun_MK1A_field_trials.jpg) but this template is not showing correctly, can you please guide me how to fix it? —Echo1Charlie (talk) 04:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

That template doesn't exist here. If you are sure it is a public domain image, that needs to be uploaded to commons, but otherwise, you need to use the "Non-free fair use" template. --Masem (t) 05:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Their copyright policy says this https://www.drdo.gov.in/copyright-policy I'm not sure whether it is eligible for commons, can you please check it —Echo1Charlie (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay I can understand your practical limitation in responding to that question, so I think I should wait for 7 days and reupload it to commons, as fair rationales won't be enough to keep it here. Thanks for responding. Have a good day.——Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Hebrew text logo

File:New Economic Party logo.svg is licensed as {{Non-free logo}}, but it seems to be nothing more than a text logo with quarter-circle (which probably represents the sun on the horizon). This would probably be OK to relicense as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}, but that's not really needed if the file is also PD in Israel per c:COM:TOO Israel. That's a little unclear because apparently Israel used to follow the UK's TOO (or at least be similar), but now might be more in tune with the US's TOO. Any opinions on whether this is OK as "PD-logo"? If this needs to remain non-free, then it probably can't be kept per WP:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

PD-logo?

File:Center for Innovative Entrepreneurship logo.gif was uploaded as {{Non-free logo}}, but the way it's being used in Tim Mahoney doesn't really comply with WP:NFCC. However, this might be OK to relicense as {{PD-logo}} per c:COM:TOO United States since the only possibly copyrightable element is the figure-like imagery which looks like a combination of the letter "V", a dot and the letter "p". Any opinions as to whether this needs to remain licensed as non-free? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Similarly, File:Scotty cameron logo.png also was uploaded as non-free for use in Scotty Cameron, but again this too appears to be PD per c:COM:TOO United States even considering the crown imagery. Any opinions on whether this needs to remain licensed as non-free? -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Non-free album cover?

File:False Prophets.jpg is licensed as {{Non-free album cover}}, but it looks (at least to me) to be nothing more than white text on a black background with an advisory warning in the lower right corner. None of these things appears to be eligible for copyright protection which might make this OK as {{PD-simple}} or some other PD license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

PD-CAGov mugshots

It seems that File:Ryan Hoyt.jpg could possibly be {{PD-CAGov}} if it was created by an employee of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation as stated in the file's description, and thus might not need to be licensed as non-free. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Jesse James Hollywood.jpg is another mugshot that might also be {{PD-CAGov}} given that it is supposed to have been taken by the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Department. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Historic images of ghost towns

