Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2023/July

RFC on non-free videos at the Village Pump

There is an ongoing RFC on the use of non-free videos at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RFC_on_non-free_videos. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

File:850 buzz logo.jpg likely public-domain

Do you think File:850 buzz logo.jpg can qualify for {{PD-Textlogo}}? The Quirky Kitty (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

It certainly seems below the US ToO to me. Felix QW (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll retag it then. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 03:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Candidates for office

People run for public office. Even if there is no Wikipedia article about them, they may be mentioned in an article about the election. Their image may already appear on other websites, such as campaign websites, Ballotpedia, or elsewhere. Unlike Wikipedia, Ballotpedia doesn't have a publicly-accessible file information page connected to each image, showing, among other things, how Ballotpedia has the right to display the image. Does Wikipedia already have a turnkey system where a Wikipedia editor can say to the campaign, "I found the candidate's image on Ballotpedia, now please 'sign here' (take some simple action) to grant Wikipedia license to this image." If that system exists, please tell me where it is explained. If Wikipedia doesn't already have a streamlined system for this situation, let's develop it post-haste. Respectfully, —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: It sounds like you're looking for something like Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. Those pages provide some general information on ways to request that copyright holders given their permission to use their content on Wikipedia. When it comes to images, it's important to remember that it's the person taking a photo and not the subject of a photo who is considered to be the copyright holder of said photo under the copyright laws of most countries; so, an image appearing on a candidate's website or social media account doesn't automatically mean the candidate is the copyright holder. Furthermore, getting copyright holder permission for a particular photo, while really important, doesn't automatically mean the photo will be used. In addition to copyright, the encyclopedic value of an image to an article also needs to be assessed and sometimes this means seeing whether a consensus can be established on the article's talk page in favor of using the photo. Lastly, Wikipedia's general licensing pretty means that any photo uploaded in accordance Wikipedia:Copyrights#Guidelines for images and other media files is going to have very little restrictions placed on its reuse. In other words, there's no way to limit the photos use to Wikipedia only, non-commercial use only, or non-derivative use only. Anyone will be able to download the photo and pretty much use it in any way they want as long as they comply with the terms of the license the copyright holder has released the photo under. Any problems the copyright holder may encounter with those reusing their photo are going to need to be resolved between those involved; Wikipedia won't step in to try and sort things out. If you contact a copyright holder and are successful in getting their permission, it would be better for you to upload the file to Wikimedia Commons instead because that makes it much easier to use. Photos uploaded to Wikipedia are local files in the sense that technical restrictions prevent them from being used on any Wikimedia Foundation projects other than English Wikipedia. Photos upload to Commons are global files that can be used by any Wikimedia Foundation project. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Status of cover of PD-NASA book

I asked this question a while ago and was archived without response, but it's come up again now that the article is at FAC. Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication is a relatively recent (2014) book that's in the public domain as a NASA publication, but no one is sure what the cover's copyright status is. Is it more likely that it's also PD as a NASA publication, or that it's covered separately and under normal trillion-year-copyright rules? I can't find a specific indication that it's covered separately, but nor can I find a specific indication that it was designed in-house or otherwise clearly PD. Vaticidalprophet 05:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

