Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2021/October

Image for Jive Records

I recently uploaded this File: Jive Grammy nominees 2000.jpeg for use in the article Jive Records. I was notified it does not meet Criterion 8 of the non-free content criteria. I have since edited the rationale to include “This ad displays Jive’s most well-known acts: Britney Spears, *NSYNC, Backstreet Boys, and R. Kelly. This image is necessary to the article, which documents Jive’s history and reputation as one of the biggest record labels at that time and a former power player in the music business.” Is this sufficient to meet Criterion 8? Spectrallights (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Spectrallights: Sorry, but I agree the image does not meet the non-free criteria. This image clearly does not comply with WP:NFCC#8 because it is not increase the readers' understand of the topic. That is already explained well in prose. The lack of the image is not detrimental to the reader's understanding. There is no need for this image because the prose already tells you what "Jive’s most well-known acts" are. Any freely licensed image of those same artists could serve the very same purpose that you claim. ww2censor (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Article tag for upcoming public domain images?

I am working on a stub for the German photographer Draft:Else Thalemann. I noticed that many of her images will be become PD in the next five years or so; for example. Do we have any kind of tag that can be used to remind future editors that images will be available soon(ish)? --- Possibly ☎ 01:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Still interested in the general question of whether we have a tag for the above, but I just discovered that for Thalemann it is going to be another 35 years before she hits PD in Germany. --- Possibly ☎ 01:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 July 20 § Henry Kulka images

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 July 20 § Henry Kulka images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Removal of images from '49, 52, '67, '70, '77 & '81 GLC elections

As the title suggests, the bot has removed images of some of the leaders from the London County Council & Greater London Council election pages. The reason given is apparently because of WP:NFCC violations. This seems strange given the fact that all the images I've added were not uploaded by me and are actually taken from their respective wiki pages (they long-standing additions to the pages). For example, the bot removed the image of Henry Brooke from the top of 1952 London County Council election, yet despite a claim of an WP:NFCC violation, it has not removed it from Henry Brooke's page. Is the bot's actions in error? Alssa1 (talk) 09:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Remember: the requirements for NFCC content are very different when you're talking about an article about an actual person for whom no free image is available, as opposed to some article in which they happen to appear. Looks to me like the bot is working exactly as it should. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Alssa1: A non-free image requires a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use per WP:NFC#Implementation; so, if you’re going to add a non-free image to an article, it’s your responsibility per WP:NFCCE to add a corresponding non-free use rationale to the file’s page for said use. That’s almost certainly why the bot removed the files you added: you added the files to articles, but didn’t add corresponding non-free use rationales to the files’ pages. Even if you didn’t originally upload the file yourself, you still need to add a separate, specific non-free use rationale if you want to use the file in a separate article or in a separate way in the same article than given in the existing non-free use rationale already on the file’s page.

Now, even though adding a missing non-free use rationale may stop the bot from removing the files in question, it also may not be sufficient to justify a particular non-free use as explained here. Not all non-free uses are the same and not all justifications for non-free use apply the same way. In this case, it’s unlikely a consensus could be established for using the non-free images in election articles for the reasons given by Orange Mike above. There have been quite a number of discussions about similar images used in similar ways at WP:NFCR and WP:FFD over the years, and I can’t remember any in which a consensus was established in favor of such non-free use. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Image on Good Day (Tally Hall song)

The image was used for Marvin's Marvelous Mechanical Museum (album) without issues, why is there an issue— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanstone2 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Dylanstone2: Not all image uses are equivalent as somewhat explained here, and a non-free image requires a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each of its individual uses as explained here. Non-free album cover art is generally considered OK when used for primary identification purposes at the top of a stand-alone article about the album it represents per item 1 of WP:NFCI, but other types of non-free uses are much harder to justify. Trying to album covers to identify songs appearing on the album is typically not considered OK, and it’s better to use cover art specific to the single itself instead. If no such cover art exists, it’s preferable to not use the album’s cover art by default. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Use of Berkelium(IV) oxide.jpg on Berkelium(IV) oxide page

File:Berkelium(IV) oxide.jpg was removed from berkelium(IV) oxide. Can somebody explain this? Keres🌑(talk • ctb) 01:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Keresluna There has to be a fair use rationale for each article that uses the image: right now, there's only one for Compounds of berkelium. Most of that rationale applies even more strongly for berkelium(IV) oxide, but the bot can't evaluate that. You should be able to copy-paste-modfiy to get to an appropriate rationale. Vahurzpu (talk) 01:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Vahurzpu:Can you tell me how exactly to get to an appropriate rationale? Keres🌑(talk • ctb) 02:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

On the file page, you have a template for the use on Compounds of berkelium. You can copy and add that template to that page, but change out the "Compounds of berkelium" to "berkelium (IV) oxide". All the other info will be the same except you should change the rational entry in that template to why you need the image on that berkelium oxide page which should be a different reason (to an extent) of its use on the Compounds page. Once you do that you should be all good. --Masem (t) 02:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Solid Waste Authority of Central Ohio SWACO Logo Dec 5 2019.jpeg

This seems simple enough per c:COM:TOO United States to be converted to {{PD-logo}} since typefaces and text logos are typically not considered eligible for copyright protection in the US per c:COM:FONT. The file was actually converted to PD by Stefan2 with this edit , but that was subsequntly reverted by Ɱ. Leaving the file as non-free does no harm per se, but it does limit the way the file might be possibly be used due to WP:NFCCP. If the file is converted to PD, the non-free use rationale should be replaced by {{Information}} so as to avoid the file being flagged by bots for a possible license conflict. The file should also be moved to Commons if converted to PD since there's no real need to keep it local for English Wikipedia use only. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• This is obviously a {{PD-textlogo}} as there is no copyright protection to fonts in the United States. However, it should also be tagged with {{opaque}}. I just discovered that there's a copy with transparent background at the company's website: [1]. The JPG could be replaced by that PNG. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Book covers and copyrights

A user has uploaded a photograph of their book cover to use in a draft article about themselves, Draft:Rich Brownstein the copyright doesn’t belong to him but he asks “what proof must I provide from the publisher that I have permission to use my cover page? How is that established and confirmed? “ I’m finding it very difficult to know where to point him for help with regards to this. It is my understanding that the image could be used to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of an article dedicated to the book in question, but not elsewhere? Theroadislong (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

If the book cover is unfree, then the cover art can normally only be used in the article about the book. If the cover art can be freely licensed, see WP:CONSENT, c:COM:OTRS and {{di-no permission-notice}}. You may find that the one who wrote the book didn't make the cover and that the copyright to the cover belongs to the one who made the cover. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you I will convey that to them. Theroadislong (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Images with both public domain and CC-BY-SA licences

I am looking at some images of road signs (example) and noticed that the images have both a public domain license, and a Creative Commons license (CC-BY-SA). How can the images have two licenses when public domain is more permissive than the CC license? Also, most traffic signs seem to be in the public domain, doesn't that extend to depictions of traffic signs (like the ones made for Wikipedia/Commons)? 178.148.70.192 (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Some images may be photographs of signs in situ, with other stuff visible in the image. These would count as a derivative work, with the original sign being public domain only, but the rest and the way it was changed, say with lighting or angle or background adding the extra copyright. Also when it comes to .svg files, the appearance of the image can be public domain, but the code to make the .svg file can be copyrighted, perhaps with CC-BY license. For the example you give, I can click on original file; then right click view source to see the .svg code. The license is actually embedded in the file (but attribution is not obvious) and even to write ZONA involves about 20 lines of code. which is complex enough for copyright to apply. But if you copy the iamge to a .png, it would be public domain as that code is not included. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) I think in this particular case it is being claimed that the sign itself is public domain and the artwork created by the uploader is CC. Such copying, if skilful, might attract copyright and Commons cares about the creator's country's copyright laws. I'm not saying this is necessarily a valid claim however. Thincat (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Another possibility is simply that the uploader doesn't know whether the public domain template is applicable—but they are willing to release it with a licence anyway.

