Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2023/August

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Early uploads policy

Where is the guideline on image uploads made to the English Wikipedia before a certain date that were grandfathered into presumption of permission status? I.e., an image is uploaded in 2006 and the uploader claims to be the copyright holder but is no longer around to answer questions about the image. Do we delete the image if there is any lack of clarity about the uploader's status in releasing the photo, or do we grandfather in images of a certain upload age? I thought the latter but can't find the policy. Asking about File:JulianBeck.jpg in particular. czar 00:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Czar: Commons has a page about this at c:COM:GRANDFATHER, and I've always just assumed that Wikipedia just followed that. The file you're asking is actually from Commons but it's too recent to be eligible for grandfathering. However, whether it's something that should be VRT verified might depend on which Commons administrator you ask. For example, some administrators seem to be more willing to give the uploader the benefit of doubt, particularly when there's not a really good reason to think otherwise (e.g. photo was clearly previously published prior to upload). You're both a Commons and Wikipedia administrator. Would you delete this file if someone tagged this file with c:COM:NPD? Would you decline speedy deletion and send the file to c:COM:DR instead? FWIW, a Google image seach shows there's lots of images of Beck being used online, but none of them are really close to this one and nothing about these other images makes me think the uploader wasn't being truthful about their upload's provenance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, that's the page. If I was reviewing this image, I'd delete per precedent (or send to discussion if the contributor hasn't already been notified), but personally I don't view it to be a probable issue and wouldn't nominate it myself. czar 02:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

==

This request applies to the two images linked, which are castle plans created by Cadw, a Welsh government agency responsible for heritage.

I downloaded the plans from the Cadw website, here and here respectively. Although the images are somewhat 'hidden' within the website, the Cadw copyright statement is clear that 'You may use and re-use the information featured in this website (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence.' With some exceptions the Open Government Licence allows free use of images, including for commercial purposes, and is accepted by Wikimedia Commons. I therefore believed the images were covered under that licence.

However, because I still wasn't quite sure I decided to email Cadw, and received this very helpful reply:

The ground plans on the [Cadw] website have been placed there for illustrative purposes to inform applicants looking to hire a site for an event and/or filming, which is why they have no download option. [...]
High resolution ground plans of our sites are available for non-commercial use via the Cymru Wales Digital Asset Library. You can find them in English using the tag ‘ground plan’ or in Welsh using the tag ‘cynllun llawr’. The asset library sets out their copyright status, and section 4 of the terms and conditions sets out how they should be credited and what can be done with them. They are available on a rights-managed basis and can be downloaded from the site at no charge for educational purposes. Downloading is free, as is registration with the asset library.
Cadw has been granted a delegation of authority by the Keeper of Public Records (who manages Crown copyright licensing) to licence Crown assets separately from open licensing; so we have opted, along with other departments in Welsh Government who currently licence assets through the Asset Library, to retain a light rights-managed approach to licensing the image assets we maintain. As a general rule, we permit the ground plans to be used for historical guides or books, class, lecture or course materials, and archaeological, historical or architectural reports, papers, periodicals or articles, as these highlight the sites within their historical context and tangentially encourage readers to visit them; but they cannot be used for purely commercial purposes.

Unfortunately the email doesn't fully address which licence the plan images on the Cadw website itself fall under, so I'm still none the wiser. It also doesn't mention the People's Collection Wales, where Cadw have also uploaded many of their site plans and which has a less restrictive (but still non-commercial) license. Although it would be very helpful to be able to use the plans in the articles about the castles they're not absolutely essential, and I'm not trying to find a way around the copyright. Rather, I just want some help understanding it! Thanks, A.D.Hope (talk) 12:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope, whilst perhaps poor clarification of Cadw's part (by not placing an explicit statement of excemption below the image), I believe they are saying they are not the copyright holders and hence have an agreement as to which they do not OGL licence the respective images. As a result, the images are currently Crown Copyright and not OGL.
If the plans were published commercially the copyright will expire in 2054, but if not they will expire in 2129(!), by which time I unfortunately doubt that anyone here will live to readd the content. You might be able to contact the copyright holders (i.e. Assets Wales at imagesupport@gov.wales) and ask for permission, though to be honest knowing the nightmarish beauracracy of central government I doubt it'll work. Worth a try at least. – Isochrone (T) 13:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
My understanding is that material produced by Cadw is under Crown copyright and simply termed 'Cadw copyright' or similar to distinguish it from all the other material produced under Crown copyright; the top of the Cadw website's copyright page uses the form '© Crown copyright (Cadw), 2021' and it explicitly states 'most of the material featured on this site is subject to Crown copyright protection.' Other government bodies are similar; the RCAHMW, for example, states that 'all material being used under this licence must be acknowledged as follows: Crown Copyright: Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales.' It's all Crown copyright material, just assigned to a specific body.
I believe that Cadw are saying that they are the copyright holders and that their material on their website can be freely used under the OGL licence unless that material is explicitly identified as third party. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
To me, the following is quite explicit:

As a general rule, we permit the ground plans to be used for historical guides or books, class, lecture or course materials, and archaeological, historical or architectural reports, papers, periodicals or articles, as these highlight the sites within their historical context and tangentially encourage readers to visit them; but they cannot be used for purely commercial purposes.

However there is probably no harm in shooting them another email and asking them for a clear clarification as to whether the plans are definitvely OGL licenced or rights managed. – Isochrone (T) 14:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
A second email might be the only way, as to me the following is equally explicit:

Most of the material featured on this site is subject to Crown copyright protection. You may use and re-use the information featured in this website (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence.