You could try asking about this at c:COM:VPC since that's where the file is likely going to end up if it's OK to relicense as PD. Is there something wrong with erring on the side of caution and keeping the file licensed as non-free? If you're unable to clearly or at least reasonably demonstrate the cover is PD, then maybe that's enough to keep it as non-free. Do you know whether NASA released similar publications at the time with similar cover art? if this particular one was part of a series and all of the rest in the series are clearly PD (cover included), then maybe it could be argued that this one is as well. At the same time, if NASA was using third-party images on the cover of such publications and those were clearly attributed to said third-parties, then may that's the case here with this one as well. Some US federal government agencies do use third-party created content on their websites or in their publications, and this content may be separately protected by copyright. The only copyrightable element in File:Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication.png is (in my opinion) is the The Blue Marble imagery and it seems the only one capable of taking such an image for the longest time was NASA. These days, however, other countries and even private organizations might be capable of taking such an image. My guess is that the cover photo probably came from NASA, but photos attributed to people/organizations other than NASA were also used in the book. Perhaps the only 100% way to find out would be to contact NASA. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with erring on the side of caution and keeping the file licensed as non-free? The incentive to figure it out is TFA -- the image can run on the front page if it's free, but if it's non-free something else will have to be figured it out. Ideally this could be resolved during the FAC. I also need to upload another version anyway, because they finally fixed the cover typo quite a while after publication (only took putting it on Wikipedia...), and it'd be nice to know what else to change while I'm there. I've unfortunately found very little in general about other NASA-published books. Knowing the planet photo is probably the only copyrightable element is helpful, though. Vaticidalprophet 14:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why it wouldn't be {{PD-NASA}}, except on the off chance the cover photo is from someone else. If there's no evidence of that, I'd support changing to PD-NASA. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if that matters much, but the cover art is credited in the acknowledgements to visual designer Paul Duffield, who seems to be working as a freelancer from the UK. So there might be a copyright claim on his transformative process (which I assume also included quite an amount of digital editing on the underlying image). Felix QW (talk) 12:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• @Vaticidalprophet: For context, I'm an admin on Commons. I don't know I see this as being transformative in a way that wouldn't pass under de minimis. Simple text generally isn't copyrightable. Concentric circles...if...we discount what I consider fairly bonkers arguments about minimalist art, would not generally be copyrightable. The courts disagree, but there's no indication that this is intended to be minimalist art. The only issue I see you running into is the (apparently?) two images of which this is a derivative work: the image of the Earth, and the image of the stars. It could (question mark?) be possible that these are from a different space agency that doesn't release it's works into the public domain. Otherwise, the transformation is derivative of PD works, and is minimal in original creative contribution, and the photo of the cover itself would also therefore be derivative of a work based on PD content. It would therefore also be non-copyrightable. GMG^talk 12:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Infobox flag icons removed

I'm wondering why these two [1] political flag icons were removed by an automated bot when the other political actors still have theirs? Including affiliation flags for Template:Infobox civil conflict and Template:Infobox military conflict is standard practice. DA1 (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@DA1: The bot that removed the files left an edit summary explaining why, but basically it has to do with the fact that those two files are licensed as non-free content and their respective uses in that particular article didn't satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. More specifically, the bot removed the files for not complying with non-free content use criterion #10c because neither of the files had a separate, specific non-free use rationale for its non-free use in that article. That particular bot has been tasked to look for non-free files that are lacking non-free use rationales for all of the ways they are being used, and it removes files from articles lacking said rationales when it finds them. In some cases, it might be possible to "fix" things by simply adding the missing non-free use rationale to the file's page, but that isn't going to work here because non-free files aren't allowed to be used like flag icons in articles like the way you were trying to do. There are ten non-free content use criteria that each use of a non-free file needs to meet, and failing even a single one means the file's non-free use isn't justified. So, even though fixing the #10c problem will stop the bot, that type of non-free use would still fail some of the other criteria as well as MOS:LOGO, which means the files would still eventually end up being removed even if re-added with rationales. For reference, all files may look the "same" when they're being used on some page, but how a file can be used depends largely on how it is licensed. Freely licensed or public domain licensed files are much easier to use since they aren't subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, which is pretty restrictive by design. Since it's hard to tell how a file is licensed by simply looking at it, generally the best thing to do is to click on it and check its page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I had seen the edit summary but didn't understand it well enough and clicked on the "Questions? Ask here" and here I was. So, how do we rectify this to become usable on articles? Given that they're political flags and not even commercial images, I presume they should be well within fair use.

Per WP:FUR, let's say whoever uploaded the image didn't fill out the Help:File description page, so now who will? I don't think the purpose of that flag is any different from others. DA1 (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@DA1: Since Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is much more restrictive than fair use, there's really no way, in my opinion, to justify the way you want to use those to files in that particular article. If you disagree, then I suggest you try asking about this informally at WT:NFCC or starting a formal discussion about the files at WP:FFD to see what others might think. The other files being used in that infobox aren't licensed as non-free content; so, they are not subject to the same restrictions as the two non-free ones are. You can if you want add the rationales for that article to each files page, but another user can challenge the rationales and seek the files removal from the article via FFD. The administrator who runs the bot that removed the files is named JJMC89. JJMC89 is pretty experienced when it comes to non-free content use. You can also ask them for their opinion on whether the files' uses in that article can be justified. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

