Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2023/February

Berkshire Black Bears

Hello,

The file File:BBBearslogo.png currently only has rationale for the New Haven County Cutters article, but I wanted to use it for the Berkshire Black Bears article. What would be the best way of extending its rationale so that it may be used in the Berkshire Black Bears article?

ATechnicalDifficulty (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi ATechnicalDifficulty. If Berkshire Black Bears is the same team as New Haven County Cutters#Berkshire Black Bears, then there some good news and some bad news depending on your persepctive. The good news is that it should be OK to add the file to the main infobox of the stand-alone article about the Bears. Just add a new non-free use rationale for that particular use to the file's page, and then add the file to the main infobox. You can use the template {{Non-free use rationale logo}} to do this if you want.

The bad news (at least in my opinion) is that there's no realy justification for using the file in the Cutters article per WP:NFC#Number of items and WP:FREER, particularly since if it's going to be being used in the article about the Bears. The rationale for that use isn't really valid and the file should be removed from that article. FWIW, the same could also be said for File:MassachusettsMadDogs.png being used in the article about the Cutters, but for slightly different reasons. Even though no stand-alone article about the Mad Dogs currently exists, there are problems with the file's non-free use related to WP:NFC#cite_note-4 and WP:NFC#CS. If these problems can't be resolved, a consensus in favor of using the file in that way is going to be hard to establish. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Press Your Luck logo

Based on the precedents at c:Commons:Threshold of originality#United States would not this and this iteration of the Press Your Luck logo fall under {{PD-textlogo}}? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Image of older Bobby Fischer

@Raguzz: An image has just been added to Bobby Fischer, File:OldBobbyFischer.jpg. It was taken from www.goodreads.com. There is no evidence of copyright or ownership, so I guess it is not usable in Wikipedia. But I do not know how to follow up on this, so as to avoid making additional errors. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Bruce leverett. Just because it's posted on Goodreads that doesn't automatically mean it's not protected by copyright or that it's OK to use on Wikipedia. Unless Goodreads is the original copyright holder of the photo, it's probably using it under a claim of fair use. What needs to be determined is the provenance of the photo; in other words, who took it, when they took it, when it was first published, etc. Generally, the person taking a photo is considered to be its copyright holder. That person can transfer their copyright to others, or the copyright over the photo may pass to their heirs as part of their estate. None of those things can be determined, however, without knowing the provenance of the photo. Generally, photographs taken prior to March 1, 1989, weren't automatically considered to be protected by copyright under US copyright law like they are today. The photographer actually had to make sure their work was clearly marked as such by a valid copyright notice. Often these notices were placed in the borders or on the back of photos so as to be less intrusive on the photo itself. In the case of a print publication, the copyright notice for the entire publication would apply to the photo unless it was part of an advertisement or clearly stated otherwise. Since most websites tend to crop photos and almost never show the back, simply saying I found it online without a visible copyright notice isn't generally considered sufficient, even for an old photo.

Personally, File:OldBobbyFischer.jpg almost certainly looks like it was taken after March 1, 1989, which means it's automatically protected by copyright under US copyright law (other countries may differ) even without a visible notice and it can't be uploaded to Wikipedia without the WP:CONSENT of the copyright holder. Copyright notices stopped being required under US copyright law on March 1, 1989; so, it's best to assume that any photo found online is protected by copyright and then work from there. My suggestion here would be to try and explain this to the uploader and get them to tag the file for speedy deletion per WP:G7. If they don't respond or respond in a negative way, you can tag the file with {{db-f9}} per WP:F9 or {{npd}} per WP:F11 unless, that is, you think there's possibly a valid way to convert the file's licensing to non-free in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

If you do a Google image search of the photo, you'll find it being used on sites other than Goodreads; so, it almost certainly didn't originate there. My best guess based on this is that it's a photo taken when Fischer was flying to Iceland after being granted political asylum. The shirt he's very looks the same and the background also looks the same. So, whomever, took that photo would be it's copyright holder and it can't be uploaded to Wikipedia without that person's consent. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Based on what I was able to find out about the image, I've tagged it as a copyvio per WP:F9. The uploader didn't provide a copyright license which means the file would be eligible for speedy deletion per WP:F4 anyway. I don't see anyway to use the file that would meet WP:NFCCP, which means there's little point in adding a non-free license. If someone disagrees with that assessment and thinks a valid non-free use can be found, they can revert the {{db-filecopyvio}} tag I added, add a non-free license and a non-free use rationale to the files page, and then re-add the file to the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

How to tag material which is not in copyright by law?

New Zealand legislation is not in copyright, as per https://www.legislation.govt.nz/about.aspx#copyright How should I tag articles which reuse text from legislation? I'm thinking in particular of narrative sections from Settlement Acts such as (English language sections) from https://legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2022/0100/latest/whole.html Stuartyeates (talk) 08:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

You can use {{source-attribution}} to provide attribution for public domain text. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Legally, you do not need attribution for PD text. However, from a plagiarism perspective, you should cite what sources you used, especially if reused verbatim.

I would imagine the template provided by JJMC89 is most useful when the PD source was reused as the basis of the article, for instance out-of-copyrighted Encyclopedia Britannica articles, then later edited. In that case it is not practical to indicate which part of the article comes from that source and which does not.