The answer may simply be that Cadw uses multiple licences, and the relevant one depends on where an image is hosted. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
@Isochrone I'm wondering, having looked at the Wales Digital Asset Library terms, if it would be possible to use the images under WP:NFCCP or if they're just too restrictive to bother with. If you have a minute could you possibly have a look? Thank you, A.D.Hope (talk) 10:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
By no-free equivalent, could something not be made from OSM data or out of copyright OS maps? For two, as they sell rights to the image it could be argued it infringes on that as well. I'm not well-versed enough in NFC to comment but it seems borderline. – Isochrone (T) 18:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Using a file on Wikicommons

In an edit to Self-reference, I used a file that exists on Wikicommons [File:131hook32973.jpg] and is used in the infobox for the article Dr. Hook & The Medicine Show. It appears this file has been on Wikicommons in its current form since 2015 and was uploaded in a larger size in 2006. Does this count as a grandfathered file? Was the edit to Self-reference undone by a bot because it can only be used, under fair use, one time i.e. on the Dr. Hook page? I did not write any of the Wikicommons info, but I think the "Purpose of use" justification is sound and particularly relevant to the Self-reference page. I'm hoping an administrator could help me understand what caused the bot to undo the post, and whether it can be reverted. As mentioned in my edit note to Self-reference, I think that article could use a different kind of example, since 2 of 3 visual examples provided involved self-referential graffiti. Thank you for your thoughts and your help. TeiseiMG (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The file is not on Commons. It is uploaded locally at the English Wikipedia as non-free content. The bot removed the usage at self-reference because the image does not have a non-free usage rationale explaining how it meets the non-free content critera for use on that article. Given that the article is already illustrated with freely licensed images, I don't think you would be able to justify the use of a non-free image for the article per WP:NFCC#1. Whpq (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Correct tags

Hi there, can you please answer a question about the File:Arthur Atkinson motorcycle speedway rider, John Player and Sons 1937 cigarette card.png. Am I using the right licensing tags? I have uploaded an image and added two tags. However, one has been changed and I am not sure why. I wish to load more from my collection but want to make sure I use the rights licensing tags. I mentioned 50 years because of the copyright for Anonymous works:50 years from the date made available to the public (which was 1937). I thought this would make it OK for both USA as well as being OK for Europe. Please advise. Thanks Pyeongchang (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Pyeongchang this is a great example of how messy copyright laws become when more than one jurisdiction has to considered.
  1. Wikipedia policy is that to be totally "free" images need to be PD in both their home country and the US.
  2. There is no doubt that this image is PD in the UK (I would use {{PD-UK-unknown}} rather than the EU template you've used). The question that is relevant is when it became PD in the UK.
  3. You correctly identified that under the UK Copyright Act 1911 which was the act in force when the image was published, this image would have, and did, become PD on 1 January 1988. However The Duration of Copyright and Rights in Performances Regulations 1995 harmonised UK laws with the EU by extending the protection period from 50 years to 70. Controversially, the change revived copyright on items which were over 50 years old but were less than 70 years old.
  4. This image is of an age to have been caught by this provision. It did not re-enter the PD until 1 January 2008.
  5. The crucial date for determining US copyright is 1 January 1996. Works not published in the US and PD in their home country on that date are also PD in the US. Had the copyright extension in the UK not happened this image would be PD in the US but, unfortunately, the extension means that it wasn't PD in the UK on 1 Jan 1996 and therefore isn't PD in the US. Even with the UK withdrawal from the EU the provision of the 1995 regulations still applies AFAIK.
  6. The result is that the image has to be considered as non-free as far as Wikipedia is concerned and needs to comply with the non-free content criteria.
Nthep (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

What CC license for audio files

An Italian region has managed to record the official pronunciations of 74 municipalities in a minority language and published them on their website. I have spoken with the department that holds the copyright to the pronunciations so that they may release said recordings on a CC license. They seem particularly hesitant with respect to CC-BY-SA's allowance of commercialization.

Reading WP:FCT, am I correct in assuming that an audio file with a CC license without commercialization (NC) would not be allowed on Wikipedia/Wikimedia? Pilaz (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Correct. A license must allow for commercial use in order to be used as free content on Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 13:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The representative image, File:Lego Minecraft.png, has been tagged for deletion by Iruka13 for not complying with non-free content criteria. Could the file be saved if we change its licensing to something more accurate - specifically PD-textlogo, given that it's a typeface with simple geometric shapes? BOTTO (T•C) 12:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Withdraw: Upon further investigation, I now see that Shebejeyebeb uploaded a newer logo that fits as a replacement for what I uploaded. Therefore, I am in support of abandoning this topic and seeing my file deleted. BOTTO (T•C) 18:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Uploading Photo but unsure of copyright/licenses?