www.fandom.com

According to this page is under CC-BY-SA-3.0 ("Except where otherwise permitted, the text on Fandom communities (known as “wikis”) is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License 3.0 (Unported) (CC BY-SA)."). Apparently, it is allowed to make copy pastes from the same site with of course credit to the author. I'm wondering how you handle that. In Commons we have license reviewer. Does content from www.fandom.com copy paste to article? and in general, about other sites that are licensed under free license. --geagea^Talk 13:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Help:Adding open license text to Wikipedia -- Whpq (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Geagea: Commons is mainly concerned about the licensing of the content it hosts; in other words, Commons doesn't really can how the content it host is eventually used as long as it falls within c:COM:SCOPE. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is not concerned with copyright status but also encyclopedic relevance. So, even if the content is acceptably licensed, it might still not be suitable for Wikipedia for encyclopedic reasons. I'd imagine Fandom sites are full of WP:UGC and other types of WP:OR that are likely unsuitable for Wikipedia in many ways and will either need to be completely rewritten or supported by reliable secondary sources for it to OK to add to Wikipedia. Finally, one last thing about Fandom's copyright license is that it almost certainly only applies to original Fandom content; I don't know much about the site, but content not originally generated by Fandom users (i.e. works for which they are the original copyright holders) that was uploaded to Fandom is (I'm pretty sure) not going to be covered by that license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

1990 Afghan Coup

The logo for Dr Najibullah's defunct (and banned) ruling homeland party was removed for copyright reasons (Najibullah got hanged in 96 and his party was banned in 1992). Im pretty sure its fair use considering the Homeland Party was the ruling party of Afghanistan Fortnitegamer3432 (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Fortnitegamer3432. If you're asking about File:Afghan_Dawah_Party_Logo.jpg and why a bot removed it from Afghan Civil War (1989–1992), then the answer is pretty much the same as given about in #Infobox flag icons removed. The "Dawah Party logo" file is licensed as non-free content which means each use of it needs to satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, and there's pretty much no way to justify this file's use as a flag icon in that particular article under this policy even a single time in that infobox.

In addition, some of the other photos you uploaded to Commons to use in the same article also have issues that need to be resolved. You seem to be misunderstanding what it means to upload something to Commons as "own work"; so, I suggest you take a look at c:COM:Own work, c:COM:NETCOPYVIO and c:COM:SCREENSHOT for reference. Whne it comes to Commons, "own work" means you are the original creator or copyright holder of the work you're uploading; it doesn't mean you find it somewhere online or created a screenshot of it. So, unless you actually took the photos you uploaded or are the copyright holder of the original broadcast footage of the screenshot you uploaded, they are someone else's work and only that person can upload under a Creative Commons license for Commons purposes. Your Commons user talk page is full of notification related to files you've uploaded and many if all of these seem to have been deleted. A Commons adminstrator even added a warning about this to your user talk page. If you continue to upload problematic files to Commons, your account is likely going to end up being blocked. Maybe it would be a good idea to stop uploading things to Commons until you gain a better understanding of c:COM:L or to start asking for assistance at c:COM:VPC before uploading a file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Im talking about the Watan Party logo Fortnitegamer3432 (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

​ If you're asking about File:Watan Afghanistan.jpg, then it too is licensed as non-free content which means each use of the file needs to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. That file was removed Afghan Civil War (1989–1992) from by the same bot for the same reason as the Dawah Party logo.-- Marchjuly (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Non free fair use

Re this non free image: — File:Photograph of William A. Starna.jpg

I am not clear on what exactly the issue is with this image, per its rational. If it is too large it can be reduced. The article is about the image, William A. Starna, which is only used for visible identification and educational purposes, and I believe does not jeopardize anyone's commercial or other interests. It is a low-resolution image, and I know of no other image of Starna. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

NFC policy explicitly does not allow non-free images of living persons, on the basis that a free image can be created. Masem (t) 19:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Masem — Not sure I understand: How can such an image be created? Are there any circumstances where a non-free image of a living person is allowed? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Anyone could create a free image of them by photographing them in a public place and releasing it under a free license. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The Quirky Kitty, Thanks for your prompt reply. Just to be clear for future concerns, are you saying that no non-free image is allowed of living persons -- under any circumstances? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