However, in the case of legislation, I would imagine that you would not use that text in Wikipedia’s voice, and you would clearly quote separate sections of the text. In that case, I do not think the template is really needed - what part is quoted from where should be clear with the usual citation templates. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 15:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

CC BY-SA 3.0 vs. CC BY-SA 3.0 US

I know that text under CC BY-SA 3.0 can be used in Wikipedia when licence and author are stated (Wikipedia:File_copyright_tags, for example via Template:Creative Commons text attribution notice). Is this also the case for text under CC BY-SA 3.0 US? Can text under CC BY-SA 3.0 US be re-used in the English Wikipedia? 79.234.122.21 (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

C-Span debate screenshot

I was planning to take a screenshot of Jill Schiller from this debate from c-span https://www.c-span.org/video/?453128-1/ohio-1st-2nd-congressional-districts-candidates-forum for use on the election's page. Having read the C Span copyright page and a previous dissuasion on Wikipedia:CSPAN, I am reasonably sure that would be permitted however can that be confirmed before I upload it. Sam11333 (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CSPAN only talks about the monopoly footage from the floor of congress. The video you want to use is not from the congressional feed, it is a debate produced by a local TV station, and carries clear claims of copyright. MrOllie (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, would a screenshot still be allowed under under Fair-use? Sam11333 (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sam11333. The PD status of screenshots has been discussed several times at c:COM:VPC and apparently only screenshots taken in debates or committee hearing taking place in the main chambers of the US House and US Senate are considered to be PD; this is because the equipment being used to video such debates belongs to the US government and the employees operating such equipment are US government employess and the feed is only being applied to C-Span. This is sort of covered in the wording of the licensing of c:Template:PD-CSPAN and also on content licensing information on C-Span's official website.

As for whether such a sctreenshot would be considered fair use under US copyright law, most likely it would; however, Wikipedia's non-free content use policy isn't exactly the same as fair use and Wikipedia's policy was intentionally set up to be more restrictive than fair use. Non-free content needs to first meet US copyright law's criteria for fair use, but then it also needs to satisfy all ten Wikipedia non-free content use criteria in order for it's use to be considered acceptable for Wikipedia. So, it would depend on how you want to use the image and in which article you want to use. If the primary purpose is more WP:DECORATIVE than contextual, then it's going to be really hard to justify non-free use. If Schiller is still living, it's going to be near impossible to justify non-free use per WP:FREER and item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI. There could be other reasons as well why non-free use would be considered unacceptable. So, if you can clarify how and where you want to use the screenshot, it might be easier to give you a better assessment. All ten Wikipedia criteria need to be clearly met; so, even failing WP:JUSTONE isn't going to be considered a valid non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Metropolis advertising

Hi, I wonder if someone could please advise on the copyright status of an advertisement for Metropolis (1927 film), directed by Fritz Lang with script by Thea von Harbou. It appears in the German trade journal de:Der Kinematograph, 9 January 1927, p. 15 [pdf p. 69], https://archive.org/details/kinematograph-1927-01. There appears to be no artist's name. The Parufamet logo appears in the lower rh corner, with the Ufa logo in the lower lh corner. Cheers, MinorProphet (talk) 14:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I've just been looking in the archives at a similar sort of question I asked here a few years ago, [1], which may be relevant. MinorProphet (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

It should certainly be fine to use on Wikipedia with the tag PD-US-expired-abroad. The more interesting question is whether it can be hosted on Commons, for which it would have to be public domain in Germany as well. Felix QW (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Some research has unearthed that the image of the helmed robot lady is credited to de:Werner Graul, who died in 1984. Therefore the poster should still be copyrighted in Germany and uploaded for local use here rather than being moved to Commons. Felix QW (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for all your informative help. I'll have a go with the upload wiz. MinorProphet (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Copyright for flag

Can someone fix the copyright on this image. I am new to uploading images:

It was acquired from this website and is in the public domain:

https://anewflagforcookcounty.com/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

There is a similar image available, but it does not reflect updates made to the design. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GingerSnapD (talk • contribs) 17:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi GingerSnap. Why do you think this flag is in the public domain? When it comes to copyright law, the term "public domain" has a specific meaning that is not the same as being made "publicly available for use" or being "free to download from some website". Public domain, in a copyright law sense, means that for some reason (e.g. age, level of creativity) that something is either no longer eligible for copyright protection or never was eligible for copyright protection. I'm not seeing anything on the link you provided for the flag that indicates it has been released into the public domain; so, at least for the time being, it should be assumed that the flag's design is protected by copyright and that copyright is held the persons who came up with the design. Now, it's possible the flag could be public domain if its design is considered to be too simple to be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law, but that might be something that needs to be sorted out for discussion. Another possiblity would be to treat the flag as non-free content as long as the way it's going to be used meets Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