Can historic images of ghost towns that may still be under copyright be used under Fair Use rules? If the town has completely disappeared, it seems like Fair Use should apply since new images of the town cannot be produced.--Orygun (talk) 01:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Orygun. This isn't really an easy question to answer because fair use and non-free content use are not one and the same thing, and it's the latter what matters when it comes to Wikipedia. "Non-free content use" is sort of Wikipedia's tweaked version of the doctrine of "fair use"; it's based on "fair use" for the most part, but it has been set up to be much more restrictive as explained here. There are ten specific non-free content use criteria that non-free content needs to satisfy each time it's used on Wikipedia; so, it's a bit hard to give you an answer without knowing more about the image you want to use (e.g. the image's provenance, the image's intended use). Perhaps if you could provide a rough non-free use rationale for the image, then it would be easier for someone to assess whether its use complies with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy or whether the image is something that's likely to end up tagged for speedy deletion or prodded for deletion after it's been uploaded. You can find out a bit more about some of the aforementioned ten non-free content use criteria here and some examples of non-free content use which are generally allowed and not allowed here. You can also find some typical reasons why non-free images often end up deleted here. It's kind of hard give a more definitive answer than than without knowing more about the actual image itself. I can say though that images aren't necessarily "historic" simply because they're old or because they show something "historic" as explained here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok, here’s specific situation I’m looking at. There is a ghost town in central Oregon that was once the unincorporated community of Stauffer. It was never a large community, but it was a stage stop with a school, post office, and perhaps 200 residents. It was identified on area maps for many years … and is still occasionally shown on some maps, although no one live anywhere near the Stauffer site today. I have not been able to find any on-line images of Stauffer, but I have a hard copy book titled High Desert of Central Oregon by Raymond Hatton, published/copyrighted in 1977. It has 4 images of Stauffer homesteads. Each has a caption with the same source identified at the end of the caption … i. e. “S.W. Best Family Collection. The captions say the original photos were taken in 1915. I would like to use one of these images in the infobox of an article specifically about Stauffer, Oregon. All of the images are black and white and not particularly shape due to the fact that the original images are over 100 years old and were reproduced in the book. Since I would have to copy the image from book the quality of the image would be reduced even more. I would also crop the image some where between 10% and 80%, depending on which image I selected for use in the article. As I said in my original note above, to the best of my knowledge there are not Public Domain or Free Use images of Stauffer. Can I use one of the images described above under Wikipedia’s Non-Free Use or Fair use rules?--Orygun (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Orygun: The Hirtle chart might be of use to you. You need to determine if the publication had a Copyright notice or not. If it has a notice then the copyright expires 95 years after publication which you seems to allude to but without a notice then this template {{PD-US-no notice}} would apply. If some of the buildings still exist, then our non-free policy, and its 10 criteria that must all be complied with, will mean you cannot use the images from the book, because if something still exists which these webpages https://www.ghosttowns.com/states/or/stauffer.html and https://www2.zukiworld.com/feature_obcdr_01/ infer, then someone can visit the place and take some photos that could be released under a free licence. Your reference to cropping is not determined by you but by the non-free guidelines which usually reduce such images to 300px on the longest side. ww2censor (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

The book referenced above has 1977 copyright notice by Binford & Mort that says “all rights reserved” … etc. There is nothing left at the Stauffer site except a small pile of broken concrete that was once a horse trough. A photo of broken concrete wouldn't add anything to an article about the town of Stauffer. It seems like Wikipedia’s Non-Free Use should apply to single image used to identify a long-gone town.--Orygun (talk) 02:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

According to the link I provided above it has more than just some broken concrete. Of course I agree that is that is all there really is, then such an image is of little use. ww2censor (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Orygun: Does the book provided any further information about the photographs other than "S.W. Best Family Collection"? If the photos are from 1915 and it can be shown they were first published around that time (for example, maybe in some newspaper or other print publication), then I believe that 1977 publication date wouldn't be relevant or at least as relevant. That might be something worth asking about at c:COM:VPC since that's where the file(s) would be better to upload if they are PD. If you do ask there and it turns out that they are still protected, then uploading one of the images for primary identification purposes is probably OK as long as the WP:FREER concerns expressed above by ww2censor are addressed. Trying to justify the non-free use of any more than one is probably going to be pretty hard; so, pick the most representative image of the bunch, and see what happens. I do suggest asking the possible PD status at Commons first though since it's not really good practice to just assume Wikipedia should use a non-free image by default until someone finds or creates a free equivalent. In addition, try to understand that if there are still any standing structures in the "town", then that might be considered sufficient for a photo to be taken for primary identification purposes per FREER even if it's not as good of an photo as the ones found in that book. An image of a "ghost town" is, after all, kind of expected to look "ghostly" (e.g. dilapidated or otherwise abandoned buildings or structures), isn't it? So, if that can be represented by a free image, then a non-free one might be fairly hard to justify. Even if you're not physically able to go take such a photo yourself but another person can because the area is still accessible to a reasonable degree, it might be hard to establish a consensus in favor of such non-free use. Finally, the town site is in Lake County, Oregon according to this, which means that perhaps someone at www.lakecountyor.org might be helpful in tracking down some more photos (some of which might even be PD). Sometimes an area has a local historical society or museum and going through it might be a way to find other possible images or even source materials on the town itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Company headquarters photo

I'm trying to add an image of company headquarters to the Wiki page for that company. It is not free use but can be used in articles about DTS (Diversified Technical Systems). Is there a way for me to accomplish this? As in, when you have permission to use an image in a specific instance for a specific company on wikipedia what is the process? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarenWrite (talk • contribs) 20:45, 9 August 2021