It's a case by case basis. Anyone is free to put forward a case that a non-free image is acceptable, it's down to community consensus to agree that the circumstances are exceptional enough to merit an exception to NFCC#1. Nthep (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Since it's next to impossible for any editor to just go out and somehow locate Starna, and take a picture of him at his next public appearance, if and when that may ever occur, I was hoping that the image I've included in the Starna article would be allowed. Other than size/resolution considerations, I'm still not clear as to why the image may fail fair-use rationale requirements. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

It boils down to the Wikimedia Licensing Policy. The policy allows some non-free images to be used on some wikis, but non-free image use policies cannot allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals (emphasis mine). We'd need fairly exceptional circumstances to get around that mandate; we can't really use a general rationale that it's generally a bit hard to track down notable people and get a photo of them if we're to host the non-free image on a Wikimedia server. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Some editors may favor keeping a non-free image if the person is unlikely to appear in public, such as if they are in prison or a nursing home. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 00:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Re: cannot allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose. Though it's not absolutely impossible, I don't think we can "reasonably expect someone" will go out and find Starna and take his picture and upload to WP. If and when that ever occurred, we can always remove the non-free image. How many non-free images of living people exist on WP, and couldn't we remove them all under the assumption that someone, someday, might go out and create their own free image and upload to WP? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The only circumstances we typically allow non-free of living persons is when their older appearance is significantly different from how they currently look, and the older appearance is the subject of discussion by sources. One of the core examples I point to is the image of Weird Al before his Lasik surgery and change of hair style, since that older image is of discussion. Other examples would be actors that had a major career in their youth and known for their looks but which have simply aged well past that. Masem (t) 21:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

What fair-use criteria outlines that consideration? The article is about Starna as an archeologist and historian. The image shows him at an elderly age functioning in that capacity at a conference. Does it matter that it may not be exactly the same as an image taken today? Since there is no copy-vio issues, and no one's interests have been compromised, I'm still not seeing any issue of real concern. .. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not necessarily a fair use matter in the sense that it's something considered to be "illegal" under US copyright law, but it is something that hasn't been allowed be Wikipedia's non-free content use policy from very early on and it's always been applied as such; moreover, the default has never been to allow a non-free image of still-living person to be used until a free equivalent one can be found to be best of my knowledge. Wikipedia's policy was set up to be intentionally more restrictive than fair use and this is one of those ways. Of course, times might have changed and you're welcome to propose that the policy be changed as well, but the best place to do so is going to be either (1) at WT:NFCC or (2) WP:VPR. You're not the first to ask such questions and you won't be the last. If I remember correctly, others have previously proposed a mitigating of this restriction, but those proposals never seem to have gotten very far. Finaly, File:Photograph of Dean R. Snow.jpg, which you also uploaded, has the same WP:NFCC#1 issue as well; so, if you remember uploading any other non-free photos of still-living persons, then it would be helpful to know about them too so that they can be assessed. In some cases, they may actually not need to be treated as non-free if they can be shown to be within the public domain some reasons. Older photos first published in the US prior to January 1, 1978, in particular, have a fair chance of being within the public domain for one reason or another. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I remember a case some years ago where an image from the Provincial Archives of an aged retired politician was deemed not okay to keep, irregardless of some fairly cogent arguments being made in favor of keeping. The end result was still delete, as the image failed NFCC #1 at the time (he died in 2020). See Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 December 8#File:Raymond Reierson.jpg if you wish to read the dscussion. — Diannaa (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, I'm not about to take the case to the 'Supreme Court', (figuratively speaking) so I guess we'll just have to say 'goodbye' to Starna's image. Thanks for all the feed back, and happy editing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Albert Alan Owen 1979 Keyboards and Strings album cover.jpg

Any opinions on whether File:Albert Alan Owen 1979 Keyboards and Strings album cover.jpg can be converted from non-free to {{PD-simple}} or {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}? The record company "Apollo Sound" appears to be based out of the UK, but I'm not sure the company's logo at the bottom left of the cover would be complex enough to be eligible for copyright protection in the US. Even if it is, it seems like it could be treated as de minimis or perhaps even cropped out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't use de minimus on album cover but the logo is indeed simple (I looked at a higher-res version of the cover art). Let's give it {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 00:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Copyright status of File:Rouge Valley Health System logo.png