The site it was retrieved from, on the download page, says "Interested in a flag – or flag-related items – of your own? A high-resolution of 'I Will' can be downloaded here for your use." The website seems to be owned by its designers. In the download page, the image of the flag is SVG. From this, we can infer that the flag has been permitted by the copyright owner for free use, since the copyright owner would have asked for attribution before providing a high-quality SVG image and noting that it can be downloaded for our use. Flagvisioner (talk) 05:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the website is owned by the flag's designers; I think it's owned by the Cook County Board of Commissioners per this. There's also a possible problem with your line of reasoning, at least in my opinion. It assumes that the flag designer is conversant enough in US copyright law to know the difference of making something available for others to "freely use" as in "free without having to pay a fee", or "freely use" as in "free without copyright protection". The only way to know for sure would be if the file was clearly released under a free license that the WMF accepts or the copyright holder consent is verified by WP:VRT. The flag seems to have won some sort of competition, and most of the competitors seem to be high school students who were assisted by an adult mentor. Perhaps, they gave up any potential claim of copyright when they entered their work, but it can't really be automatically assumed that they did for reasons similar to the ones given here. Even if they did, the State of Illinois isn't one of the US states that automatically releases content created by official state, county or local government employees into the public domain per some state statute or law; so, the presumption is that such work is protected. Since US copyright law since 1989 pretty much assumes everything is protected unless it's clearly stated otherwise, the same should be assumed here. Furthermore, since the WMF only accepts free licenses that allow unrestricted commercial and derivative re-use by anyone who wants to do so, it's best that copyright holder intent be as clear as possible. The argument that the flag is too simple to be eligible for copyright protection is an interesting one, but the file should be hosted on Commons if it is; this means it would be better to ask about it on Commons at c:COM:VPC. The same could be said for any argument stating that copyright holder "consent" has been given. Even in that case, the file should be uploaded to Commons; so, once again that's probably where it should be discussed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Being too simple seems likely, although this is debatable. Flagvisioner (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

public domain?!

File:Bob-google-plus-ascii-art-protest-comment.png: I shouldn't think so~! 2A01:B747:9A:344:44B2:8F38:7FE2:7D36 (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, the uploader hasn't edited since 2021, so they won't tell us what they think. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

It's very simple, but there's a clear artistic intention behind it. Drawing a tank in ASCII art requires creative choices regarding which characters best represent parts of the tank. Without knowing any precedents on the copyrightability of ASCII art, I would change it back to fair use.

Investigating further, the editor who changed the copyright tag has a history of violating copyright, which doesn't inspire confidence.

I recommend restoring the original fair use rationale. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 11:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I've restored the FUR. Nthep (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Getty Images

I am trying to upload a more recent image of Linkin Park to use in their articles: https://helios-i.mashable.com/imagery/articles/065tZDuzMjQuTADloACXc0I/hero-image.fill.size_1248x702.v1623366846.jpg

The article I found it in credits Getty Images for it, and came across this web page when trying to understand the creative license. I'm not entirely sure I understand them however and how they work in terms of Wikipedia use. Based on their licensing tab here: https://www.gettyimages.com/faq/licensing

Are images credited to Getty Images usable on Wikipedia? - K-popguardian (talk) 08:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi K-popguardian. In general, Getty images aren't allowed to be used under a non-free license per non-free content use criterion #2 and item 7 of WP:NFC#UUI, except when the image itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary. Images sourced to Getty uploaded under a non-free license that don't satisfy criterion #2 are subject to speedy deletion per speedy deletion criterion F7. In some cases, a Getty image might be something that's either so old that it never was eligible or is no longer eligible for copyright protection even though Getty is claiming it still is, or was otherwise released under a free license acceptable to Wikipedia by it's original copyright license; in other words, Getty or another agency might be trying to claim copyright of their digitalized version of the image even though the original image is no longer protected or is still protected but not as Getty claims it is. This has has been called copyfraud, but it can be hard to assess unless there's a clear provenance of the image showing it prior being obtained by Getty. If the photo you linked to above is really from Getty, then it's very unlikely going to be OK for use on Wikipedia unless you can clearly show that it was published somewhere by its original copyright holder under a free license Wikipedia accepts prior to it being claimed by Getty. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Use images with permission

I made a page on Wadi Khaled a few days ago and wanted to add an image. So I emailed one of my sources on the article and the website has lots of images to use. He said I could use the images so I want to know if I have to do anything else to be able to use the images. That were images taken by him, the creator of the blog. PalauanReich (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi PalauanReich. Copyright holders can release their own work under a license that makes it easier to use by others (including for use on Wikipedia) if they want to do so, but there needs to be some formal way to verify their WP:CONSENT (or c:COM:CONSENT). There are a couple of ways a copyright holder can do this and these are explained here, here and here. What you need to explain to the copyright holder is they need to release their content under one of the free licenses that the Wikimedia Foundation accepts. Moreover, you should also explain to them that these licenses are non-revocable and that enforcing the license is the responsibility of the copyright holder. You might also want to ask the copyright holder to look at this information page about Creative Commons (CC) licenses since it explains the differences between them. Wikipedia doesn't accept any CC license that places any types of restrictions on commercial and derivative reuse (e.g. NC, ND or NC-ND licenses). You need to explain to the copyright holder that basically they will be releasing their work under a license that makes it easy for anyone in the world to download at anytime and reuse for any purpose without needing the contact the copyright holder directly and requesting permission to do so. If the copyright holder is OK with that, then their work can be uploaded to Wikipedia; if not, then it can't. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. So when I email him, does he have to sign or do any form online to release these images and how would he release these. Or do I just need him to agree to the license. And if so, when uploading the image to Wikipedia, do I need to provide proof that he agrees to the license. PalauanReich (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Should I remove the Fair use rationale when tagging media with PD-ineligible-USonly?