I want to upload a picture of accounting scholar Dale Flesher when receiving the SEC award in 2017. Photo is by Robert Jordan/Ole Miss Communications. Photo is from this link: https://news.olemiss.edu/um-accountancy-professor-wins-sec-faculty-achievement-award/ I believe it would qualify as nonfree use even if it is restricted/copyrighted somehow. How should I upload this? MargaretZ26 (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@MargaretZ26 Fine photo that it is, it is almost inevitably going to fail to meet the non-free content criteria as it's replaceable by a free file (criteria #1). As Flesher is still alive, it is possible for a free file to be created of him. Nthep (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I want to be certain I understand how this works. If the copyright holder posts an image on Wikimedia Commons and waives all rights, that waiver does not apply to other instances of that image that appear elsewhere on the Internet. The waiver applies only to the image as it appears on Wikimedia commons and Wikipedia pages where it is used. Do I have that right? Thanks. EdisonSmith (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

If a copyright holder posts a photograph under such a waiver that is limited to Wikipedia/Wikimedia sites only , then it would violate Commons' licensing policy and should be deleted from Commons. Commons requires that files uploaded be licensed under terms that allow re-use and the creation of derivative works by anyone, anytime, and for any purpose; restricting the use such that it could only be used on Wikipedia/Wikimedia sites does not meet this requirement.
If you are asking about what happens when an uploader uploads a file under a valid Creative Commons license: yes, that license is worldwide, non-exclusive, and is not limited to Wikipedia/Wikimedia sites. Images on Commons that have valid free licenses can be re-used in books, on coffee mugs, etc. so long as the licensing terms of the relevant license are followed.
Is there a specific image you have a question about? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
I apologize for being confusing and thanks for your response. I'm asking about a case where an image (book cover in this situation) already appears at various resolutions on non-Wikipedia sites around the web and is copyright-protected in those appearances. The copyright owner is fine with posting one particular instance of the image at a lesser resolution on Wikimedia Commons, and for that instance of the image to be altered and/or reused anywhere on the Internet and in the literal world. However, in granting that waiver, he does not want to waive copyright protections on the printed cover of his book, or versions of the image already appearing elsewhere on the Internet at higher resolutions. The Wikimedia Commons image would be copyright free--no restrictions on reuse anywhere in anyway or form. Thanks for any help. EdisonSmith (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
@EdisonSmith: To clarify your question: Are you asking that if a low-res copy of the image is released under a CC license, does that license apply to a high res version of that same photo that might be posted somewhere else? I think the answer is that it does not apply to the high res version. RudolfRed (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate your answer. I believe you are correct, I'm just hoping for confirmation. EdisonSmith (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Does File:Mouk TV series logo.png pass the threshold of originality?

I uploaded it as non-free because I thought the "furriness" of the text passed the threshold. User:The Quirky Kitty didn't, changing the licensing to public domain. Can this be settled? ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 00:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@PrincessPandaWiki: You can start a discussion about the file at WP:FFD to whether a WP:CONSENSUS could be established either way. You could also ask about the file at c:COM:VPC to see whether the file would be something considered acceptable for Commons. In either case, whatever consenus is established will be imperfect in the sense that all English Wikipedia and Commons users are volunteers just giving you their opinion or their assessment on whether they think the file is eligible for copyright protection. There are no professional Wikimedia Foundation staff who officially assess the copyright status of such logos and which legally represent that foundtion in such matters. The only way to settle this for sure would be to determine whether an application for copyright protection was filed by the company which created the logo which was then approved, or to find a court case involving the logo in which it was clearly determined to be eligible for copyright protection. Absent any such "evidence", the best anyone can do is make a reasonable assessment based upon their interpretation of c:COM:TOO United States and c:COM:TOO France. Personally, I don't think this logo would be complex enough to be considered copyrightable under US copyright law, but I'm not so sure about France. Since Commons requires logos to be too simple for copyright protection in both the US where the Commons servers are located and in the country of first publication (which I'm assuming is France), it's possible that Commons wouldn't be able to host this file. It should, however, be OK to host locally on English Wikipedia as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}, which is often used for logos which are likely PD in the US but not in their country of first publication. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

European League logo and other handball logos

Why can't I use the EHF European League logo and other handball club competition logos on articles for specific seasons? ILoveSport2006 (talk) 11:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi ILoveSport2006.The EHF logo is (File:EHF European League 2020.png) is licensed as non-free content which means each use of it on any Wikipedia page needs to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. This policy is quite restrictive and generally it allows logos to only be used for primary identification purposes at the tops of or in the main infoboxes of the main stand-alone articles about the organization, event, company, team, etc. that the logo represents. For logos of sports leagues, this generally mean the logo's use is limited to the main stand-alone article about the league itself. For other articles related to the league (e.g. articles about individual seasons), it's generally not considered OK to simply keep reusing the main logo over and over again per non-free content use criterion #3 and item 14 of WP:NFC#UUI; in such cases, either using a season-specific logo (if one exists) or using no logo at all is considered to be more in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Lester Dent.jpg

Is the PD tag on this photo acceptable? We're trying to decide which photo to use in this Thursday's TFA. - Dank (push to talk) 12:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Dank: Since the file was uploaded to Commons, you probably want to ask about it at c:COM:VPC to make sure. My personal opinion is that the license is questionable at best. It could be PD, but there's no way to really assess that without knowing more about the provenance of the file. It's very unlikely that Find a Grave vetts any of the images it hosts, and that site is almost certainly not the original source of the photo. So, just assuming that the photo is {{PD-US-no notice}} because the photo Find a Grave is hosting doesn't have one is a mistake in my opinion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 12:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Mohun Bagan Super Giant.svg

@JJMC89 and then @JJMC89 bot removed this file from the Mohun Bagan AC page. This is the landing page for the multi-sports club, as well as the page dedicated to its football division. Currently, the football division is known as Mohun Bagan Super Giant, where Super Giant is the brand name used by the new investor. Accordingly, the football division uses a slightly modified logo. Therefore, this logo was also included in a separate infobox. What is the issue? Mohunbagani (talk) 10:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@JJMC89 I am once again requesting you to respond to my question instead of deleting the logo again and again. Mohunbagani (talk) 04:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
I believe that this edit is valid enforcement of WP:NFCCP#10.c, and that neither the bot nor JJMC89 is to blame.
That being said, there is a still a problem. It seems that the Article field of the {{Non-free use rationale 2}} template only accomodates a single article. What is the OP supposed to do when there are two articles where the image should be used, with a valid justification for either? Copy-paste the template twice? TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 14:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
There has to be an appropriate rationale for each use. So, yes, copying the template and adjusting accordingly is fine.
In this case I'm not seeing the justification for both logos. One justification for a logo is to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the entity in question.
Note primary. Either the article is about the parent group, in which case the group logo is applicable; or the article is about the football team, in which case the football logo is applicable. Using both is not primary, one will be secondary and thus fails the rationale. Nthep (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