File:Rouge Valley Health System logo.png is a fairly simple logo that might qualify for public domain status, but I'm bringing it here because there's a bit of creativity to it. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Borderline case IMO. It's somewhat akin to the Nikon logo (which is under the USA's TOO), but there's a smidge more creativity with the way the shapes are arranged. We're better safe than sorry on this one. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Good I asked. I'll take your word for it, thanks. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 08:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Shared logo: File:Loughborough Lightning logo.png

Loughborough Lightning is a group of Sports clubs in the UK. Each of the various teams shares the same logo, but JJMC89_bot keeps on removing it from Loughborough Lightning (women's rugby union), while it remains on Loughborough Lightning (women's cricket). Surely it should be able to be used on all the pages, the disambiguation page only, or none of them? — RatzaChewy (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@RatzaChewy The bot is doing what it is supposed to do. It is removing the logo from LL(WRU) because the logo page does not have a fair-use rationale for LL(WRU), only LL(WC).

Should it be on all, disambiguation or none? The answer is actually none on the strict application of the non-free content criteria.

1. WP:NFC#UUI#17 specially says it is unacceptable use of logos on articles about child subjects where the child body uses the same logo as the parent. That rules out use on LL(WRU) or LL(WC) as they use (afaik) the same logo as the parent body.
2. WP:NFCC#9 disallows the use of images on disambiguation pages. As Loughborough Lightning is a disambiguation page, that rules out the use of the logo there.

The way to retain the logo, somewhere, is for Loughborough Lightning to be expanded into an article in its own right. Subject to sourcing this might be possible as Loughborough's reputation in UK university sport in pretty high and hence coverage in reliable sources is likely to be better than for most UK university sport activity. As there are now several teams under the Loughborough Lightning banner, not just rugby union, cricket and netball, that should increase the sourcing options. Nthep (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#3 concern on File:Honnêamise World Map.jpg

Hello, I would like to request further information on the submitted dispute regarding File:Honnêamise World Map.jpg "WP:NFCC#3 : only in article." I understand that this is in reference to the minimal use criterion but can you tell me what is meant in this case by "only in article"? If possible please respond to my talk page and thank you for your assistance on this inquiry. Iura Solntse (talk) 08:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Iura Solntse. The user who tagged that file for speedy deletion is Iruka13. I too am not exactly sure why they've tagged the file as such, so perhaps they will clarify. I will add a notification to there user talk page asking that they do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

When I looked the file was being used in {{Topics related to Royal Space Force: The Wings of Honnêamise}} where it fails WP:NFCC#9 - non free files are only allowed in articles, not templates. Having it removed from there it is now no longer in use. #F3 is no longer relevant but the file now becomes liable for deletion under #F5 for not being in use. Nthep (talk) 09:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

You can only post non-free images in the article space. I shouldn't have set the "Di-disputed non-free use rationale" template, but simply remove the file from Template:Topics related to Royal Space Force: The Wings of Honnêamise, as Nthep did. I apologize for the extra worry. — Ирука¹³ 09:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

That's fine and thank you for clarifying things Iruka13. For reference, though, WP:NFCC#3 has nothing to do with non-free content being used outside of the mainspace; that's WP:NFCC#9. If you're going to use a tool or script to help you assess file use, please remember you're ultimately responsible for your edits. So, you should try and leave as clear of an edit summary as possible to make it easier for others to understand why. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I've tagged it for deletion as a non-used orphan. ww2censor (talk) 09:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Iura Solntse: As pointed out above, the file's non-free use in the template {{Topics related to Royal Space Force: The Wings of Honnêamise}} isn't allowed per non-free content use criterion #9. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is quite restrictive and there are ten non-free content use criteria that each use of a non-free file needs to satisfy for it to be considered a valid use. One of these criteria is #9 and it states that non-free content can only be used (i.e. displayed) in the article namespace (i.e. in Wikipedia articles); this means non-free content can't be used on user pages, in drafts, on talk pages, on noticeboards (like this) and in templates. So, even though you provided a non-free use rationale for the file when you uploaded it, it's not a valid rationale because of criterion #9. Now, having posted that, if you can find a way to use the file in Royal Space Force: The Wings of Honnêamise in a manner that satisfies all ten criteria, then the file might be able to be kept. The hardest of the criteria to satisfy in this case is likely going to be criterion #8; so, take a look at WP:DECORATIVE and WP:NFC#CS for what's typically considered necessary for a non-free use to meet criterion #8. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Dear Marchjuly, I think I might see the situation now and thank you for taking the time to explain. I modeled the use of the image in the template upon seeing such an image used in the Template:PoeTopics. However examining the file description of that Poe image I now see that the image used for the Poe template (being from 1845) is in the public domain so I imagine its use does not fall under the same restrictions as would apply to a non-free file image.