I'm going through logos in Category:Possibly free images and a decent number are simple text logos that couldn't be copyrighted in the US, but could in their home country with a low threshold of originality. For example: File:2014 Invictus Games Logo.jpg or File:Lincs FM logo.png. When I tag them with Template:PD-ineligible-USonly, do I keep the fair use rationale so anyone distributing Wikipedia from outside the US can track what's likely fair use/fair dealing? Or just delete it? The Quirky Kitty (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi The Quirky Kitty. Licenses {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} and {{PD-USonly}} are PD licenses for content used locally on English Wikipedia because, unlike Commons, English Wikipedia only really needs to comply with US copyright law. So, files licensed as "local PD" aren't subject to WP:NFCC and, therefore, aren't required to be provided with a separate, specific WP:FUR for each use. If you convert a non-free license to any type of PD license but leave the file's non-free use rationales in place, most likely the file will be tagged with {{Wrong license}} by a bot and eventually end up being reviewed by someone. You can, however, simply replace any non-free use rationales with {{Information}} (you only need one of these) yourself if you truly think the file is OK as PD and doing so will save someone else from having to clean things up later on. If you don't feel confident enough to replace the non-free use rationales yourself, you probably shouldn't also be changing any licenses but instead should ask about the file here first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed reply. I'll remove the fair-use rationale as I've seen others doing. I am not changing the licenses of debatable files; I'm passing them by and may submit a few for discussion here. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@The Quirky Kitty: If you remove a non-free rationale, just make sure you re-add any source information contained in it to the file's page to avoid the file being tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F4. Using the "Information" template is one wau of doing this, but you can do it another way as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I've been doing that. I copy all the source and author info into an Information tag. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Can I use this on my user page?

I came across this blog post that mentions my user page name 'Axl Matulic' in the context of the Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons, for which we host this non-free image. The idea of putting that picture on my user page as a sort of self-portrait amused me, but I am skeptical that this is OK. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

No, per Wikipedia:User pages: Do not include non-free files (copyrighted files lacking a free content license) on your user page or on any subpage thereof, per the non-free content policy.. 23:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Anachronist: Since non-free content can only be used in the article namespace per WP:NFCC#9, you can't display the file there as explained in WP:UP#Non-free files. You can, however, add a Wikilink to the file like you did above if you want. You may also be able to add a external link to the blog post as well as long as WP:COPYLINK isn't a problem. FWIW, if you try to "add" a non-free file to your user page, it will be removed by either a bot or human file reviewer, and will keep being removed no matter how many times you re-add it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I thought as much. Thanks for confirming. Come to think of it, I now recall a similar issue with my own photographs of commercial products; I could only link to them on my user page gallery, not display my own work. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Proactive request for input

Does this look OK? File:Glaxo study Cover RANITIDINE-plus-nitrites-becomes-NDMA.jpg The main reason I think it's fair use is that the work has no plausible commercial value. (Also, I wonder if it meets the threshold of originality to be copyrightable to begin with.) Thought I'd ask for feedback before trying to integrate it into the article.

Tanishism (talk) 04:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think having no plausible commercial value has anything to do with fair use. It's probably OK for newspapers or other websites to use as fair use, but non-free content use and fair use aren't the same thing when it comes to Wikipedia. It seems like the non-free of this would be really hard to justify per WP:NFCC#1 (WP:FREER and MOS:TEXTASIMAGES) and WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#CS).

Pretty much any content you could add to the article about this file would seem to be stuff that could more than reasonably be expected to be understood by the general reader from text alone supported by corroborating citations to reliable sources. In other words, not seeing this particular image wouldn't seem to be detrimental to reader's understanding of relevant content related to it that could be found and added to the article. Using the file to support a simple description of the report and its content would be WP:DECORATIVE since the same information could be conveyed with text alone. A non-free image doesn't need to be seen to (1) demonstrate the report exists and (2) demonstrate Glaxo had detected high levels of the potent carcinogen NDMA in Zantac (ranitidine) in 1982. This is just my opinion though and others may feel differently.

No real opinion on whether the report might be PD, but just going to point out that a page full of text isn't automatically PD just because individual words tend to not be eligible for copyright protection. Whether it's PD is probably something to ask about at c:COM:VPC since that's where the file should be uploaded if it is PD.

Finally, the file itself would even have little value if the idea was to try and use it as some sort of "image/citation". The report itself would be a WP:PRIMARY source and would have little encyclopedic value as a source, and any interpretations of the report would need to be made by WP:SECONDARY reliable sources that are properly attributed in order for them to not be considered WP:OR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The first article you linked to explains the relevance of commercial value to fair use. I think it obvious that a page full of text is in general potentially copyrightable. So of course "a page full of text isn't automatically PD just because individual words tend to not be eligible for copyright protection." Thanks for your input. Either way, the bulk of what the document is about and interesting interpretations can be sourced to the Bloomberg reliable source. Tanishism (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Just two questions for clarification: Are we talking about the report as a whole or only about the cover page? And, secondly, the description refers to it as a case from a federal case docket. While the report itself was presumably not prepared by a government employee, the cover page might have been, for inclusion in the docket? I think this would then only leave the title itself as potentially copyright relevant. Felix QW (talk) 10:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Looking at what I uploaded answers your questions, Felix. (It's page 1 of the 1982 report.). No? Tanishism (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

So you're saying Wikipedia:Media copyright questions isn't an appropriate place to ask if it meets the threshold of originality to be copyrightable, Marchjuly?