KarenWrite: Because the building exists, we cannot use the copyright image and claim its use under our strict non-free policy because it fails the very first requirement. Permission can only be given by the copyright holder, who is usually the photographer. In future please sign your posts by adding four tildes, like this, ~~~~ to the end of your post. ww2censor (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi KarenWrite. Since there's freedom of panorama in the United States for buildings and other habitable structures per c:COM:FOP United States, pretty much anyone can basically walk up to the front of the building an take a photo of it and then upload that photo to Wikimedia Commons under a free license, which means a non-free image is most likely going to be impossible to justify. So, unless you're talking about a highly secure site which is pretty near impossible for anyone other than certain specific persons to access, it seems unlikely that any non-free image will be allowed per WP:FREER. Moreover, even if you're unable to take such a photo yourself, you cannot upload one taken by anther person Commons without their consent. Finally, another thing that's not really related to images but might be relevant to your situation. If you've not already done so, please take the time to read through the pages Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and familiarize yourself with them. If neither applies to you, then there's nothing to worry about; if, however, either does apply to you, then you're going to be expected to follow them (particularly the latter) when you edit. FWIW, I'm not accusing you of doing anything inappropriate here; I'm just providing you with some information that nobody seems to have done so far. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Marchjuly. Have read and understand. KarenWrite (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Can I use this image?

I want to use Marie-Antoinette Maupertuis' image from this site. Its copyright notice (here) says
The copyright for the editorial content of this website, which is owned by the EU, is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. This means that you can re-use the content provided you acknowledge the source and indicate any changes you have made.
But I don't know if the image is owned by EU, and the problem that'll cause is:
The use of elements (e.g. text, photos, pictures, graphs, etc.) subject to intellectual property rights of third parties is subject to prior authorisation from the copyright owner. This applies to photos displayed in the official directory of the European Union (EU WhoisWho) and in the section "Events".
So I am not sure if the image is from the above mentioned 'official directory' or owned by the EU. Can I use this image in this article? Excellenc1📞 09:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

No, without knowing who the copyright holder of the image is, it isn't useable here. Nthep (talk) 09:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@Nthep: Can I use the image as per the first quote mentioned above? Excellenc1📞 10:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

No, because as you said yourself, you don't know if the EU own the copyright on the image. You have to take both statements together. If it is an image where the EU own the copyright then fine but the EU specifically state that they may not (do not?) own the copyright on images displayed in the EU WhoisWho. Nthep (talk) 10:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Stefanos Tsitsipas' Picture

Hello, I found some pictures of Stefanos on Twitter that were taken by some fans and are not licensed or with a copyright -- Can I use one of them to replace his current display picture on wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123yali (talk • contribs)

The fans have copyright in the photos the minute they take them. They would have to license those photos, in order for them to be used here. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Commons

File:King airbrushed out of coronation portrait.jpg

I have a concern about a file on Commons. I am blocked there, so I am discussing this here. Why is the file, File:King airbrushed out of coronation portrait.jpg, tagged for deletion? The individual portraits (File:Edward VIII Portrait - 1936.jpg and File:George VI Portrait - 1936.jpg) are clearly in Public Domain in the US per their licences. The why is this file tagged for deletion, if it is Public Domain under the same licence? And there are tens of thousands of files under this licence on Commons. Why no problem with them? Peter Ormond 💬 19:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Commons uses the copyright tag {{PD-Art}}, which states that the file on Commons is in the public domain in the United States if the underlying painting is in the public domain. The PD-Art template then includes the copyright tag {{PD-old-70}}, which states that the painting is in the public domain in countries where the copyright expires 70 years after the death of the painter. However, the copyright term in the United States lasts for 95 years from publication, not for 70 years from the death of the painter. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@Stefan2: And the problem in this situation is? Peter Ormond 💬 20:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Something published in 1936 does not enter the public domain for sure until 2031. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Then, why no problem with File:Edward VIII Portrait - 1936.jpg or File:George VI Portrait - 1936.jpg? Their licence clearly states: "The author died in 1947, so this work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer. ... The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain". This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain in the United States".