This image was cropped from File:P20211102AS-2249-2 (51846559463).jpg, an official White House photograph featuring both Prince Charles (as he was called then) and President Joe Biden, and whose license says among others "The photograph may not be manipulated in any way […]". IIUC, extracting less than half of the image in order to display it without the rest is "some way of manipulation" therefore forbidden by that license. — Tonymec (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

That file is not protected by copyright as a US government work. The law explicitly says that. The federal agency that published it can say that they don't want you to alter it, but it lacks the force of law. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 04:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, please I need assistance.

Each time I upload a photograph of of a living person picked from reliable news portals, admins keeps flagging it for deletion.

I usually state that I am not the author or creator of those images and I so include the link of the news websites where I picked the images from. Yet they still always delete them for copyright issues. All the people are write about on contribute on a successful public figures whose images are freely used in the public domain

Please what can I do? Semilore90 (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

You have also asked this question on the help desk. Please only ask in one location. However, you have a misunderstanding of copyright. For something to be in the public domain, it needs to be actually released into such. Most images (and text for that matter) is owned by someone. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
@Semilore90 Public domain has a very specific meaning and is not the same as being available to the public. News photos of living people are almost certainly not public domain, they have a copyright holder. Unless the copyright holder has made a explicit statement to the contrary, then the protection of copyright laws applies and any usage of the image without the copyright holder's permission is a copyright violation. Nthep (talk) 06:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Alright. Noted
Thanks for the clarification Semilore90 (talk) 06:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Kix

I fixed the Kix page. 2A00:23C8:3984:6201:65D4:C916:EDCC:7670 (talk) 07:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Albi Mall Superliga logo.svg

File:Albi Mall Superliga logo.svg, which was used in the 2022–23 Football Superleague of Kosovo, is also being used in the 2023–24 Football Superleague of Kosovo.[1] Can you arrange for the logo to be used on both items? ManiacOfSport (talk) 12:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually, its shouldn't be used in the 2022-23 season article. I've nominated it for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "AlbiMall Superliga" [AlbiMall Superleague] (in Albanian). Football Federation of Kosovo. Retrieved 18 August 2023.

Inquiry to put Insignia of Bangladesh Infantry Regiment on Bangladesh Infantry Regimental Centre

The Logo of BIRC follows the same logo as Bangladesh Infantry regiment since it is the centre and school of the regiment itself. Other than that, it comes under Army Training and Doctrine command. 2607:FEA8:571F:B850:2C32:CDC:23E6:4A7D (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Newspapers.com

Hello. I am wondering if you're allowed to upload clippings (Images of people and stuff) found on Newspapers.com to Wikimedia. It should be fine if the newspaper is public domain ie pre 1923 at the moment I believe but I just don't know if the website hosting the papers has any rights in play. Newspapers.com let's you clip things and freely download them so I'm thinking it should be fine as long as the underlying paper is public domain. Thoughts? Thanks in advance! Clyde Jimpson of the Arkansas String Beans (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Generally speaking, an exact copy of a two-dimensional work, such as scanning or photographing it, does not, in the United States, give the person or organization who made the scan or photograph any copyright interest in the work, as there is not sufficient creative effort to pass the threshold of originality, with the best known case there being Bridgeman v. Corel. So if the underlying work was public domain, the scan/photograph is in the public domain as well. (It's not generally so for 3D works.) Since newspapers are 2D works, I believe you should be fine to upload such images, provided of course that the underlying newspaper is indeed in the public domain. Laws in other jurisdictions can vary on that, though, so be careful to check that if you plan to use any material from outside the US. (You may also want to check newspapers.com's terms of use; if they hold that you agree not to do that, you could still be liable under a breach of contract theory or the like, even if not liable for copyright violation.) As always, though, that's just my best guess, it is not legal advice, and it's worth exactly as much as you paid for it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi Clyde Jimpson of the Arkansas String Beans. Just going to add to what Seraphimblade posted above that it's pretty much never necessary to upload scans of newspaper articles to Wikipedia, particularly when the uploaded content is primarily text, per MOS:TEXTASIMAGES even when copyright isn't a concern because the original content is within the public domain. Files of text only content can create MOS:ACCESS problems for those who might be "reading" Wikipedia using assistive devices (e.g. screen readers). In most cases, quotes from cited articles can usually be incorporated in much easier ways and simply supported by a citation to relevant source. It's also not necessary for newspaper articles cited as sources in Wikipedia articles to actually be available online per WP:PUBLISHED as long as the source itself meets Wikipedia's deinition for a reliable source and is used in proper context. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Not as sources, but I could see such images being useful for the article about the newspaper itself. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
thanks for the help everyone. This is incredibly helpful as sometimes Newspapers.com is the only way to find a portrait of people so it’s helpful knowing I can upload these (Newspaper copyright dependant). Clyde Jimpson of the Arkansas String Beans (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Hackney Diamonds cover image