To distinguish that situation from the examples presented by others, it is probably better to encapsulate copyright tags for different components of a work in a container like commons:Template:Copyright information (for example: File:Jade_cabbage_closeup.jpg offers several licences for the photo, and claims the object is PD). TheFeds 05:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Are local (city and county) flags in the United States really all PD?

Hello. I was looking at Washington state county flags on Commons and found File:Flag of Pierce County, Washington.svg. The license template on it is PD-GovEdict, which reads:

This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a U.S. local or state government. See § 313.6(C)(1) of Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents."

Using this logic that a flag is really an edict, are all official local flags, e.g. King County's flag which is currently "fair use" on Wikipedia, public domain? This tag is on many state flags currently, such as File:Flag of Pennsylvania.svg, though they are almost all old enough to be way out of copyright regardless. However it seems like somewhat of a stretch; the quote really sounds to me like it's about the texts of laws:

The U.S. Copyright Office will not register a government edict that has been issued by any federal, state, local, or territorial government, including legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials.

What do you think; are county and city flags not copyrightable? DemonDays64 (talk) 02:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

@DemonDays64: Sounds like a stretch to me too. The Compendium (an advisory document, not a law) says later "a work that does not constitute a government edict may be registered" and provides an example of a work of graphic art, so clearly they are willing to distinguish between works of the state.

A piece of legislation or an official proclamation containing a sample of the flag (e.g. as an appendix, or something like this Canadian example) or a description of the flag (e.g. the U.S. Flag Acts) would be considered by the U.S. Copyright office to be an uncopyrightable edict per the advisory. Thereafter, a work which only duplicates or implements that uncopyrightable edict would not be a creative work. Is there in fact such an edict corresponding to your examples? Maybe the uploader knew of such a thing, but didn't cite it in the file description?

Note that there are some special cases, e.g. where state law does not allow the flag to be copyrighted (e.g. the flag of California, a work of government subject to the California Public Records Act). Another hypothetical special case is where an edict contains a flag image, but the legislative body doesn't own/doesn't have the power to define the copyright to the image; although the U.S. Copyright Office won't register the edict and its incorporated image, that doesn't mean they won't register the original copyrighted version of the flag to someone else.

And of course to be fully pedantic: just because they won't register something (take an administrative action in their discretion), doesn't mean that it isn't copyrightable (by application of statutory and case law, which supersedes the discretion of the Copyright Office). TheFeds 05:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

One additional question: How old are the average US flags? Copyrights lapse with time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

What to do if you can't find the copyright owner for a photo

Hi all,

I have been trying to find the copyright for the first black and white image on the following link: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/southasia/2021/01/15/from-prison-to-freedom-flying-with-bangabandhu-to-independent-bangladesh/. At the bottom of the page with reference to copyright information it says "Every effort has been made by the author as well as the Editor of ‘South Asia @ LSE’ to identify the copyright holder of the 2 black & white photographs used in this post. LSE South Asia Centre will be happy to acknowledge the copyright holder in future updated versions if it is brought to our knowledge at southasia@lse.ac.uk".

I have had a similar experience as LSE. I have tried contacting the Daily Star in Bangladesh which regularly publishes this photo around Independence Day but have had no success in tracking down the original copyright owner there. I have also contacted the RAF and Imperial War Museum since the photo was taken at an RAF station in Cyprus but again no trace of it. It was suggested to me that the original photo may have been lost during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974.

Any ideas on how I can proceed from here? As mentioned, this is an iconic photo that regularly circulates in the media in Bangladesh around Independence Day. Is it possible that the photo could be deemed to be in the Public Domain?

Thanks in advance for any insights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NaimMAli (talk • contribs) 12:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

In this case where copyright applies but you don't know who is the owner, it is still illegal to copy or use it. Perhaps it could be used under fair use. But we would have to follow our own criteria. There is a bit of a difference between public domain, and "no one will sue you". The newspaper may not distinguish, but we do. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

It could maybe be uploaded as Wikipedia:Non-free content with a wp:non-free use rationale. To avoid deletion it would need consensus that it is an iconic image, see wp:NFCI #8. Thincat (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

If this photo was uploaded as non free content, it would be quite hard in my opinion, to justify its use in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy if the image itself isn't really the subject of an sourced critical commentary per WP:NFC#CS. There are lots of photos taken of historic events, but that doesn't really make the photos themselves historic as explained here. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is quite restrictive by intent; so, while it might be possible to find a way to use this image that complies with such a policy, it seems as if it would be quite hard, at least at first glance. It seems unlikely that a stand-alone article could be written about the photo itself, and using it in Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and Kamal Hossain (the two named persons in the photo) for primary identification purposes given that there are already quite a number of freely-licensed images used in both of those articles. There might be another article where this image could be justified, but I think that should be well-explored and sorted out before trying to upload this photo as non-free. If the non-free use is questionable, then the file is likely to end up nominated or tagged for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

The other two people in the photo are also named - Air Commodore David B. Craig and Golam Mowla. I am in the process of writing a Wiki article for the latter, for whom there are no other widely circulated photos. If I were to upload the photo as non-free, would I still have to show that the photo has a copyright? My issue is that nobody I've reached out to seems to own the copyright, nor do they know of anyone who may have owned a copyright over the photo to begin with. NaimMAli (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@NaimMAli: Thank you for clarifying things a bit. Assuming that Draft:Golam Mowla someday becomes accepted as a Wikipedia article, it might be possible to use a non-free image of him for primary identification purposes in such an article per item 10 of WP:NFCI. However, it would probably be better to find another image whose provenance can be more clearly established to use instead of this one per WP:NFC#Sourcing; in other words, the more information provided about the actual origin of the image (e.g. who took it, when they took it, where they took it), the easier it becomes to assess its copyright status. There's no point in trying to upload any non-free image of Mowla at this point though because non-free content can only be used in the article namespace per non-free content use criterion #9. So, my suggesting to you would be to follow the guidance in WP:DRAFTS#Preparing drafts and first get an article about Mowla accepted by Wikipedia, and then worry about uploading a non-free image of him. If you try to add such an image to a draft, it will only end up being removed and then most likely end up deleted per WP:F5. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, that's useful to know. I will focus on getting the article published first for now. NaimMAli (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