If the cover on Microsoft_Office_2007 flies, this certainly should. Tanishism (talk) 11:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Commons is the best place to host files that are PD in both their country of first publication and in the United States because Commons files are global files which can be easily used by any WMF project. Files uploaded to English Wikipedia, on the other hand, are local files and can only be used on English Wikipedia. So, for example, if someone wants to use the same file on another language Wikipedia, they will either need to upload the file to Commons or upload it locally to the other Wikipedia. You can ask about the TOO here, but if the cover is really too simple to be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law and the country of first publication is also the US, then there's nothing to be gained by keep the file local for use on English Wikipedia only and it should be moved to Commons. Commons, however, has its own community as well as its own policies and guidelines, and the file will need to satisfy both of the things for it to be on Commons. Since there's not always universal agreement between the English Wikipedia community and the Commons community when it comes to file licensing, it would probably be wise to ask about this on Commons just to be sure the cover is PD. Files uploaded locally tend to be non-free files, or files which are PD in the US but aren't or might not be PD in their country of origin.

As for the Microsoft Office 2007 files, I'm not sure which file you're asking about or what it has do with the file you uploaded. Generally, non-free cover art tends to be allowed when it's used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article about the work the cover represents, but trying to use the cover art in other ways or in other articles tends to be way much harder to justify per WP:NFC#cite_note-3. So, a non-free book cover would almost certainly be allowed to be used for primary identification purposes in a stand-alone article about the book the cover represents, but it most likely wouldn't be allowed in an article about the book's author or some other article which mentions the book in some way but isn't entirely about the book. If your intent is to create a stand-alone article about the report, then non-free use would have a good chance of being considered OK; if your intent is to use the file in some other article which mentions the report, then it's going to be much harder to justify. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Whoops, I meant the cover in simple: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Office_2007. Tanishism (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Since this is an appropriate place to ask if it meets the threshold of originality to be copyrightable, I'll leave it active here for now. Tanishism (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Tanishism: First. Simple English Wikipedia is a separate project from English Wikipedia which means it probably has its own policies and guidelines regarding image use. There might be similarities between the policies of English Wikipedia and Simple English Wikipedia, but there might be some differences as well; so, just because a file is being used on one, it doesn't mean is can also be used on the other. If you have questions about image use on Simple English Wikipedia, you probably will need to ask them there.

Next, Commons files aren't vetted before they're uploaded. This means lots of people upload files to content that they probably shouldn't be uploading. Many mistakes are made and files are deleted all of the time from Commons, but often it takes a while for a file to be noticed. A problem file can fly under the radar until someone asks about it, and it's only at that point when the file's licensing is assessed, and the file is then deleted if the licensing is seen as being non-compliance with Commons policies. File:Office 2007 Beta 2 installation package - outside.jpg was uploaded to Commons as "own work" when it's almost certainly not the uploader's c:COM:Own work since the uploader isn't the original copyright holder of the product packaging. Moreover, since product packaging can be eligible for copyright protection in its own right as explained in c:COM:Packaging, it's quite possible that Commons shouldn't really be hosting that file unless the copyright holder (i.e. Microsoft) has agreed to release it under the same license the uploader used or the packaging is considered to be too simple for copyright protection. Since Felix QW is fairly active on Commons, perhaps they have an opinion on whether the file is OK for Commons. Ultimately, though, any problems with the Windows file will have to be resolved on Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping! I've nominated it for deletion on Commons, since I too am uncomfortable with the line art. The inside cover is also on Commons, and it contains what I would consider far more complex text than the cover of the study under discussion here. Felix QW (talk) 09:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Besides, does anyone have access to the whole report to check whether there is a copyright notice somewhere inside? If not, one could check the relevant registration records for the following 5 years and argue that it is in the public domain as a 1982 work with neither notice nor registration. Then we would also have access to the whole report rather than merely a plain cover. I do agree though that Commons' village pump for copyright questions would be the better place for that discussion. Felix QW (talk) 10:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Tanishism, Marchjuly made me aware of your question here. Generally speaking, text-based sources should be cited as a reference rather than all or part of them being uploaded to Wikipedia as nonfree media files. As Marchjuly said, the nonfree use of the cover of a work is generally acceptable in an article specifically about that work, but not in an article about something else. (So, for example, you could justify use of the cover of a book in the article specifically about that book, but not an article about the author or some other article that happens to mention the book.) In this case, however, I'm not sure even that would fly—even if we had an entire article about the report, the purpose of such nonfree use is to serve as a "visual identifier", and I don't think a text-only cover page would really work even for that. I also looked at the cover you were asking about, and that's right on the line—I think the line art on the right side of the packaging could well be argued to go beyond "simple geometric shapes" sufficiently to pass TOO and qualify for copyright. I wouldn't be comfortable definitively calling it PD. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and just to reinforce the point by Marchjuly, asking if something is "fair use" is the wrong question. There are many things that would qualify as fair use that our nonfree content policy nonetheless disallows. It is very deliberately much more restrictive than fair use law would require us to be. Even some things for which we would not have to even claim fair use, such as works licensed under "no commercial use" licenses, are disallowed by the NFC policy. Not because the law forbids it (Wikipedia is a noncommercial project, so clearly the law would allow us to use those), but because that is not a free license and our goal is to create a free content project. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm frustrated. You are telling me, "one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy"? Haven't I already done that? I did provide a https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fair_use_rationale&redirect=no in order to upload it. What specifically is wrong with the rationale? Marchjuly made a deletionist aware of my upload ... who is now wrongly assuming that I uploaded it because want to cite it. That assumption is inappropriate. Seraphimblade , you wrote, "The report can be cited as a reference rather than used as a nonfree image". Theres' no either/or. Right? (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white?)