Regarding File:Honnêamise World Map.jpg as related to criterion #8 I believe it is not merely decorative because as noted in the text of the current image description of #8 worldbuilding described in the article at multiple points was a core concept and method behind Royal Space Force: The Wings of Honnêamise and its particular achievement in this regard has been asserted for example in the Ted Chiang quote used in the lede. On the question of contextual significance it would be possible for me to add to the criterion #8 description of the image three instances in the main article where the sequence for which the image was created is mentioned as being of notable importance to the artistic goals and critical reception of the film. A possible further point to add to the #8 description is that this particular image was used as the frontispiece of the film's official production archives book, a major reference source for the main article itself, suggesting it was seen as particularly significant and expressive of the film's identity. Do you think such an addition or additions to the image description for #8 might help satisfy that criterion? Thank you once more. Iura Solntse (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank particular article already has quite a number of non-free images being used in it. Non-free content is by defintion already considered an exception to Wikipedia's desire to provide its readers with freely licensed content that they can easily reuse whenever they want. Some people might feel the one non-free file in the article isn't going to matter given the so many are already being used. Others might feel that there is already too much non-free content being used in the article and adding one more is already one more too many. I've gotten no familiarity with the subject matter; so, maybe try seeking input at one or more of the WikiProjects listed at the top of the article's talk page or even the article's talk page itself to see what those who are might think. The article is listed as a WP:GA and this means the article is already considered to be fairly good quality. One more image or too much tweaking might actually be detrimental to the article's GA status. So, it's probably a good idea to seek feedback from those more familiar with the subject matter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Kansas City, Missouri logo.png

Is it below TOO in your opinion? I think it is.

Also, File:Kansas City, Missouri logo.svg was uploaded to Commons, so if it's not PD, it should be listed for deletion there. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 09:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I favor keeping it as above TOO out of caution. The way the lines from the fountain cross from left to right and vice versa is somewhat novel. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 12:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Iron Maiden (album) cover.jpg

Can this image be used on the Eddie (Iron Maiden) page? Eddie needs a new picture and this would be perfect for the main image since it's the original Eddie and is a album cover which is where Eddie usually appears. I have tried adding the image but it gets removed by a bot and a album cover should be the main image. Horrorcomicnerd (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

The bot removed File:Iron Maiden (album) cover.jpg from the article because you failed to add a separate, specific and valid non-free use rationale for that particular use to the file's page as required by Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. There are ten non-free content use criteria that each use of non-free content needs to meet and failing even one makes the use invalid. The bot will keep removing the file each time it's add as long as it doesn't have a non-free use rationale provided for that use as required by non-free content use criterion #10c. If you add a non-free use rationale for that particular use to the file's page, the bot shouldn't remove the file again. That's the easiest part of your question to answer. The harder part of answering your question has to do with whether a valid non-free use rationale can be provided for that use. The two criteria that are going to be the hardest to meet in a case like this are probably WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. Given that there are various other images of "Eddie" used in the article and these are all freely licensed, meeting the criteria of WP:FREER could be quite hard. It could also be argued that a link to Iron Maiden (album) in Eddie (Iron Maiden)#Various incarnations where album covers featuring "Eddie" can be seen is more than a sufficient alternative to reusing those non-free album covers again. NFCC#8 deals "contextual significance" as explained in WP:NFC#CS and WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and it's often to most subjective of the ten criteria to assess. Relevant policy and how it has been applied over the years does support your assessment that a non-free album cover should be the main image of a Wikipedia stand-alone article about the album the cover represents, but it doesn't necessarily support an assessment that the same cover should also be the main image of an article about something appearing on the cover. So, even just failing just one of the ten criteria means the non-free is going to be seen as non-valid, and often a consensus in favor of a particular non-free use needs to be established via discussion at WP:FFD when there are disagreements over it's validity. So, you could be WP:BOLD and add a non-free use rationale explaining how the way you want to use this particular album cover in the mascot article meets all ten criteria in a way that no other image can. If someone challenges the rationale and it ends up at FFD, you're going to need to establish a consensus convincing others of your position. You could also be WP:CAUTIOUS and start a discussion at FFD yourself explaining how the way you want to use the file is justified and once again see if a consensus in favor of that use can be established. In my opinion, there's pretty much zero chance of a table/collage of non-free album covers that you seem to be proposing at Talk:Eddie (Iron Maiden)#New image ever being considered as complying with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy per WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFTABLES and WP:NFLISTS; gaining consensus for one image is going to be hard enough (which is why I guessing it already hasn't been done), but gaining consensus for more than one non-free album cover is going to be pretty much impossible. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to seriously question, though, whether any of those actually are legitimately free images. In most cases, you can't transform a nonfree image into a free one just by taking a photo of it. There are some exceptions, like freedom of panorama, but I really doubt anything like that applies to these cases. I'll check into it, but I will probably end up nominating these for deletion on Commons. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