Hackney Diamonds was created yesterday, following the discovery of a teaser ad in a London newspaper. The ad is widely believed to refer to a forthcoming Rolling Stones album. Regarding the artwork, the article states that it was posted on the band's social media profiles, but this is not correct. It was actually posted inadvertently on the design agency's website, and has since been taken down. So, is it OK to have this artwork in the article? Nothing official has yet been announced or released by the band or their management concerning this album. Many thanks, --Viennese Waltz 09:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#4 requires that there be previous publication by or with the permission of the copyright holder. If this was an accidental release on the design agency web site, then this criterion of the non-free content criteria is not met. Use of non-free content must meet all of the criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I suspected that would be the case. I don't have a horse in this race and won't be taking any action myself, I was just drawing attention to the issue in case anyone else feels strongly enough to do something about it. Courtesy ping to User:Koavf, who created the article and uploaded the image. --Viennese Waltz 13:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
If you accidentally publish something, then you publish something. I don't see how being an accident changes anything. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
My issue is more that we don't actually know yet if the image you uploaded is going to be the album cover or not. As I said above, nothing has been officially announced yet. --Viennese Waltz 15:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
If it's different, then we change it. That is not a copyright issue. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's a copyright issue. I'm saying there are no reliable sources which state that it's the cover image. The album hasn't been released yet and its existence hasn't even been officially acknowledged. --Viennese Waltz 16:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Can I add a movie poster from IMDB to an article (still in draft stage) I am writing on a new movie?

hello! I want to add this movie poster https://www.imdb.com/title/tt28686328/mediaviewer/rm2971556097/?ref_=tt_ov_i to a draft I am writing about the movie Man Suang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Man_Suang

is it possible to upload the poster on the info box of this article?

guidance is really appreciated!

SilverQuill27 (talk) 05:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi SilverQuill27. Non-free content cannot be used in drafts per non-free content use criterion #9. So, if you add a non-free file to a draft, it will be removed by either a WP:BOT tasked to do such things or a human file reviewer. If the file has no other possible uses that satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, it will eventually be deleted. Since most movie posters tend to be eligible for copyright protection and need to be treated as non-free content, it's better to wait until the draft has been approved as an article before adding any non-free content to it as explained in WP:DRAFTS#Preparing drafts. Finally, adding a movie poster or any other images to your draft has no effect on whether it will be accepted as an article; that pretty much depends upon whether the subject is deemed to meet Wikipedia:Notability (films); so, I suggest focusing on that and worrying about adding images later. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
okay I understand! Thanks for explaining! : ) SilverQuill27 (talk) 06:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Scan of German Church record from 1800s

Hello, I have uploaded a scan of a birth record at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Church_Record_-_henselt_birth_date.png I believe this to be public record and am unaware of any copyright or licensing issue. However the file is marked for deletion pending the appropriate licensing tag. With what should I tag it? Any help appreciated. Peter at GclefPublishing (talk) 09:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

One might ask WHY you uploaded it? Of what use is it to Wikipedia? Theroadislong (talk) 10:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
I changed the birthdate of the person to which the wiki page refers. The image of the church record shows the evidence of the birthdate. The use is to make a Wiki entry correct an authentic. Can you offer any guidance as to the tags that I should use? Peter at GclefPublishing (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
If you directly scanned the original source (not a reprint or something like that) Template:PD-old-100 is probably applicable. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 10:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice, I have added the Template PD-old-100 and hope that is acceptable to the admins. Peter at GclefPublishing (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Remember, an original record like this which has not been published in any public compilation is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. Primary sources, including birth certificates, the Social Security Death Index, and court documents, are usually not acceptable primary sources, because it is impossible for the viewer to know whether the person listed on the document is the notable subject rather than another person who happens to have the same name.--Orange Mike | Talk 00:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Fair point, but how else can someone verify the birthdate of a notable person for Wikipedia purposes? Peter at GclefPublishing (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
If no reliable sources verify the birth date, it should generally be omitted, like any other unverifiable information. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
His article in the Deutsche Biographie gives the same birth date as the Taufbuch.(digital entry, scan of original) You can use that for attribution. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Hmmm...actually the Deutsche Biographie and the Taufbuch have different dates of birth! Thanks for the links though. 24.146.50.227 (talk) 12:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Both have May 9, 1814 as birth date and October 10, 1889 as date of death. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
I disagree with this. Barring exceptional circumstances, a birth record is a reliable source for when a given person was born. Such a use is allowed by WP:PRIMARY: A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.
Of course, if there is the slightest amount of doubt about the provenance or authenticity of the record, it should not be used. But that does not seem to be the case here, and the record comes with a clear bibliographic notice of which archive it comes from; I see no reason to doubt its accuracy. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 12:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Can File:BRICS Russia 2020.svg get a public domain tag?

I added {{Maybe free media}} to File:BRICS Russia 2020.svg a while back, and someone reverted my edit referencing a discussion about freedom of panorama in Spain. So I will ask it here: Can this file get a public domain tag? I think it should be retagged {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} since Russia's threshold of originality is fairly low according to Commons. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The link in the revert comment is apparently unrelated to this image. The logo design looks simple enough, but not sure about the authorship and copyright status of this svg version. Commons already has a jpg version, although with very dubious authorship and copyright claims by the uploader. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Essentially I am trying to upload a photo of the Draft:Arkville Maze, though I'm running into some difficulty in doing so. It seems that Satellite images from say google maps would not be allowed, but essentially all photos of said maze are private.