If am I wrong to use Template:PD-ineligible-USonly or Template:PD-ineligible, why? In essence, I asked twice (thrice now) about whether  threshold of originality was met. You haven't answered, and instead are jumping to taking steps to delete it. Please answer. Why not talk this through before flagging it?

You chose to flag my upload with the di-disputed fair use rationale template, so can you at least provide specifics that aren't merely about other kinds of works? For example as you indicate - there is a template, and guidance for book covers. There is no template for or guidance on report covers. Book covers, generally speaking are creative works - with cover art, etc. This is a different thing.

My question was "Does this look OK?" Tanishism (talk) 02:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

hidden save

You probably should refrain from labeling others who respond to your posts as "deletionists" or any other way since doing so is unlikely going to make anyone want to answer your questions; moreover, if you do such a thing too vociferously, it could be seen as a WP:NPA. I notified Seraphimblade of this discussion only after seeing that they had tagged the file for speedy deletion. I did this only as a courtesy to make them aware that the file was being discussed somewhere else. Seraphimblade tagged the file for deletion on their, most likely based on their experience dealing files as a Wikipedia administrator. If you disagree with the file's tagging, you can make this known on the file's talk page. Files tagged for speedy deletion are reviewed by an administrator prior to being deleted, and they check file talk pages for relevant duscussion. You can add a link to this discussion to the file's talk page if you like for reference.

"PD-ineligibe-USonly" applies to content which is PD in the US but not PD in it's country of first publication/country of origin. If the country of first publication/country of origin is the US, which seems to be the case for this file, then it wouldn't be appropriate to use that license. This is why I suggested you ask about this on Commons because there's no reason to host file locally on English Wikipedia if it's PD.

Finally, You should try and remember that all Wikipedians are WP:VOLUNTEERs who answer questions because they want to not because they have to. They answer questions when they want to, not when you want them to. You uploaded the file as non-free which means others are going to treat it as such. The file isn't currently being used, which means it's going to be speedily deleted per WP:F5 if it remains as such. If you feel the file is PD, you can relicense as such. If someone disagrees, they can tag the file for review or deletion, or start a discussion about it at WP:FFD. You can also start a more formal discussion about it yourself at FFD if you want. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd again rather tend to agree with Marchjuly. (Except about the "deletionist" bit—I actually, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, call myself that on my user page, since I got called it so often and it doesn't really offend me. But please keep in mind that that's only true of me, and it might annoy someone else to be called that.) The sequence of events he presents is also quite correct. I tagged the file for speedy deletion, since I noticed it and it looked not to pass the NFC guidelines. Marchjuly then presumably noticed I had nominated it for deletion, and after I already had, made me aware of this discussion. So, if you want to blame anyone for the nomination, blame me for it, not him. I'd already done it by the time he said anything to me; if he'd wanted to nominate it, he could have done that himself and didn't need to ask anyone else to. So far as copyright of the material itself, Felix QW raises a good point that the entire report may be PD if it were published in 1982 with no copyright notice, but someone would have to check inside the report to see if there was or was not any such notice, so they'd have to have the whole thing. As far as TOO, while the facts in written material are uncopyrightable, the specific layout and presentation of such facts often are. Hence why I said to cite it as a source rather than upload it as media—you can write text about what the report contains all day long, and have not one single issue. That's also why I nominated it for deletion as replaceable. In this case, the nonfree media is replaceable by freely licensed text which simply describes the report's findings, citing it as a reference. Nonfree media use is pretty tricky to navigate, and I see you're not too experienced, so don't be discouraged that you didn't quite get it the first time around. Just using a template doesn't make something OK; it must in fact pass all of these criteria. In this case, your upload fails #1 (it's replaceable by free text), and #8 (pretty much anything that fails #1 is then decorative rather than actually necessary). That is, of course, presuming it is nonfree—is there a way to access the whole report, so that we can determine if it contains any copyright notices? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Marchjuly: Oh, my. I did NOT label anyone a deletionist. See User:Seraphimblade#Deletionist. As Seraphimblade noted, it's their label. Which is why I used it.

"If you disagree with the file's tagging, you can make this known on the file's talk page." I already have/had. I did add a link to this discussion to the file's talk page.

Seraphimblade: I don't know why you didn't notice that this discussion was active and pointing to it when you nominated it. (Bug?) But now that you are aware of it... can you answer me? It seems Template:PD-simple, as used for File:American Journal of Mathematics (front cover).jpg and File:CCP_Single_ILI_cover.JPG is OK. Is the threshold of originality met or not? (Assuming all we have to go on is the cover.)