Also, Standard copyright term in the UK = Life + 70 years (See rules). The author died in 1947, so the copyright expired in 2018. Peter Ormond 💬 21:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

The copyright expired in the UK in 2018. The copyright expires in the US in 2032. For the other files, see WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Then why does it say "This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain in the United States"? Peter Ormond 💬 22:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

​​(Non-administrator comment)@Peter Ormond: Commons images issues are going to need to be resolved on Commons, but before you try to do so I strongly suggest that you resolve the other issues you're having over there at c:User talk:Peter Ormond#Unblock Request_3 first. Even though Commons and Wikipedia are technically separate projects their own communities, policies and guidelines, there is quite a lot of overlap between the two and any efforts you make here on Wikipedia to seek the assistance from others to help you over at Commons are probably not going to go unnoticed; for example, a Tea House post like this or perhaps even your question above might possibly be seen as WP:MEAT by a Wikipedia administrator and lead to your Wikipedia account being blocked as well. Announcing that you're blocked at Commons to try and somehow justify discussing Commons stuff here on English Wikipedia might seem as if it makes it OK to do so, but that's not really a valid justification and eventually some Wikipedia administrator will call you on it. You've yet to be blocked on English Wikipedia, but I'd imagine that those who you've been engaging with on Commons are probably also watching your contributions here; so, maybe the best thing to do would be to focus on non-Commons image related edits for the time being until your block issues on Commons have been resolved to avoid your block being turned into a block over here as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Can these two images be used per WP:NFCC?

I noticed that commons:File:Outfit7 2014 2018.png and commons:File:Outfit7 2009 2011.jpg, used at Outfit7 (removed by me right after i asked this here), are both too complex to be in Commons. I am considering deleting those images there and adding them to Wikipedia per WP:NFCC but I don't know if they properly satisfy the 10 NFC criteria (since I've only dealt with Commons media so far). Can someone give an idea of whether these can be used in the logo gallery at Outfit7? Tube·of·Light 07:21, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tube of Light. If you're planning to use those two files in Outfit7#Logos, then I would say "no" per WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFG and WP:NFC#cite_note-4. It's generally quite hard to justify non-free file use in an image gallery because such usage is almost always considered to WP:DECORATIVE and what is typically required is for there to be some sourced critical commentary specifically about the former logos or the company's change in branding that is can contextually support by the inclusion the former logo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for helping, Marchjuly! I really wanted to add those images but I understand. I've also nominated those files for speedy deletion (after finding that regular deletion wasn't appropriate for copyvios). Thanks again! Tube·of·Light 12:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Question regarding the right license for two images I am trying to use for Wikipedia articles

Good day. I am trying to add images to two Wikipedia pages: Gerard Bush and Christopher Renz. The images follow:

• File:Gerard_Bush.jpg
• File:Christopher_Renz.jpg

The creators of both images explicitly supplied me with said images and gave me authorization to use them with the Wikipedia pages, so there shouldn't be any problems, except that I don't know how to indicate their status under Wikipedia protocol. How should I indicate copyright status? What license should I use? Because I wasn't sure what to indicate, the two images (which I already added to the pages) are now marked for deletion.

I've tried to read the appropriate Wikipedia articles on licensing and copyright, but I find the amount of information to be overwhelming and difficult to interpret, so if anyone could give me some specific pointers about how to properly indicate the licenses of these particular images in this particular scenario (to prevent them from being deleted) I would be hugely appreciative.