"Dewey Defeats Truman"

File:Deweytruman12.jpg, a copyrighted file, uploaded as a Non-free image, is currently used in 6 articles, including a featured article (Harry S. Truman). It is claimed to be copyrighted, per the Truman Library. Non-free policy#1 states that "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". But, I just found that we have three images on commons, of the same incident, in different angles, licenced as {{PD-USGov}}. Those are:

File	Current Truman Library link	Archived Truman Library link
File:Dewey Defeats Truman.jpg	[2] "Library unaware of any copyright claims"	No archived link, but the file was verified by an reviewer in 2014, "who confirmed that it was available there under the stated license on that date."
File:Dewey Defeats Truman (AN-95-187) resized.jpg	[3] "Library unaware of any copyright claims"	[4] "Restrictions: Undetermined"
File:Truman Chicago Tribune.jpg	[5] "Library unaware of any copyright claims"	[6] "Restrictions: Unrestricted"

Now, either these three images are not free to be used, or the non-free file violates Non-free policy#1. What is the case here? Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

commons:Template:PD-USGov is for works of the U.S. government, not pictures of members of the government. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that the photos hosted on Commons were taken by or for the U.S. government, so we should remove those tags as implausible.

Then, the reasons given in commons:Template:PD-because are insufficient to establish that the photo is in the public domain. That "[t]he Library is unaware of any copyright claims to this item" does not mean the same thing as if the library had stated that it conducted research and determined that there was no effective copyright in the work. Professed absence of knowledge of a fact does not equal a specific belief in the falsity of that fact. So we should remove those tags as implausible too.

That will probably result in those images being removed from Commons, so we should decide if there is a reasonable fair use claim to be made for any of them, and engineer the transfer back to English Wikipedia if so.

User:Leoboudv added a PD-USGov claim to a Commons image, so perhaps they can clarify their thinking. TheFeds 18:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@TheFeds – I agree. And if I am not wrong, these images are not a work of the U.S. Government, but of any newspapers or broadcasting agency. They might have copyrighted it, which may be still valid. I don't see any use in these three files being elevated on en.wikipedia as "Non-free" images, as 2 non free image of the same incident is excessive. So, should we start a deletion request? On another note, we have File:Bush Defeats Clinton (23552489610) (cropped).jpg (CC-by-SA-2.0 on Flickr), which too has the copyrighted image. Can it be considered De minimis?. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I would say a deletion request on Commons for the photos would be reasonable if a little research on the authorship and copyright of each of them turns up nothing. (Maybe a reverse image search will help?) Hypothetically, if the photos were by newspaper photographers who assigned their copyrights to the newspaper, and the newspaper published the photos in 1948, and the newspaper didn't properly handle copyright registration or renewal, the photos could have lapsed into the public domain in the U.S..

Separately, someone raised a good point at the fair use image's talk page: it probably isn't definitively the most iconic photo of this event. There were lots of photos of this event, and if our fair use rationale asserts that this photo is special ("this has become one of the most famous photos ever taken"), we should probably endeavour to be correct. TheFeds 19:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

TheFeds and Kavyansh.Singh, I found the current place that the Truman Library hosts one of these files ([7]). The only thing they now say about it is that "The Library is unaware of any copyright claims to this item; use at your own risk." That does not indicate that it is public domain, so I think their deletion from Commons is warranted and will probably pull together deletion requests for all three of them. If someone wants to claim that the image is PD, they are going to have to find out who the photographer was, when and where it was first published, and whether a copyright on it was registered in accordance with the formalities of the time. We can't just presume "If we can't find something it must not be there", an assertion of PD must actually demonstrate that the image is PD, not just handwave at it. That said, six uses of a nonfree image is...quite a lot, and probably that needs some trimming back as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade – I have started a deletion request for all three of them together. As for the 6 uses in the non-free image, its quite lot. Checking that, I think the following pages definitely need this image.

• Dewey Defeats Truman
• Harry S. Truman 1948 presidential campaign (Just for transparency, I (Kavyansh.Singh (talk)) created this article, currently a GA)
• 1948 United States presidential election

Rest three pages (Harry S. Truman, Thomas E. Dewey, and Chicago Tribune) also hugely benefit by the image's inclusion, but not as much as the above three. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Is there actually a limit as to how many logos you can put in an article?

My edits in Political appointments by Joe Biden for putting in logos/images got removed because apparently there was no clear free-use rationale for using the logos/images of certain associations and groups. What is the general rule for this kind of edit? Can you put logos/images for most groups/organizations, but not all of them? Thanks in advance for the help. Losipov (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Losipov, if the logo is either freely licensed (unlikely), or public domain either due to age or because it does not meet the threshold of originality and is thus ineligible for copyright (more likely), it may be used anywhere that consensus of editors deems it acceptable. If, however, it is copyrighted and nonfree, normally the only permissible nonfree use for the logo will be in the article about the organization whose logo it is (and in that case, only the current or most recent logo). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Losipov: BTW, non-free files are, in most cases, not allowed in tables or lists per WP:NFLISTS & WP:NFTABLE. ww2censor (talk) 10:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Not all image use is identical because not all images are licensed the same way. Non-free image use is subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and this policy is quite restrictive. There are ten criteria that need to be satisfied each time an image is used, and using a non-free logo simply for illustrative or decorative purposes other than for primary identification purposes at the top or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the entity the logo represents is going to be really hard to justify per MOS:LOGO and non-free content use criterion #8. If you feel diferently, then you can try by adding a separate, specific non-free use rationale for the use in question to the relevant file's page. This would stop the bot from removing the file(s), but it doesn't make the use policy-compliant. The particular use can still be challenged by any editor and it seems unlikely that a consenus (at least in the case of Political appointments by Joe Biden) would be established in favor of adding them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Det här är en svensk tiger

Hello, the article image for Det här är en svensk tiger has been removed from the article File:Aron Flam - Det här är en svensk tiger (cover).jpg. Although there has been a recent legal battle concerning the copyright status of the book, the licensing of the book is the exact same as Permanent Record by Edward Snowden. File:Edward Snowden - Permanent Record (cover).jpg how come one gets removed and the other doesn't? They are both stored in the same U.S. server, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Los Perros pueden Cocinar (talk • contribs) 13:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The non-free use rationale needs to have the article title in it, otherwise the file will be removed by User:JJMC89 bot. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 14:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Hebrew logos

Do files such as File:New Economic Party logo.svg need to be treated as {{non-free logo}}? This seems like it would be at least {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} as a simple text logo in the US, but not sure about c:COM:TOO Israel. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

As an image it would be PD-textlogo. So a .png file would be PD. The shading is just linear fading, so nothing copyrightable. But the .svg has a code that may be copyrightable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Graeme Bartlett. If the svg is copyrightable, then this would fail NFCC#1 in my opinion because a non-vector version of the same logo could be uploaded instead. I say "if" because even though I'm aware of c:COM:SVG#Copyright and WP:NFC#Multiple restrictions, over the past couple of years I've seen lots of non-free pngs and jpegs being converted to svgs based upon WP:IUP#FORMAT. I guess it might not matter much if both the vector and non-vector versions are non-free, but the vector version would seem to technically be a bit more non-free if the svg code is copyrightable. Those doing these conversions, however, seem to feel that the vector version code isn't eligible for a separate copyright on its own regardless. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