The two concert shots might be OK since the background imagery is part of a larger scene and it could be argued that its incidental to the photograph as a whole. The other two images which focus entirely on the "Eddie" imagery are going to be harder to justify and it could actually depend on where the photo was taken. The FOP for the UK and the US is, for example, similar in some ways but also quite different in others, particularly when it comes to 3D and 2D works of art. The FOP of the Netherlands seems similar to the UK's with respect to 2D and 3D art. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

PD-US-no notice / US publication question

What does it take for a work to be considered published in the US for the purposes of Template:PD-US-no notice? I have been looking for a public domain image of the artist Ithell Colquhoun, and there are four photographs of her on p.13 of the London Bulletin vol.17 ([2]). The publisher was the London Gallery (based in London, England) but the masthead lists the location as additionally including Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam and New York, and on p.4 details of a US distributor are included. Are these sufficient to consider it simultaneously published in the USA (as, e.g., a modern book whose publication location were listed as London & New York would be)? And if so would PD-US-no notice be a valid license?

If it's not, I think the images would not be public domain because at best they went into the public domain in the UK 70 years after publication as photos of unknown authorship, and so they were not public domain in the UK in 1996 and therefore do not meet the requirements of Template:PD-1996. Is that right, or am I missing something? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

If the photograph was published simultaneously in the United States and abroad (i.e. within 30 days), then the URAA would not restore it even if the only reason for it being in the public domain were lack of compliance with copyright formalities. It would get deleted on Commons because the U.K. copyright may subsist through the present day, but if you are confident that the specific version of the pamphlet that you linked above were made available for sale in the United States within 30 days of its publication in Britain, it would be a {{PD-US-no notice}}, yes. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Red-tailed hawk. I think it's safe to assume that it was the exact same version of the Bulletin which was made available: there's no reason to think that something on this scale would have had a different US edition! I guess the key question is about that 30 day limit: if the Bulletin is published in London on day X, and can be ordered from the US distributor within 30 days, is that sufficient? Or do I have to demonstrate that copies were actually physically in the US by day X+30? If the former, I think it's relatively safe to assume that {{PD-US-no notice}} applies, but I doubt that the latter would be provable either way (though transatlantic airmail was apparently introduced in June 1939, so it would at least have been possible). Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

MBSG youth

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mohun_Bagan_Super_Giant.svg#mw-jump-to-license

Why it was deleted and what to do 93.140.103.186 (talk) 12:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The file you linked is not deleted. Can you be more clear? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi 93.140.103.186. As pointed out above, File:Mohun Bagan Super Giant.svg wasn't deleted; it was, however, removed from Mohun Bagan AC (youth) by a Wikipedia administrator named JJMC89 who assessed its non-free use in that article and decided it didn't comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. JJMC89 also removed the non-free use rationale you added to the file's page for that particular use. Wikipedia's non-free use policy asks us to try and keep the use of non-free content as minimal as possible. While it's true that policy only requires a non-free file be used in at least one article, even one use of a non-free file is already considered to be quite an exception to WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files; so, trying to use the same file in more than one article means these additional uses are even more of an exception to relevant policy. When it comes to sports teams and clubs, the use of non-free team logos is generally only considered OK for primary identification purposes in articles about the main parent team or club, which in this case would be Mohun Bagan SG. The use of the same logo in other child team articles like an article about a youth team isn't generally considered OK per item #17 of WP:NFC#UUI. In such cases, a logo specific to the child team itself tends to be considered more appropriate for Wikipedia purposes if such a logo exists. If such a logo doesn't exists, then using the parent team's logo is still not automatically OK (even if a non-free use rationale is provided for it) and often a WP:CONSENSUS needs to be established in favor of doing so. You're, of course, free to discuss this more with JJMC89 at User talk:JJMC89 if you want. You can also ask for more feedback at WT:NFCC or start a discussion about the file's non-free use at WP:FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Night_King_-_Game_of_Thrones_S6E05.jpg

This one is free, but not necessarily the Night King

Hello!