Thank you. Mbochart (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Mbochart: Unfortunately in the vast majority of instances the subject of a photo is not the copyright holder of that photo. That copyright belongs to the photographer unless it has been specifically transferred to the subject by legal means, i.e., by a contract. For this reason these files have been nominated for deletion because there is no evidence the file has been released under a free licence by the copyright holder and you cannot decide what that licence is. The copyright holders, both attributed as not the subject, can provide their verification to the Volunteer Response Team by submitting a permission statement using the form found at WP:CONSENT. Neither image can be accepted as a non-free images because they both fail the first requirement of our strict non-free policy which does not allow such photos when a free one can be created. This applies to living people. ww2censor (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the quick reply! I deeply appreciate it. To clarify something from my previous post: the photographers both gave me permission to use those photos with the Wikipedia articles. Am I understanding you correctly that the only way to use those images is to get the photographers to submit their authorization via the WP:CONSENT form? I also didn't intend to indicate that the images were non-free, so how do I retract that? Thank you!Mbochart (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Mbochart: Indeed the photographers must verify their permission by submitting the form mentioned, and in that form they will define the exact licence under which their image is being release. That licence will then be placed in the file page, replacing the non-free template after the permission is verified. ww2censor (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, once again, for your assistance! I see that the form suggests we use the following license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). Would that be the appropriate license in this circumstance? Mbochart (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mbochart Just the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported, the GNU FDL isn't suitable for image files. Nthep (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much!Mbochart (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, last question: you said I can omit the part about the GNU Free Documentation license, but do I have to include the language "(unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)"? Thanks!Mbochart (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mbochart no, the bit in brackets relates only to the GFDL. Nthep (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

One thing you (=Mbochart) and the copyright holders of those images need to understand is that Wikipedia and Commons only accept CC licenses that meet WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files and c:COM:L. This basically means that the copyright holder needs to agree to pretty much allow anyone anywhere in the world to download the image at anytime and the re-use it for any purpose (including commercial and derivative use), and they can't change their mind and revoke the license at a later date. So, if they only want their photos to be used on Wikipedia, then they shouldn't agree to give their WP:CONSENT or c:COM:CONSENT because they can't stop others from using the photos in other ways or on other websites (even to make money off of) as long as those persons comply with the terms of the CC license the file has been released under; moreover, even if they find someone using the file in a way that violates the terms of the CC license, they will have to resolve any such issues themselves. In other words, the Wikimedia Foundation isn't going to monitor how the images are being used on other websites and it's not going to take any steps to stop others from inappropriately using such photo outside of Wikipedia or other Wikimedia Foundation websites. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Star Wars Stormtrooper and File:Stormtrooper (Star Wars).png

As Stormtroopers in Star Wars has their actors fully covered in armour, and the difference between actors and cosplayers are almost indistinguishable, can we use some accurate cosplay images from c:Category:Cosplay of Stormtroopers to replace the fair-use file of File:Stormtrooper (Star Wars).png for violation of WP:NFCC#1 (cosplayer versions are genuine enough to replace Lucasfilm version)? Many thanks.廣九直通車 (talk) 03:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Check on whether a pair of images can be used

Hi,

These two images have been added to Wikimedia recently (not by me).

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Charlie_Joiner_SD.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lance_Alworth_wr.jpg

As professionally-taken pictures of football players generally seem not to be allowed, I'd like to check whether these are okay to use before adding them to any articles.

Thanks,--Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Harper J. Cole the licences used appear valid at first viewing but I haven't looked in detail at US trading cards of this era to say whether they are correct or not. Anyway, no-one should blame you for using Commons images to Wikipedia articles even if they are subsequently shown to not be public domain. Nthep (talk) 08:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

EMCDDA. Is their copyright CC-BY or equivalent?

EMCDDA = European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.

They have various publications with lots of charts and graphs. Some of which would be useful for Wikipedia. For example, some of the graphics found in this article (namely figures 1 and 2):

• Drug-related deaths and mortality in Europe: update from the EMCDDA expert network.

Here is their copyright page and paragraph (emphasis added):

• https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/about/legal-notice#copyrightNotice

Copyright notice © EMCDDA, 1995-2021 Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, save where otherwise stated, and the information is not used in a misleading way. Where prior permission must be obtained for the reproduction or use of textual and multimedia information (sound, images, software, etc.), such permission shall cancel the above-mentioned general permission and shall clearly indicate any restrictions on use.

What license tag would I use for their stuff?