I don't have the entire report. But I'm just asking about the cover. Much like with for File:American Journal of Mathematics (front cover).jpg and File:CCP_Single_ILI_cover.JPG. Tanishism (talk) 10:18, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Can you at least remove the nomination while we're discussing it? Why not talk this through ? Surely if you'd noticed that this discussion was active and pointing to it when you considered nominating it for a timed deletion, you would have? It's kind of fucked up that I have what - a couple chances to convince you/whoever to not remove it before it's gone. What's wrong with using Template:PD-simple??? Tanishism (talk) 10:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

As I said, I thought I'd ask for feedback before trying to integrate it into the article. Can you explain why you think it's replaceable by free text, despite the reasons I gave that it isn't? You're disagreeing but not addressing my argument. Tanishism (talk) 10:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

AGAIN:

Purpose of use in article (WP:NFCC#8)

Much the same as in the article I sourced it from. Evidence of the report. The report shows that Glaxo had detected high levels of the potent carcinogen NDMA in Zantac(ranitidine) in 1982.

Not replaceable with

free media because (WP:NFCC#1)

Historical document - evidentiary purpose fails if historical document not visible. Tanishism (talk) 10:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I was not aware that Seraphimblade describes themself as being a "deletionist". Even though they do, I'm not sure how you referring to them as such above was relevant to this discussion. Seraphimblade also mentions on their user page that they are an administrator, an arbitrator, a software developer, an atheist, a secular humanist among other things, but you chose not to refer to them in any such way. So, it seemed to me that you were trying to make some connection between Seraphimblade tagging the file for speedy deletion and them referring to themselves as a deletionist as if that might somehow invalidate their reasons for doing so. Anyway, I sincerely apologize to you if my observation was completely off base.

Just for reference, files that are deleted aren't gone forever; they can be restored by an administrator if the reasons why they were deleted are eventually addressed. In addition, please don't change template dates like you did here. That's really not how things work and it's also kind of a quick way to find yourself blocked by an administrator for disruption. If you believe the file to be "PD-simple", then that's an argument that reviewing administrator will take into account when deciding what to do with the file. Perhaps, the reviewing admin will decide that further discussion is warranted and will convert the speedy deletion tag into an FFD discussion.

One thing you should try and understand is that files aren't vetted before they're uploaded. So, files can go years before they're assessed in some way per WP:OTHERIMAGE and WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED. This is why it's often not a good idea to try and justify the use of one file based how another file is used or licensed. For example, File:Office 2007 Beta 2 installation package - outside.jpg that you mentioned above has been nominated for deletion on Commons. The other files you're mentioning may be OK as licensed, but they just as easily could be not OK. File:American Journal of Mathematics (front cover).jpg was actually as licensed as non-free content until a few weeks ago when another user named Ixfd64 changed its licensing to PD. That was a WP:BOLD change which wasn't discussed. BOLD edits happen all the time on Wikipedia and in many cases they're fine per WP:SILENCE until someone disagrees with them; when that happens, any disagreements are usually resolved through further discussion. In an effort to try and make more people aware of this discussion, I will post a {{Please see}} template on WT:NFCC and WT:IUP. I also asked about it at c:COM:VPC#Possibly PD-simple report page. Perhaps others will have a different perspective on this file's licensing or potential for non-free use. I'll also add the source url for the image here to make it easier for non-administrators to see the file if it does end up deleted. If it does happen to end up deleted before you think a sufficient discussion has taken place, you can always ask the deleting administrator to restore it so that it can be further discussed at FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I was alerted to this discussion on the talk page for WP:IUP. Currently, the article Ranitidine doesn't even mention GSK's knowledge of carcinogens in its ranitidine formulations in 1982, and it would be a bit weird for a claim like this to only be in the article as a caption on an image. In uploading the image, you yourself provided a Bloomberg article as the source for the image, which also seems to be a source backing up the claim that GSK knew about these carcinogens in 1982. Since Bloomberg is a generally reliable source, it would be better if you were to add a statement to the article about this report, with that Bloomberg article as a citation. The article would be better off this way than if it just had a random image out of context with a tiny caption underneath mentioning what I assume should be a pretty important fact.

Your argument appears to be that this image is allowable under the non-free content policy, in part because you claim that the image is necessary to prove the existence of the report. But a statement that the report exists, backed up by a citation to the Bloomberg article, is enough; the reader now knows that the report exists because it was mentioned in the Bloomberg article you cited, so you don't need to further provide the image to tell them again that it exists. Since the image isn't necessary in this sense, it fails the "no free equivalent" criterion for the policy. Edderiofer (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Edderiofer, please don't tell me what my argument is. I find it rude. I presented my actual arguments. Please address without turning one into a straw man - and then have the audacity to make the illogical leap from the dead straw man to that therefore the file fails the "no free equivalent" criterion for the policy.

If "a statement that the report exists, backed up by a citation to the Bloomberg article" was indeed equivalent, Bloomberg wouldn't have made the extra effort to include it in their article. Seeing the old document itself makes a difference; it has value. You can choose to insist that's not true but you're not believable. That is what I meant by "Much the same as in the article I sourced it from" and [ visible historical document ].