If someone gets a free .png and then converts it to a .svg, then they can release that .svg under the same license. If they use an automated tool to create to do it, it is less clear that they have added any new copyrightable material. And copyright may be partly attributed to the tool/software they used. Hopefully any software we use does not add any copyright to images. If the .svg was coded by hand then the coder could claim a copyright. For your case I think it was inkscape that created the file. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again for the info Graeme Bartlett. I tried looking for a png version of the logo, but was unable to find one. I thought the party it represents might have an official website, but have had no look so far. This file's description states it was received by email, but nothing more. Perhaps the uploader Sokuya can further clarify things. If the only reason this file is non-free is because it's an svg, then there's no way to keep it per WP:FREER since a non-vector version would serve the same purpose and not be protected by copyright. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, the party had a website before the election, now archived by Wayback Machine. During the 2020 Israeli election I tried to update Wikipedia with all the new parties logos in svg format (because its better than png). So I contacted the parties and told them I want to upload it to Wikipedia, I ask them to sent it, in other cases I just extracted it from PDF files (ads in newspapers, party's platform etc) or took it straight from parties' websites (when available). In this case, they sent me the logo however I also found it later in their platform file. I uploaded it to Wikipedia as fair use because I don't well familar with all the copyrights and I know that logos can be uploads as fair use for Infobox propose. The file also exists in Hebrew Wikipedia. Hope that helps. Sokuya (talk) 07:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

​ Thank you for the clarification Sokuya. If this logo needs to be treated as a {{Non-free logo}}, then it would most likely be considered OK per item 1 of WP:NFCI if it were being used for primary identification purposes in a stand-alone article about the party itself; however, that's not how it's currently being used. Simply adding the file to Yaron Zelekha (the party's founder) because New Economic Party redirects to the Wikipedia article about him isn't really a valid non-free use of the file because the non-free use in his article is quite different than it would be in an article about the party. So, if this file can't be converted to public domain, then it can't really be kept as currently used. Whether it can be converted to a public domain license seems to depend on whether it's eligible for copyright just because it's an svg. Are you possibly able to find a non-svg version of the logo? If you can, then that could probably be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons under a c:Template:PD-textlogo license and then replace the svg that is currently being used. If you're not, then we have to try and sort of the svg version. Did you simply download the follow in svg format from some website or did you download in some other format and then converted it to svg yourself? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Interesting is that the image as displayed in the article is public domain, as it is a .png file, and not a .svg file. So fair use rationale is not actually required for this sort of derivative. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

A user-made SVG of a PD-textlogo jpg/png/etc. image is going to be fine as long as the uploader claims no copyright on the upload (eg it should still be marked PD-textlogo). We however do not want user-made SVG of non-free logos due to potential problems with these cases. We only allow non-free SVGs of logos where the source of the logo is directly from an entity that would have ownership or reasonable connection to the ownership to that logo (like a subsidiary), and that the SVG is directly provided or from a work that would embed an SVG like a PDF file. The logo here is PD-textlogo so a user-made text logo in SVG format that matches and uploaded as PD-textlogo/free license is okay. --Masem (t) 05:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Istithmar-world-logo.PNG

File:Istithmar-world-logo.PNG is licensed as non-free logo and that would be fine for use in the infobox of Istithmar World; that article, however, was draftified the other day, which now means the file is being used in Draft:Istithmar World, which is not allowed per WP:NFCC#9 and WP:DRAFTS#Preparing drafts. This is a pretty simple logo which probably is PD-logo in the US per c:COM:TOO United States, but I'm not sure if it's PD in Dubai per c:COM:United Arab Emirates. If the file remains non-free and remains only used in the draft, it will be eventually removed by a bot or human editor and then subsequently deleted per WP:F5 if it remains orphaned. Any opinions on whether this can be converted to {{PD-logo}} or {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchjuly (talk • contribs) 12:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Sir Edward Crosbie Image

Please could someone tell me whether it would be permitted to use the image here [8] on this article Sir Edward Crosbie, 5th Baronet? Anne (talk) 23:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Which image? There are several images there. If you mean this image (claimed to be Sir Edward Crosbie according to Facebook), then also check File:John Perceval, 2nd Earl of Egmont by Thomas Hudson.jpg where the same painting is claimed to show a different person. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's a bit of a bummer! However, it would not be the first time an image is mistaken for someone else. But if the Egmont image was on the NPG catalogue, then a mistake is very unlikely. Back to the drawing board, then. Anne (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Stefan2 I can find no other alternative image for Crosbie, but the black and white image 12 of 52 of Carlow Jail, here: [9] is where he was incarcerated. Or it can be viewed, on the right, here: [10] May this be used within the article? Anne (talk) 00:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

It would be useful to know if I may use the above-mentioned image, which is better presented here: [11]? Anne (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

New question

Please could someone tell me whether it would be permitted to use the image of the book cover, here: [12] on this article Sir Edward Crosbie, 5th Baronet?

May I also use this image [13] of Carlow Jail on the Crosbie page? Anne (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Arbil44: the 1802 book cover is long out of copyright if it could even be a copyright image. I found a better quality image at the "Internet Archive" here: https://archive.org/details/accurateimpartia00unse and have uploaded it as File:Crosbie trial book.jpg though it is the 1801 edition. The Carlow Jail image is a different matter. When was it published and who was the author? Without that we do not know the copyright status of this image. ww2censor (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, ww2censor. The book publishing the image of the Carlow Jail seems to be this one [14] but the image itself is very dark. A better image is here: [15]. Could the better image be used? Anne (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

So Arbil44 we now know the year of publication is 1963 where the image is attributed to Godfrey. However, on page 21 of the Carolviana there is mention of a Godfrey McDonald's death, so if that is the person who took the photo his work will be copyright until 2033, if it even was his own photograph. Perhaps he got it from elsewhere and that's the main problem. We don't know the copyright status of that image no matter which one you would use. The dark one is really bad quality and using the other as a non-free image is problematic because it will likely fail our strict non-free policy guidelines especially #8 considering that the details can be well explained for the reader in prose without the use of an image. ww2censor (talk) 11:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for this clarity on the matter, ww2censor. It doesn't matter, as you say. I just thought it would be nice, if possible, but I will forget the notion now!Anne (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Red Orchestra (espionage)

Hi Folks!! Use of images on Red Orchestra (espionage). The whole article is about this group of people, split into two camps. The whole article. I took across four images to the article but the "JJMC89 bot" removed them, probably quite rightly. They are fair use images for the most part. Is there anyway I can use them in the article. The previous public domain images that were on the article, were pictures taken by the Gestapo before they were executed, so they are entirely unsuitable to use anywhere on Wikipedia. The first part of the article is the German folk, and I would like to put a small gallery of the main German folk, the other ones are the Soviets and I would like to put a gallery of the main Soviet folk, about 8 of them. Is there anyway it can be done. Does it need to be public domain images, even though the whole article is about their life and death. scope_creep^Talk 11:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I have added the article title into the original four images, per the licensing requirements. This can be closed. scope_creep^Talk 14:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I have removed them, as nonfree galleries are not permitted. So yes, this can be closed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Flag of the UK House of Commons

File:Flag of the UK House of Commons.png is licensed as {{non-free Crown copyright}}, but the Crowned Portcullis imagery on the flag is essentially the same at that shown in the logo File:House of Commons of the United Kingdom logo 2018.svg which is licensed as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. It seems that either both of these need to be non-free or they both are OK as "PD-ineligible-USonly". Pinging Gold Wiz113 and Ninetyone the respective uploaders of each file, but input from others would also be appreciated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

This is a complicated one. The crowned portcullis by itself is an ancient work, and would on the face of it be long out of any copyright that would have vested in it. However, use of the crowned portcullis is licensed by letters patent in the UK, and therefore any use of it may be a breach of copyright, or certainly so unlawful as to require it to be considered so. I am enquiring with the relevant authorities to try and determine if this is the case. Either way, the arrangement of text alongside the crowned portcullis in the logo image is very likely to be sufficient to allow a copyright to vest in it in the UK, and not in the US, so the copyright tags on that are correct. I will reply when I hear more. ninety:one 18:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

For the sake of completeness, note that the Open Parliament Licence does not apply (its terms expressly exclude this emblem). Also consider whether the proprietary rights are copyrights specifically, or a non-copyright restriction that does not apply outside of the UK (or Commonwealth, if the letters patent were not only in the name of the monarch of the UK, but instead were also issued for the other realms).

Incidentally, my feeling is that for U.S. copyright purposes, {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} makes sense at a minimum. (This is almost exactly the Best Western logo example relating to the threshold of originality.) If the letters patent comprise a non-copyright restriction (I suspect they do, though I guess in principle their text could explicitly invoke copyright), then for the flag comprised of the crowned portcullis emblem on a plain coloured field, we should also be safe with a PD tag commensurate with the age of the emblem, and some sort of commons:Category:Non-copyright_restriction_templates. TheFeds 17:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Is YouTube video's thumbnails licensed under Creative Commons?

Is YouTube video's thumbnails licensed under Creative Commons? The thumbnails is not a screen capture from the video itself as the scene does not appear anywhere but the video itself is under licensed under Creative Commons, in short the thumbnails is a photo taken separate from the video but used because it's related.

For context, I'm referring to the Infobox image currently used in Aespa. File:20201209 에스파 aespa SBS Radio.png is the previous image used before it get replaced by current one, the previous image is screenshot from the source itself while the current one is saved from the source's thumbnail that was displayed in the search results.

From my understanding, the video's thumbnails is not licensed Creative Commons, only the video itself is. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 04:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Paper9oll: If it was the autogenerated thumbnail, it is from the video itself so that would be under CC-BY, but since the thumbnail is a substantial edit, like you I’m hesitant to say that is also under CC-BY since that YouTube does not state if the thumbnail is under CC-BY (if the video is under CC-BY). Moreover, this is from South Korea which has a different IP regime from the US, so it would be likely that the video and thumbnail will be considered a different work. However, this issue is moot: the original image has been replaced back by ones taken directly from the video. - 49.144.214.48 (talk) 08:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@49.144.214.48 Yes, the image in question has been deleted as that is a reupload of the exactly same image which was deleted previously. The current image used in the article is from the video itself while the now deleted image which was taken from the thumbnail of the search results and maybe also from the radio show's official instagram post (account can be verified by matching it against the radio show's official website and scrolling down 인스타그램 section (the one with red section), clicking any image which would open up Instagram, clicking the profile name, and which would return the same profile of which by comparing the URL) even though OP of the now deleted image said it is from YouTube but who knows when it is exactly the same. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Something along these lines came up recently on Wikimedia Commons regarding the same video. I responded that I believed that the title card and thumbnail were the same image in this case, that the title card was displayed (at the start of the video with autoplay off) with the licence below it (implying it is subject to the licence), and that the thumbnail was not creatively different than the title card (a scaled copy of the same image, so the Bridgeman v. Corel reasoning that a faithful copy is not a newly copyrightable work seems relevant). TheFeds 06:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@TheFeds Please read my reply to IP above, which I assumed you already did. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I read that post; but what about it? I think your contention is that the video's thumbnail is not subject to the CC licence of the video (and therefore was correctly deleted). By contrast, my contention is that in this case (where the thumbnail is the title card, and the title card is displayed with the CC licence), it would be reasonable to treat the thumbnail as being subject to the CC licence (and therefore it was not necessary to delete it). Consider a related question: is the description text of that video available under CC BY? I say yes, because YouTube displays the licence below the description text when you click "show more", and doesn't say the licence is restricted to the video content itself. So if the text is under CC BY, why not also the title card and therefore the thumbnail too? TheFeds 06:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Custom thumbnails are handled differently from auto-generated thumbnails, in addition, YouTube CC licensing page already explictly stated that CC licensed can only be applied to videos only. Custom thumbnails are not videos as you can only upload image-format file. In addition, there is no such thing as title card, the image that was displayed before the video file was loaded is the same image as the custom thumbnails displayed in the search result but upsized/upscaled. Of course, like you say, can only be partially seen if for whatever reason the user decided to disable autoplay, which of course, YouTube doesn't offer such functionality anywhere its settings hence this isn't the intended behavior that the developer of YouTube wanted to show to users. You can only force your browser to do that either via vanilla/built-in method through the browser settings (Edge/Chrome/Chromium and Firefox have such functionality, not sure for others) or downloading extension/addons. Even if you, force your browser either via means, the actual video file would still be loaded on top the custom thumbnails, blocking the 95% custom thumbnails, which means the custom thumbnails are not compiled/embed/joined/combined/fused with the video.

In addition, if you are pro-user with browser's developer tools, then you can use the network tools to check which loads first, and also blocking the video file from loading, which means only the upscaled/upsized custom thumbnails would be loaded, meaning they are separated files which brings me back to my 1st sentence of which custom thumbnails are not videos nor are they anywhere near to being one. Even if you download, the entire video, you still don't get the custom thumbnails. Stating the obvious, you would of course get auto-generated thumbnails if the video uses auto-generated thumbnails because auto-generated thumbnails are from the video itself. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

My core contention is that where there is a licence notice displayed, users are entitled to presume that licence applies to content that is contextually related to the notice, and which appears to be offered by the copyright owner. My secondary contention is that if any user can be served with the title card image in conjunction with the licence, using reachable code that was deliberately written by YouTube to do this, the licence is given.

Regarding the statement that "YouTube CC licensing page already explictly stated that CC licensed can only be applied to videos only", the version of the answer page that I currently see (https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797468) refers interchangeably to "your video" and "your work". I agree your interpretation is possible. But there are multiple reasonable possible interpretations such as:

1. "Video" is the general term YouTube uses for the entire set of content served with a unique YouTube v= URL, comprising the video file, the title, the description, and associated images (whether selected by the uploader or selected automatically)—in other words the uploader-generated portion of the web page. The licence applies to all of it.
2. The answer is not a complete statement of the legal effects of placing a conspicuous notice of licensure on or adjacent to a work. (For example, their statement "Creative Commons licenses can only be used on 100% original content." is not literally true, both in a legal sense, and in a technical sense related to the actual functions of the website; some degree of interpretation is therefore necessary to understand the intended meaning of "video" in the statement.)
3. Your current understanding of the issue.