It would be nice to have a license tag specifically for EMCDDA. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

It will fall as non-free - the license is not an all-exclusive use under free license terms. (They specifically do not talk about modification of information which our free licenses would need). --Masem (t) 00:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I guess they need to be contacted to find out if they allow that. And if they could indicate that on their copyright info section of that page. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Even then, though, they have a pretty broad restriction on the type of reuse: provided...the information is not used in a misleading way. That's too broad and vague a condition to allow genuinely free reuse for any purpose, so unless they were also willing to drop that (and I doubt if they would be if they state it that explicitly), their license is incompatible with ours. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

(unindent). I sent an email to emcddawebmasters@emcdda.europa.eu from their contact page, and pointed them here. I also gave them this link:

• Commons:Licensing#Well-known licenses

They might want to consider that other well-known sites use CC-BY and CC-BY-SA to share charts and graphs with Wikipedia. For example:

• Our World in Data. It uses CC-BY license.

They have this on almost every page:

I have uploaded many of their charts and maps to Wikimedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Now, to keep in mind: data cannot be copyrighted, and looking at the two figures you indicated, both of those can be recreated from the numbers they give into CC/public domain versions. The pie chart is easy, but the map version you might need help to get the WP:GL for that. Just make sure that that report is linked to any information page for the images. --Masem (t) 19:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes. And for others reading this go to pages 7 and 8 of the PDF to see figures 1 and 2:

https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/system/files/publications/13762/TD0221591ENN.pdf

--Timeshifter (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Little Rock Nine

Not sure I have come across this before, Little Rock Nine is blanked for investigation? When can it be released? It's a rather high profile topic in the American Civil Rights Movement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Never mind, it looks like another user took care of it, thanks. :) Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Resolved

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 August 22 § File:We Don't Need to Whisper Acoustic EP.jpg

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 August 22 § File:We Don't Need to Whisper Acoustic EP.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Screenshots from camcorder footage

Hi,

I've found this video on YouTube - amateur sideline footage of an NFL game from 1995: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elfGv1w7aL0

I don't know the fellow who posted it, but if I contacted him and got his permission, would it be acceptable to take screenshots from that video and use them on Wikipedia?

Thanks,--Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Harper J. Cole. This might be more complicated than it seems as explained in c:COM:VIDEO#Videos and copyright because it's footage (and audio) recorded at a NFL game and the NFL might try and claim that its permission is needed for any type of reuse (even in the form of a screenshot) of anything related to that particular game. Videos of fans in stands might be OK, but game footage might be problematic. There might even be some issues with just adding a link to it above per WP:YOUTUBE and WP:COPYLINK. Now, some might argue that such a thing could be used under a claim of fair use, but Wikipedia policy is more restrictive than fair use and it seems unlikely that any such footage would be allowed unless it's clearly 100% freely licensed content and not a derivative of any type. I'm not sure though and perhaps someone else could clarify that. In addition to possible copyright issues, I'm not sure what encyclopedic value any such screenshot would have since the footage is quite grainy and seems of little value to Wikipedia. What articles would you want to use such screenshots in? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Marchjuly. I'd hypothetically be using the screenshots for the Wikipedia pages of players featured in the game who currently have no pictures of them of any quality uploaded to Wikimedia. There's a dearth of available images for 20th-century players, so I'm always on the lookout for possibilities.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 10:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I didn't watch the entire video, but the bit I saw seem fairly low quality and probably not useful for primary identification purposes. So, you might find people not wanting to use it just for that reason alone regardless of whether you get the WP:CONSENT from the person who took the video and there are no other copyright related concerns. Perhaps the best that can be too find the images you want is simply to be pro-active and try WP:PERMISSION. Some editors seem to have had a decent amount of success in finding images this way. Sometimes they email the subjects (or their representatives) themselves or sometimes they contact people who upload their photos to social media. There seem to actually be some professional photographers like Gage Skidmore who upload lots of high quality photos to Commons. Perhaps running something by them might get you some good photos or at least good leads on how to find some good photos. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:COPY § Fair use guidelines

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:COPY § Fair use guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)