I did however reach out to a small photo management company/estate that has the rights to a particularly high resolution aerial photo of the maze. While they are unsure about allowing the image to be rendered completely into public domain, they said that they would be apt to allow the image to be used on Wikipedia if given proper accreditation. I don't think this is permissible, but I figured I would ask here as I'm feeling somewhat out of options on how else to get a photo of this maze here. Thanks! A MINOTAUR (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

They can't allow usage in only Wikipedia, but they don't need to donate it to the public domain either. They can upload it as a CC-BY-SA license. In plain English, it means you can use it as long as you credit them. And if you publish a new version of it, you have to release it under the same terms. The easiest way is to ask them if they would be okay with that, and ask them to upload it to Wikimedia Commons themselves.
The full guide is at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
@A MINOTAUR One possibility for the copyright holder is to "donate" a low-res version of their image. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
To put it another way, is the company willing to release a version of their image under one of the "ok" licenses here:[1]? They can do so on their own website like in this example: [2], see CC BY-SA mark under photo. Or upload it on Commons, but in that case they will probably need to verify they are who they say they are. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång @The Quirky Kitty Thank you both for your responses! They're very helpful. I think I'll wait (and cross my fingers) until the draft is reviewed and then pursue further. Aside from the methods suggested by you two I consider that I may be able to make a representation in a drafting software or even request an image from another Wikipedian (the gravestone of the artist who made the maze happens to have it's design carved within it, pretty cool!). Regardless, I appreciate your expertise in this matter - it's invaluable to newer editors such as myself. A MINOTAUR (talk) 23:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
You're welcome. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
@A MINOTAUR: In case you are not aware, Wikipedia:Graphics Lab is the central place to ask requests for illustrations to be created. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 12:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
@Tigraan Thank you! I was unaware, but that and the photography lab seem like just what I was looking for (I tried to make my own 3D render but it's hardly my specialty). A MINOTAUR (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Is File:Clara MacBeth undated photo.jpg in the public domain?

File:Clara MacBeth undated photo.jpg currently is listed as a non-free fair use image. Could it be in the public domain under {{PD-US-no notice}}? The image is listed here on the 26 February 1970 edition of the New York Daily News without a copyright notice for the image. But the front page of the 26 February 1970 edition of the New York Daily News has a copyright notice ("Copr. 1970 News Syndicate Co. Inc."). Does that mean the image is copyrighted based on the copyright notice on the front page of the newspaper? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Cunard. Generally, only advertisments appearing in print publications at that time were required to have separate copyright notices; so, photos appearing in articles or in other parts of the publication were (I'm pretty sure) covered by the copyright notice for the publication itself, unless they were otherwise attributed. Some photos used by papers back then and even still today aren't the original work of the paper itself, but came from other sources. Lots of wire services provide not only text content but also images; so, it would be important to figure out the provenance of that photo and when perhaps it was first published. The safe thing to do would be to leave it as non-free, but you can try asking about this at c:COM:VPC since that's where the photo will eventually end up if it is either {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}, which are two licenses often applied to such photos. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the detailed response, Marchjuly (talk · contribs)! This is very useful to know. I've also asked at c:COM:VPC as you suggested. Cunard (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Susan Kozma-Orlay photo

I've recently published a short article about Susan Kozma-Orlay and am wondering if the photo used at the top of this source might be acceptable for use in the article? Based on the knowledge we have, it was likely taken in Budapest in the 1930s. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Cl3phact0 Looking at the photo and the article, 1930s is my guess too. Yes, you can use it. Go to WP:FUW, choose "Upload a non-free file" > "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use." > "This is a historical portrait of a person no longer alive." Consider cropping it a little. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 Done (If you have a minute, please verify I've actually done this correctly: File:Susan_Kozma-Orlay_(née_Zsuzsa_Kozma;_1913–2008).jpg – I've had difficulty uploading images in the past.)
Thank you. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Apart from being too big - which is easily dealt with - looks fine to me. Nthep (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
@Cl3phact0 That looks fine to me, and bots will take care of any size/resolution problem (fair use mustn't be too big), see the edit history here [3] for an example. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. The photo enhances the article nicely!
Is there any way to avoid having the "bots" add to my "Deleted edits" count? If it weren't for photo related deletions (most or all of which I believe had solid fair-use justification – though I don't know how to make this case or if it's even possible to rectify the deletions), my "Live edits" would be 100%. (I probably shouldn't care, but I do.)
-- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't think so, but I wouldn't worry about it. I'm at 1.5% [4] myself, hopefully that's mostly from deleted articles and drafts, and not edits admins felt had to be hidden from the public. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Image taken from Instagram of subject of article

Hi, this diff is the addition of an image from Shobna Gulati's Instagram (as in edit summary and confirmed on editor's Talk page). I think that is probably not ok, but I am not too experienced with images so thought I would check here - thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Instagram posts are copyrighted. Unless the copyright holder explicitly states that the posted image is under a specific free license, then the image is not freely licensed. I have yet to see an image from Instagram that has a free license statement on it. I'll note that the image has been uploaded to Commons, with a claim that it is own work which is not true. -- Whpq (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I've removed the image and let the editor know. Tacyarg (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Mexican peso

Mexican peso is currently using 103 non-free files and is leading Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages containing an unusually high number of non-free files by a lot. Is this massive use of non-free files really justified? Jonteemil (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

No, it's not. A representative example or maybe two of modern notes is fine under NFCC, but not exhaustively listing hundreds of nonfree images of every type. I'll try to clean that up when I can, as some images there are free. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Magazine covers