I can't say for certain whether one or more of these are correct. We should assess the merits of each, and consider the effects (on Wikipedia and elsewhere).

With regard to the statement that the no-autoplay functionality is not intended by YouTube, and therefore cannot be relied upon, I disagree. That would require that the YouTube codebase not even offer the title card when the client rejects the autoplay for any foreseeable reason. It was likely a deliberate user interface choice to fall back to showing the title card when some exception occurs that causes the autoplay script to fail. Developing modern Internet content requires designers of websites to be aware of quirks in the way a given client will render the page, and just because quirk-related code is triggered, does not render the scenario invalid. And in any case, if the developer knew this was a problem, they could have triggered an error message, or suppressed displaying the licence message until the video content plays.

To use a very simplistic example, if a website displayed an empty black page to most users, but when a certain code condition is triggered, it would instead display a copyrightable work and text suggesting a licence, I would contend that as long as it is possible for that code to be reached by a user or the user's web client, the licence should be considered given. With a CC BY licence, once the licence is given to any person, the licence is in effect given to everyone not barred from using the licence (because CC BY licences permit redistribution). I would leave it up to the copyright holder to argue in legal proceedings the difficult proposition that because no person capable of consenting to the licence ever in fact triggered the code to read and consent, the licence was never given. There are some interesting theoretical considerations because there are some edge cases, but I judge the practical relevance to be small, and the risks low. TheFeds 10:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I however interpret YouTube answers differently from you.

1. Section 1 (Creative Commons): Quote "YouTube allows creators to mark their videos with a Creative Commons CC BY license. If you've marked your video with a CC BY license, you retain your copyright. Other creators get to reuse your work subject to the terms of the license." — Clearly stated as videos, even though they changed it to your work in 3rd sentence, my interpretation of your work is relation to earlier sentence. This is actually perfectly normal and common to write it as such even if you want to take legal into account ... many legal documents are written as such.
2. Section 2 (Creative Commons on YouTube): Quote paragraph 1 "The ability to mark uploaded videos with a Creative Commons license is available to all creators." — Yet again, this is repeated in which uploaded videos is clearly stated. Unless I'm blind, I don't see the word "image". Quote paragraph 3 "Creative Commons licenses can only be used on 100% original content. If there's a Content ID claim on your video, you cannot mark your video with the Creative Commons license." – Yet again, video is repeated here ... reading just the 1st sentence while ignoring the 2nd sentence, Big NO NO.
3. Section 3 (What's eligible for a Creative Commons license): Quote "You can only mark your uploaded video with a Creative Commons license if it's all content that you can license under the CC BY license. Some examples of such licensable content are: Your originally created content, Other videos marked with a CC BY license, and Videos in the public domain." – Yet again, video is repeated here. Oh ... reading just the bullet points while ignoring the preceding sentence, once again a Big NO NO. Similarly to P1, my interpretation of original created content is relation to the preceding sentence, which again is perfectly normal and common to write it as such even if you want to take legal into account ... many legal documents are written as such.

Tldr, I disagree with your POV/interpretation, which is perfectly okay. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Also just a note: someone should also check the Korean version of the agreement, which I cannot link to due to how YouTube works, which also broadly uses the same wording (only video), also I need to emphasise that the Korean Agreement is written in such that unless Korean laws allows alternate jurisdiction in a dispute, it will use Korean courts. (Courtesy translation given by Google to English-speaking Korean users:)

Governing Law

The courts in some countries will not apply California law to some types of disputes. If you reside in one of those countries, then where California law is excluded from applying, your country’s laws will apply to such disputes related to these terms. Otherwise, you agree that the laws of California, U.S.A., excluding California’s choice of law rules, will apply to any disputes arising out of or relating to these terms or the Service. Similarly, if the courts in your country will not permit you to consent to the jurisdiction and venue of the courts in Santa Clara County, California, U.S.A., then your local jurisdiction and venue will apply to such disputes related to these terms. Otherwise, all claims arising out of or relating to these terms or the services will be litigated exclusively in the federal or state courts of Santa Clara County, California, USA, and you and YouTube consent to personal jurisdiction in those courts.

Also, including the precautionary measures used in Commons means that, with how Korean courts have historically interpret copyrights to be author-friendly, I do think that at least for Korea we can say that they will probably interpret a thumbnail to have a separate copyright with regards to the video. So the probable answer to this question is it depends on the country of origin, so probably US courts may decide that the interpretation of "video" is that of a package (which includes thumbnails), while Korean courts may rule very differently. - 49.144.214.48 (talk) 11:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing our attention to Korean law. Choice of law provisions are very often a minefield, and inconsistently applied even in Western common law jurisdictions.

Regarding the Korean court's hypothetical interpretation, even if they treat them as separately copyrighted, does the licence apply to them all anyway? (I suspect the court would examine evidence of how the user selected the licence, and how YouTube posted the licence.) TheFeds 17:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Wizard of Oz image on Wiki Commons

The bot is automatically deleting an image from Mervyn LeRoy:

File:Wizard of Oz 01.jpg On the set of The Wizard of Oz, L-R (center): Mervyn Leroy, Judy Garland, and Victor Fleming holding Toto

The identical image remains posted at Victor Fleming. I changed to tag to conform with Wiki Commons rules. Can you address this matter?

--Lord Such&Such (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that the image file (which is located here on en.wiki, not on Commons) has a conflicting license - it is claimed public domain due to its lack of copyright notice when published, but it uses non-free templates. Because of that conflict, the bot is defaulting to assuming it is non-free, which means all uses have to follow WP:NFC. And in this specific case, that means that for each use of the image there needs to be a seperate rationale - there is one for Victor, but not one for Mervyn. Now, if the image is really public domain, then all the non-free stuff is absolutely unnecessary, and then you would be able to add the image back to Mervyn without any issues. If the image is not in the public domain, then the right non-free license template needs to replace the public domain one presently there, and then you'd need to add a new rationale template for the use on Mervyn. --Masem (t) 22:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)​Hi Lord Such&Such. The image you're asking about is not one that was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons; it was uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content. When you changed the copyright license to {{PD-US-no-notice}}, you created a conflict between the file's licensing and the non-free use rationale that was added by the original uploader, which is while the template {{Wrong-license}} was subsequently added to the file's page by a bot run by an administrator named Fastily. Until this conflict has been resolved, another bot run by an administrator named JJMC89 will continue to treat the file as non-free content. Perhaps if you can clarify why you feel the file is within the public domain, then things can be sorted out.

How do you know the photo was published without a notice? In many cases, notices for photos such as this were published on their back sides or sometimes in a white border on the front. Have you seem an original copy of the photo's front and back side published somewhere that shows it has no notice (like is shown for File:Lone ranger silver 1965.JPG)? If you can provide any kind of "proof" to corroborate the "no-notice" license, then perhaps it will be OK to finish the license conversion you started; otherwise, the file's license will likely need to be reverted back to what it was before you made the change. You shouldn't simply try and change a non-free file's licensing to a free license just so that it can be used in an article (e.g. Mervyn LeRoy). I'm sure you meant no harm, but image licensing can often be quite tricky to sort out and it's easy to make mistakes. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is quite restrictive as explained here and here, which means that often it's not possible to use a non-free file in multiple articles. JJMC89's bot kept removing the file because it didn't have a non-free use rationale for its use in the LeRoy article per WP:NFC#Implementation. Sometimes this problem can be stopped by adding the missing rationale to the file's page, but not always as explained here. In this case, I'm not sure that this file's non-free use is even justified in Victor Fleming#Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer; so, just because it's being used there doesn't mean it should be being used there. So, if you can demonstrate the file is truly PD, then please do; otherwise, the file may need to also be removed from the Fleming article.

Finally, most of your recent uploads to Commons seem to be under a "no-notice" license, but no corraboration of such claims has really been provided. Most of the sources provided for the photos don't seem to be the original copyright holders of the photos which means it's hard to verify the provenance of each photo and thus whether its possibly still under copyright protection per c:COM:NETCOPYVIO. Issues with Commons files will need to be resolved on Commons, but perhaps by clarifying why you thought those files were OK for Commons, you can help us understand why this one is also OK to be relicensed. You might also want to check at c:COM:VPC to see if your uploads are really OK under a "no-notice" license. Many might be and just need more information added to their file description pages, but those which might not be or which are too close to call might need to be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the fulsome response to this matter.

It is clear from my edit count and history that am what might be termed a "content provider" and not an editor, as such. My wish is to provide a clearly written and engaging encyclopedic account of the filmmaker LeRoy.

If the image in question can be certified for use in article, very well, However, I am entirely unprepared to "defend" my posting of the Oz image. I am prepared, however to bring the photo into compliance if you can provide a step-by-step method (spoon-feeding, as it were). Otherwise, I'll simply drop the issue. Again, thank you. --Lord Such&Such (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Lord Such&Such: The file was originally uploaded as non-free content back in November 2013, and remained as such until you changed the licensing to {{PD-US-no notice}} with this edit a little over a week ago. The original uploader of the file no longer seems to be editing which means there's no way to know why they did what they did. It's possible that they weren't sure about the photo's copyright status and just chose the most restrictive license Wikipedia has for files out of caution. Your edit went completely in the other direction since now the file is licensed under one of the least restrictive licenses that Wikipedia has for files. The file is sourced to www.thejudyroom.com, which appears to be a fan site for Judy Garland. The uploader didn't provide a direct link to the file, but perhaps the photo can be found somewhere on the site. Most of the other photos on that site appear to be borderless and possibly cropped, and they only show the front of the photo. It's possible that the site's owner cropped or did some other tweaking of the photos to make them fit in better with the site as a whole. There doesn't appear to be any information provided about the copyright status of any of the photos shown on the site, but it seems a bit unlikely that they are original content created by the site's owner. The combnation of all of these things makes it hard to verify whether the file is truly "PD-US-no notice". If you can clarify why you think it is, then it might be easier to figure out what to do next.

You've uploaded a number of files to Commons under the same type of license. One of the files you uploaded was File:Girls of the Night (1953 film). Universal Pictures publicity photo. Joyce Holden as Georgia Codray.jpg and you provided rss.listal.com/movie/girls-night-1953/pictures as the source. The same photo, however, can also be seen at www.photo-memory.eu/galerie/joyce-holden-icone-beatnik-girls-in-the-night/ and there looks to be a copyright notice shown in the bottom white border of the photo. It seems like there's a good chance that the person who uploaded the version you found cropped out the borders for aesthetic purposes, but that wouldn't make the photo "no notice" for copyright purposes. That's what the issue is with the Wizard of OZ photo. Seeing a photo used on a website without a copyright notice doesn't always mean it never had a notice. If you found the Wizard of OZ photo on the Judy Garland website or on some other website and the photo has plain white borders or even better the back of the photo is also shown to have no copyright notice, then it might be OK to change the file's licensing as you did; otherwise, continuing to treat the file as non-free may be the safest thing to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Dear Marchjuly - Is I mentioned, I am a content contributor. If you wish to rehabilitate the LeRoy/Oz image to comply with Wiki rules and improve the article, that would be welcome. So far, the other uploads that I've made on Wiki Commons and posted on other Wiki articles have to date not been officially challenged. So far to good. I admire your grasp of this arcane topic. Best regards. --Lord Such&Such (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Dripirrigation.png

I came across File:Dripirrigation.png on Irrigation. It is a nice image, but with a glaring "Courtesy: Jain Irrigation" on it. At Commons, it claims to be both in the public domain, and to require attribution. Can/should the image be modified to remove (or at least minimize) what amounts to an advertisement? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Graphs made in Excel

A well-known RDBMS expert has constructed a graph for an article we're preparing. He made it in Excel and exported it as a PDF. Does anyone know the copyright status of this export?

If it is undetermined, does anyone know of a system we could use to recreate the graph (2D log/linear) an export it in a known-good state?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

non free use rationale for File:NVIDIA_logo.svg on Nvidia_GTC

Hello- am I supposed to upload a new image to Wikimedia Creative Commons? Please advise. It appears the image (File:NVIDIA_logo.svg) is the file available here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NVIDIA_logo.svg I will now add a non free use rationale and hopefully that will fix? Please reach out to me with any additional instructions. Thank you for your patience while I learn.--MariaPass (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)MariaPass

Hi MariaPass. You shouldn't upload the file to Wikimedia Commons unless you're sure that the copyright holder (i.e. Nvidia) is willing to give its c:COM:CONSENT to do so. Basically, Nvidia would need to be willing to release a version of its logo that anyone anywhere in the world can download from Commons at any time and re-use for any purpose (including commercial and derivative re-uses). Most companies are unwilling to do such a thing when it comes to their intellectual property like logos; so, please make sure that Nvidia understands and agrees to c:Commons:Licensing and c:Commons:License revocation before doing that. If Nvidia doesn't have a problem with any of this, then follow the instructions at c:COM:VRT#Licensing images: when do I contact VRT?.

The file uploaded locally to English Wikipedia is OK as licensed, but that file should really only be used in the Nvidia article. Non-free corporate logos such as this are generally only considered OK to use for primary identification purposes at the top of of in the main infobox of stand-alone articles about the corporations they represent; they are almost never considered OK to use in other articles which might be related to the corporation. If, however, there is a specific Nvidia GTC logo that is used by the conference (e.g. some conferences have a specific logo which either is the same year after year or varies each time the conference is held), then you could probably uploaded that locally as non-free content and use that for primary identification purposes in the Nvidia GTC article.