I used File:Night_King_-_Game_of_Thrones_S6E05.jpg ([3]) to illustrate the page Vladimir Furdik.

Then JJMC89 bot came and removed it with WP:NFCC as the reason.

The file was uploaded by someone else in 2016 and it is in Fair use status. It is already used on at least two other articles (1, 2) in the mainspace.

So, is this a bot issue or the file has some other limitations I don't understand?

Thanks in advance. ColinSchm (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@ColinSchm In short, the rule on using a non-free pic of a fictional character on WP is this: We can have one, but only in the article about the fictional character. No Quark on Armin Shimerman etc etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, that's it. Thank you very much for the explanation. ColinSchm (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Neuropixels Probe Allen Institute.png

Hi. I'm not sure if this is a valid Non-Free Content use case. This image is originally from the website of a private institute (Allen Institute) which produces publicly available neuroscientific datasets, and depicts an electrode type for which there is no freely available image. The institute has a detailed Citation Policy for its datasets and various scientific materials and allows reuse of materials for non-commercial purposes so long as the citation is present, but nothing that specifically addresses images of technical items (https://alleninstitute.org/citation-policy/). Is this a valid use case for Wikipedia, and if so, which tag would apply? Thanks! Tazanzabub (talk) 09:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Tazanzabub: Non-commercial use restrictions pretty much means the content will need to be treated as non-free content when it comes to Wikipedia because it's not considered to be "free enough" for Wikipedia general licensing purposes. There are ten criteria that each use of non-free content needs to meet in order for the use to be considered policy compliant. Some of these criteria are easy to assess, while others can be more subjective and harder to meet. Perhaps if you provided a link to the exact image you want to use and then explain how and where you want to use it on Wikipedia, it will be easier for someone to give you a rough assessment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thanks for your reply! I imagine a link and context would be helpful :)

Original Image: https://portal.brain-map.org/explore/circuits/visual-coding-neuropixels

Wiki Image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Neuropixels_Probe_Allen_Institute.png

Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuropixels

The device described in the page is a new-ish piece of technology used to record many neurons in-vivo simultaneously. The image offers a visual description of the electrode, and gives an impression of both the size and the recording capacity in terms of available recording sites per mm of space. I would want to use the image as the lead image for the corresponding article as an illustration of the tech. Tazanzabub (talk) 09:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the added information. There are two potential problems. The first one is that the article is titled Neuropixels, but it appears to be mostly about a particular probe for detecting neuropixels. Perhaps that's just i the titling of the article, or perhaps the article started out as being about nueropixels and just just morphed into being one about the probe overtime. The reason why this might potential be a problem is it would seem that the lead image of the article should be an image of a neuropixel and not of a probe, which could affect how it's non-free use is assessed per WP:NFC#CS. The next potential problem is that the file you've uploaded is someone's artistic rendition of the probe, it's not a photograph of the probe itself. If you Google "Neuropixel probe" and check for images, you find some which appear to be photographs people have taken of one of these probes. The probe itself looks fairly utilitarian in design and thus not likely to be eligible for copyright protection for its appearance (in my opinion), which means there might be problems meeting WP:FREER. Why does someone's artistic rendition of the probe need to be used when someone can apparently take of photograph of an actual probe and then release the photo under a free license that is OK for Wikipedia? Just failing a single of the ten non-free content use criteria makes the content's non-free use invalid for Wikipedia purposes, and the file you uploaded seems to have problems with at least two of these criteria. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah maybe the article is not the clearest -- Neuropixel is the name of the probe itself, and is not a structure/element/other neuroscientific entity. But regarding the artistic rendition, I agree that this fails the criteria as a photo of the probe would better qualify. Thanks for the input. Tazanzabub (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)