Where can I find guidance on the use of magazine covers as a subject identification reference for a biographical article? There are no portraits of the subject on commons, but he is featured on a few magazine covers. The question is whether this is a fair-use case for an infobox photo. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Cl3phact0: The answer depends on when and where it was published. Details of who the photographer was and whether they are alive or dead, and if so when, are also useful. Can you be more specific? Provide a link so it can be reviewed. ww2censor (talk) 10:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
ww2censor: It is a 2017 cover of the Sydney Morning Herald / Good Weekend Magazine supplement. I'm not able to ascertain who the photographer is from the image the publication posted here, nor do I have access to a hard copy of the magazine itself. I would like to include a single instance of the cover (at whatever resolution is deemed acceptable) in the infobox of the article of about David Caon. Having seen other BLP articles where this technique is used, it seemed possible that it might be a simple way to add an identifying image of the subject. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Cl3phact0: Unfortunately not as simple as you suggest. Our strict non-free policy does not allow images of living people because it is possible for a new image to be created and released under a free licence. For deceased people, though not recently dead, a non-free image is usually allowed and that may be what you have seen. ww2censor (talk) 11:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks ww2censor, nothing simple about any of this. Didn't mean to imply otherwise! I have read and re-read the policy, and still find myself unsure of how to interpret certain aspects (hence my caution and presence here on this thread). Is the hypothetical "or could be created" the clause that proscribes an image of a living person? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
@Cl3phact0 Basically yes. Unless you can establish that it's impossible (or as close as) for somebody to create a free image of a living person then WP:NFCC#1 says no to using a non-free image. A recent example is Lucy Letby where a non-free image of her is justified on the basis tha her whole life term of imprisonment makes it impossible to create a free image of her. Nthep (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi Cl3phact0. Just going to add what Nthep and Ww2censor posted above and also point out that the way you seem to be looking to use one of these magazine covers is also generally not allowed per WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and item 9 of WP:NFC#UUI even in cases where the person appearing on the cover is deceased. In some cases where the magazine cover itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary, it can be OK to use a non-free image of it in the body of an article in support of content about the cover, but generally such images shouldn't be used in the main infobox for primary identification purposes. Finally, the free equivalent images referred to when discussing WP:NFCC#1 and WP:FREER doesn't necessarily mean a free version of the same non-free image needs to be found; it just means a freely licensed image capable of serving essentially the same encyclopedic purpose as a non-free one either already exists or there's a reasonable expectation of such an image being created. Moreover, created doesn't only mean that a new photo needs to be taken; it also can mean that an already existing image is relicensed by its copyright holder to make it OK for Wikipedia. For reference, some users have had success in procuring free image using WP:PERMISSION by making contact with copyright holders of existing images and asking them to relicense them in a way that makes them OK to use on Wikipedia. Given the fact that Canon seems to be willing to release images of his work under acceptable licenses per File:Noritake for Qantas Tableware by David Caon.jpg, he may be quite happy to simply take a selfie and upload it to Commons under an acceptable free license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Ok, thanks Marchjuly, Nthep, and ww2censor. Rueing the use of the word "simple"...
Presumably someone has contacted the publisher to request such rights for examples such as: c:File:Ms. magazine Cover - Summer 2014.jpg; c:File:April 2013 NZ North&South magazine cover.jpg; c:File:Pop Magazine Issue 14 Cover.jpg; or c:File:Fashion Street Magazine Covers.jpg (but not: c:File:Metro no. 195 cover.jpg)? I may try at some point, but had hoped for a simpler solution. I suppose that's why I had hoped that a direct upload (to WP rather than via Commons) of a magazine cover itself (a specific instance of a thing as much as a photograph of the person pictured) with only one specific use (infobox) might be a simple workaround route. Alas.
[NB: I've shied away from trying the direct contact approach in the past, and when I did attempt this, it went nowhere (although I learned a few interesting things and achieved some successful outcomes elsewhere).]
Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
I nominated the Metro for deletion. On the other's, sometimes the publisher makes contact first because they want WP to use the whatever, the Pop Magazine may be one of those. And Ms. apparently has some sort of collaboration with Commons, I have no idea how that works, but good job:[5]
I have on occasion asked COI-people who turned up on WP themselves to provide a picture, with some success. My favorite was a lady who hunted down the 1990 photographer of a pic of her husband and made him release it on Commons. Great picture, too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: What was the picture, by the way? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Skeeter Reece carrying Albert Alter juggling while on unicycle.jpg. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
That was well worth the effort. Great photo! -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
The other magazine covers mentioned above seem to all be files uploaded to Commons; so, they are not subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. Whether they are OK for Commons is a question to be decided over at Commons. Whether they are encyclopedically appropriate for the infoboxes of articles is something that should probably be resolved through article talk page discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks and noted that Commons and Wikipedia have different policy standards (with those on Commons seemingly stricter in this case). The examples from Commons were only used to help gain clarity as to whether a magazine cover can be thought of an instance of a unique object (a thing), regardless of what it depicts. Looking at a similar examples here on enwiki such as: w:File:Allure magazine 30th anniversary issue March 2021.png; w:File:Robb Report 40th anniversary edition October 2016.png; w:File:Architecture Australia cover.jpg; w:File:Architectural digest 100th anniversary January 2020 issue.png; or w:File:Metropolis (architecture magazine) December 2011 cover.jpg still leaves me baffled by the complexity of this subject.
In the case of the initial question about using a SMH magazine cover as a workaround to help identify an individual in BLP infobox, my understanding is that this usage would not be allowed here under any circumstances. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
PS: This is perhaps also relevant: w:Category:Fair use magazine covers -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Not sure this helps, per my understanding, a "fair use" magazine cover (or book cover, movie poster, picture of dead or fictional person) is generally only acceptable on WP as a leadimage in a WP-article about that subject. Add to this that if a "free" version is available, fair use is no longer allowed.
Commons' policy is "never fair use" and Wikipedia's is "almost never fair use." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. That helps clarify how the "fair-use" policy is currently understood and applied. Less so the why of it (in this limited context), but that's probably more a function of my mental elasticity (or lack thereof) than the clarity of your explanation (and the other helpful responses above). I thought it was worth asking, but I don't want to use-up any more of anyone's time on this one. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Not sure about photo of a Vanity Fair magazine page from 1990

File:Example.jpg Hi, I'm a new Wiki page creator, bound to make embarrassing mistakes. I took a photo of a Vanity Fair magazine page from 1990, tried to credit all participants -- can I add it to a page about the theater company depicted in the magazine photo? Cleverdisguise (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

1990? Heck, no. The copyright in that photo will belong to the photographer for another 70 years or so. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
got it, am reaching out to the photog. thanks. 64.38.191.198 (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi Cleverdisguise. In principle, the person taking a 100% original photo is generally considered to be the sole copyright holder of the photo; so, if you went outside and took a photo of the sky, you would own the copyright of the photo and could do whatever you want with it since the sky isn't eligible for copyright protection. Things, however, get much more complicated when photographing someone else's copyrighted work. In such cases, there are often two copyrights involved (one for the photo and one for the photographed work), which limits a photographer's ability to reuse their photo. Photos considered to be slavish (i.e. non-creative or mechanical) reproductions of some other person's work are not considered creative enough to generate a new copyright for the photo as explained here; so, the only thing that matters is the copyright of the photographed work. So, if the magazine cover is either too old or otherwise too simple to have ever been eligible or to be still eligible for copyright protection, it can be photographed without worrying about infringing on anyone's copyright. If, on the other hand, the magazine cover is protected by copyright, you would still need to have the WP:CONSENT of the magazine cover's copyright holder to use their work in order for it to be OK to upload and use on Wikipedia. Given that your asking about a magazine cover from 1990, it's definitely not old enough to be no longer eligible for copyright protection, and it's most likely also too complex to be ineligible for copyright protection unless it's pretty much nothing more that a page with some simple shapes or a few words on it. Now, if the photo didn't originate with Vanity Fair but was provided to the magazine by some other party (i.e. the theatre company itself), then Vanity Fair wouldn't be the copyright holder and you would need to figure out who took the photo to determine whose consent is going to be needed.
Finally, this is not really related to media copyright stuff, but I've draftified the article you created about Pink Theater because it's clearly not ready for the WP:MAINSPACE. You can now find it a Draft:Pink Theater, where you can continue working on it. I suggest you take a look at Help:Your first article, Help:Referencing for beginners and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for some general ideas on how to improve your draft. I also suggest that you submit to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review when you think the draft is ready, and don't move it to the mainspace again yourself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Okay, got it, thanks! I'll contact the photographer, and figure out how to un-draftify my draft! Little by little . . . Thanks. 64.38.191.198 (talk) 21:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Statue of Liberty imagery

Is the Statue of Liberty imagery in File:Lincoln Chafee 2020 presidential campaign logo.webp that's being used to represent the letter "i" be something still eligible for copyright protection? If it is, I'm not sure the campaign logo's use in Lincoln Chafee#2020 presidential campaign meets the WP:NFCCP. The file was initially used in Lincoln Chafee 2020 presidential campaign, but was just moved to the Chafee article as part of what looks like a bold merge. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Most likely. There's a non-trivial degree of creativity that goes into drawing a sculpture of a person. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 08:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Madeleine Riffaud.jpg

Does File:Madeleine Riffaud.jpg need be to licensed as non-free? If it does then it would seem to have WP:FREER issues. Assuming that the country of first publication is France, then maybe it's already within the public domain per c:COM:FRANCE, but wartime photos differently from other photos per c:COM:France#Wartime copyright extensions. France does have 70 years p.m.a for photos taken by known authors and 70 year after first publication term for anonymous works, but there's very little about the provenance of the photo in the file's description. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the extension means it might get about 79 years of protection, meaning it would have to be made before 1943. And since it was supposedly taken during World War II, it may well have been 1943 or later. I believe the US would also recognize the copyright (though the rules for this are head-spinning) for 95 years after publication (potentially until 2041). I would play it safe and keep it non-free. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 09:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

w:File:Road to Rhode Island.jpg 'No fair use rationale' tag removal

Hello - I have uploaded the file w:File:Road to Rhode Island.jpg, but when I did so the non-free use rationale I supplied wasn't sufficient. As a result, it was given the 'No fair use rationale' tag. I have since revised the rationale - could someone please look at the rationale I have supplied and inform me if the tag should be removed or not? Thank you in advance. (Edited for clarity) Plug cryostat (talk) 07:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Plug cryostat, title cards like that are not normally used in episode articles. So, there is no acceptable rationale for the use of such an image, and it will and should be removed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the explanation. Plug cryostat (talk) 11:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
FWIW, an admin declined the deletion request on the file. I honestly don't strongly care one way or another, but to me, using an image from a wiki isn't appropriate (it would be different if the image had been officially released by the studio), and I agree with Seraphim that we don't usually use images of this nature in episode articles. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
If an admin has declined the deletion request of the file, then I'm happy to add it to the article, unless it gets removed again in the future. Plug cryostat (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
I think it would have been better to wait for Seraphim or others to weigh in first, but I won't revert you at this time. DonIago (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
OK, thank you. Plug cryostat (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2023/August&oldid=1209718654"