Some other things unrelated to image use that you probably need to be aware of. Since you seem to have declared a COI regarding this subject, you really shouldn't be directly editing the article yourself at all. You should instead be making edit requests on the article talk page so that others can assess the edits you want to make to see whether they're in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you're an Nvidia employee or have otherwise been tasked by Nvidia to create this article, then it's quite possible that you're also going to need to comply with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure if you're being compensated for your editing in any way by Nvidia. You need to be very careful with respect to this because undisclosed paid editing is prohibited by the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use and can lead to an immediate block being issued by a Wikipedia administrator. Please take the time to carefully read through Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and familiarize yourself with relevant Wikipedia policies and guideline before editing the article any further. The more familiar you are with what Wikipedia expects from COI or PAID editors, the less likely you're going to find yourself running into problems down the road. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Which one is it?

I was looking at this photo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Teodoro_Obiang_Nguema_Mbasogo_with_Obamas_2014.jpg

Its WP description says

"This official White House photograph is in the public domain from a copyright perspective, so while restrictions such as personality or privacy rights may apply, in general, manipulations are allowed."

But the source (on Flickr) says

"The photograph may not be manipulated in any way"

So I guess Wikipedia knows better than the U.S. Department of State? 82.78.161.51 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

That addendum on the Flickr page doesnt reflect the reality that works produced by the US Gov't are in the public domain. No agency of the gov't can change rights on the works produced. --Masem (t) 13:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi IP 82.78.161.51. People uploading files to websites like Flickr often mean well, but may not understand that they can't claim really copyright ownership and place restrictions on content that they did not create themselves or which they don't own the copyright on. Sometimes such a thing is done unintentionally by checking the wrong box or something like that, but other times the uploader realizes exactly what they're trying to do. In either case, though, it's still an invalid claim of copyright ownership and may even been considered intentional copyfraud. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Copyright and those restrictions may apply to reuse outside the United States but may not apply to reuse in the United States. See www.usa.gov/government-works for details. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Adding image of a living person using non-free biog-pic

Hello,

I am planning to add images of certain Japanese voice actors/actresses to their Wikipedia articles for visual presentation. I plan to use Template:Non-free biog-pic and Template:Non-free use rationale biog for me to upload those images that I could not find an available free license.

Here is an example:

I am planning to add Minami Tsuda's image from https://www.aoni.co.jp/search/tsuda-minami.html.

Centcom08 (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Greetings. Not to be the bearer of bad news, but we don't want to have non-free images on biographies of living people. WP:NFCC#1 says that one should try to get or make a free image instead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for the reply! I was wondering, can I email the talent agencies that has those images of their talents on their website and have them release for a free license, or what sort of Wikipedia/Wikimedia instructions do I have to follow to achieve that result? Centcom08 (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Centcom08: You can email a copyright holder as explained in WP:PERMISSION (or c:COM:EMAIL), but you will need to (1) be sure they are the copyright holder of the image and (2) make sure they clearly understand WP:CONSENT (or c:COM:CONSENT). Many websites host content that they didn't originally create; so, it's important to make sure that the website didn't get the content from somewhere else because they cannot claim copyright ownership over someone else's creative work. This is important because the only types of WP:Free licenses that Wikipedia (or Wikimedia Commons) accept are basically ones in which the copyright holder agrees to allow anyone anywhere in the world to download their work from Wikipedia (or Wikimedia Commons) at any time for any purpose (inlcuding commerical and derivative use) and they can't change their mind once they do so. The copyright owner isn't transfering their copyright ownership to Wikipedia or any other third-party, but they are making a version of it freely available for others to use as they see fit. Since this could possibly include ways that the original copyright holder may not approve of or may not otherwise benefit from, some original copyright holders are reluctant to do release their work this way. Some editors have had success in emailing copyright holders, but others probably not as much. If you do email someone and they say OK but only for Wikipedia purposes, only for educational purposes, only for non-commercial purposes, etc., then such conditions would be too restrictive for Wikipedia and Commons. If you email someone and they OK and have no problem giving their CONSENT, then you should upload the file to Wikimedia Commons and follow the instructions given in c:COM:VRT#Licensing images: when do I contact VRT?. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia image being sold online

On Monday, 28 November 2011 I paid the artist, Alan Birch, £200 to colourise the mezzotint of General Sir Charles Asgill. This colourised image has been on his Wikipedia page ever since: Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet. I have now seen that the work I paid for is being sold for $138 by TBMXM Store (currently reduced to $20.70) under the banner "oil painting, Sir Charles Asgill chief party in the Asgill Affair. N15968" [16]. It isn’t and never was, an oil painting, as already described, it is a mezzotint.

My questions are: (1) is this allowed by Wikipedia/Wikimedia (2) is there any way of preventing this happening again in future and (3) where does the artist himself stand in all this? I understand that this may well be no problem from the Wikipedia/Wikimedia stand-point, but it is not OK by me. Can anyone help me to prevent further occurrences of this sort of thing? Anne (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Arbil44, the image was uploaded to Wikipedia on Nov 29, 2011 with the "statement: "Colorized image uploaded to Wikipedia by Tim Davenport and released without restriction." The license given with it was that the image was in the public domain. That may not have been what was intended, but that says that anyone can do what they like with it. This does completely ignore the artist's copyright in the coloring so it is an error and a copyright violation. The artist should upload their work and pick the desired license. See c:Commons:First steps/License selection. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

StarryGrandma, thank you for your reply. I know that the artist handed over his copyright when I paid him and that he, himself, would have no problems and, indeed, once uploaded, I sent him a link to the Asgill page, and he commented how nice it looked. From the outset, he knew why I wanted it colourised - for Wikipedia. This really is not an issue at all. Tim Davenport uploaded the image for me because I did not know how to do so (my IT skills leave a great deal to be desired). I did not know anything about the copyright situation at the time, and never thought about anyone downloading it and selling it for profit (which has clearly been going on for years). So, is it possible to change the licence in any way to prevent it being sold for profit? I find it offensive that anyone would do that, especially since it cost me a lot. Anne (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Anne, I am sorry to say that all the available licenses for images on Wikipedia allow commercial reuse. The most you can do is require that a company attribute the image and any modified image to the Wikipedia entry for the file. (They often don't do that anyway.) StarryGrandma (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Bad news that I must swallow up StarryGrandma! I won't shoot the messenger! Anne (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Arbil44: You can request that the file be deleted and explaining what you explained above, but that wouldn't really stop anyone who previously downloaded the file to continue to use it as long as they comply with the terms of the license as explained in c:COM:REUSE. You can also try and take outside action against the other party as explained in c:COM:ENFORCE or maybe in c:COM:NCR, but there's not really anything that the Wikimedia Foundation can do to aid you in that. Editors aren't really supposed to give legal advice on Wikipedia or Commons related matters, but you can try contacting the Wikimedia Foundation directly by email and perhaps they can give you more specific advice. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Marchjuly, it was kind of you to explain my options. But that sounds like a tortuous route which will probably not get me anywhere, and even a deletion request would probably be tortuous and very time-consuming too! Besides, I wouldn't want to revert to the boring mezzotint, since I'm a fan of colour! I must accept that others have, and will continue, to benefit from my expenditure. Anne (talk) 08:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)