I just want you who are spewing pages and pages of text to concisely answer my question and/or state and back up your opinion on the question. Why won't you answer the question I've asked 5 times now? I can't think of a legit reason. But I don't consider we don't have to to be one, not in this context. Especially after disrupting the conversation by threatening me for seeking a bit more time for discussion.

AGAIN:

It seems Template:PD-simple, as used for File:American Journal of Mathematics (front cover).jpg and File:CCP_Single_ILI_cover.JPG is OK. Is the threshold of originality met or not? (Assuming all we have to go on is the cover.) If not, WHY NOT? Pointing to WP:OTHERIMAGE does NOT answer the question. I find massive piles of vaguely relevant info ALL of which doesn't answer the question ... strange.

Curious to see if the stonewalling re. what I've repeatedly asked continues. If so It seems pointless to continue to attempt discussion.

Tanishism (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Seraphimblade please respond. Tanishism (talk) 06:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you dispute that TOO applies or not? It seems Template:PD-simple, as used for File:American Journal of Mathematics (front cover).jpg and File:CCP_Single_ILI_cover.JPG is OK. Is the threshold of originality met or not? Tanishism (talk) 06:37, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Edderiofer, please don't tell me what my argument is. I find it rude. I presented my actual arguments.

I summarised what I believed your argument to actually be, based on what you wrote in the image description ("evidentiary purpose fails if historical document not visible"). If you believe your argument is something else, perhaps you should summarise it for me.

If "a statement that the report exists, backed up by a citation to the Bloomberg article" was indeed equivalent, Bloomberg wouldn't have made the extra effort to include it in their article.

I don't see how Bloomberg's decision to include the image has any impact on Wikipedia policy. The simple fact remains that if, as you claim in the image description, the reason for adding the image is to prove the existence of the report, this is is better done by adding a statement to the article about this report, with that Bloomberg article as a citation. If the reader wants to see what the report looks like, they can click through the citation to the Bloomberg article.

I just want you who are spewing pages and pages of text to concisely answer my question and/or state and back up your opinion on the question.

That was my first comment in this thread, and I thought it was a pretty concise summary of my opinion on the matter, not "spewing pages and pages of text". Are you confusing me with someone else?

It seems Template:PD-simple, as used for File:American Journal of Mathematics (front cover).jpg and File:CCP_Single_ILI_cover.JPG is OK. Is the threshold of originality met or not?

Frankly, I don't care what the answer to this question is, because we're talking about what to do with your image, and the answer to this question doesn't affect whether your image should be allowed (see WP:OTHERIMAGE). So it's pointless for me, or indeed, anyone else, to put in the effort to investigate this to answer that question in the context of this discussion. If you want to discuss those images, open a new discussion for them.

Once again, it would be best if you were to add a statement to the article Ranitidine about this report, with that Bloomberg article as a citation. That would improve the article regardless of whether this image is on it. Edderiofer (talk) 11:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

So, Tanishism, a bit of advice. While I told you earlier it didn't particularly annoy me to be called a "deletionist", it does annoy me to be repeatedly badgered, especially when combined with things like calling what someone says "BS". People have other things to do besides answer your questions on whatever time frame you seem to think you can demand, and you will need to get used to the idea that here, people will get to things when they get to them and learn some patience. I would have otherwise been inclined to help with the rest, but now I really don't believe I am. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me you're trying to misinterpret my question. Apparently it wasn't obvious.. My question was an is: "It seems Template:PD-simple, as used for File:American Journal of Mathematics (front cover).jpg and File:CCP_Single_ILI_cover.JPG is OK for MY IMAGE. Is the threshold of originality met or not for MY IMAGE?

Tanishism (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

You claim you answered the question and you claim that you don't care what the answer to it is.

You tell me to "it would be best if you were to add a statement to the article Ranitidine about this report, with that Bloomberg article as a citation.

I ALREADY DID THAT. Tanishism (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Thai baht image

The article for Thai baht is currently lacking images of the currency. However, Section 32 of Thailand's Copyright Act potentially allows for fair use of sample images from the Bank of Thailand. Would the article be covered under it, potentially due to (3)? Otemaci 11:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

c:COM:CUR Thailand says reproduction of banknote images requires permission from the Bank of Thailand referenced to here Nthep (talk) 13:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

The citation says permission is required for commercial usage. I doubt using the pictures on Wikipedia would be commercial use. Where should I suggest reconsideration of this policy? Otemaci 10:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@Otemaci it's not Commons policy, it's the Bank of Thailand's so reconsideration isn't an issue.

There are images of Thai banknotes already uploaded here - see Category:Banknotes of Thailand. The article on the Baht already has an image of most of the notes, uploading images of each denomination separately is very likely to fall foul of WP:NFCC#3a (Minimal number of items). You'd really have to justify why it is necessary to have pictures of individual notes rather than all in one image. Nthep (talk) 11:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

60 Minutes logo copyrightable?

I marked File:60_Minutes_Logo.png as possibly free. At its core, it's the text "60 MINUTES", but it has shading, a 3D effect, and reflections on the edges. Is that artistic enough to reach the threshold of originality in the US? I'm leaning towards yes but it's a popular enough subject to ask. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

(Note: this is NOT for the US version of 60 Minutes but the Australian version) Masem (t) 21:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

You're right. That would preclude moving to Commons because it's certainly copyrightable under Australia's standard. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC)