Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2023/March

Graphics Lab request

I edited an image made by a wiki-user for a graphics lab request but am unsure what copyright tag should be used. I don't think it counts as my own work as I've only made a minor edit to someone elses content. Anyone know what tag should be used? (for context its Diocese of Blackburn request https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Illustration_workshop) Clubspike2 (talk) 09:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@Clubspike2: the original version File:Diocese_of_Blackburn_arms.svg has been released in the public domain by its creator. That means you can do anything you please with it and nobody can sue you for copyright violations. In particular, you have produced a modified version (File:Diocese_of_Blackburn_arms_updated.svg) which you released as public domain; that is certainly allowed.

The only question would be: if you had tagged your modified version as CC-BY-SA (or any other license), and someone else used it in a license-violating manner, would you be able to sue that person for copyright violation? (As you agreed with a release in the public domain, that’s a an academic question anyway, but here goes.) Arguably, your change makes no significant difference, hence it does not meet the threshold of originality and you have no copyright claim in the result. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 15:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Given that we are here already, there might be an issue with the rose taken from File:FlagOfLancashire.svg.

This image has been taken from the Friends of Real Lancashire and is licensed on Commons with a share-alike license. If this license were valid, the public domain dedication would be illegitimate since it would not comply with the share-alike requirements of the rose design. However, I can't find a basis for the license on the FORL webpage, [1], whose web graphics page merely says that the images are "free to be used on your website". Felix QW (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Good catch. https://twitter.com/FORLancashire/ seems to be an active Twitter account - maybe someone could ask them to put the flag as PD or CC-BY-SA? Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 15:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I have asked the following at their website’s "contact us" page

email text

Hello, I am an editor on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. I have a question regarding the copyright status of the flag of Lancashire. The page https://www.forl.co.uk/online-resources/web-graphics says that "These images [including the flag] have been produced by the Friends Of Real Lancashire and can be used freely on your own website". However, that language is probably not sufficient to allow the flag to be used in so-called "derivative works". For instance, one Wikipedia editor created a coat of arms for the diocese of Blackburn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Diocese_of_Blackburn_arms.svg). As it stands, that useful image is a copyright violation and could be deleted. Would you agree to release the flag (and maybe other images) under a more standard permissive licenses? If so, I would suggest to choose between either "public domain" or "CC BY-SA". "Public domain" means that there is no restriction at all on the use of the flag (same status as the Union Jack). "CC BY-SA" means "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike". That standard license requires reusers to (A) attribute the source of the content in any reasonable manner you specify (for instance, a link to a page of the FORL website), without implying you endorse their use; and (B) share any derivative works under the same license. The simplest way to do that is by a public statement: you could alter the text of your website to read "the flag of Lancashire (can be used under the CC BY-SA license / is public domain)", or have the Twitter account @FORLancashire post a similar statement. Alternatively, there is an email procedure (via https://relgen.toolforge.org/); it is private but it takes a bit longer (roughly 10 minutes). You can find more details about why such a statement would be required at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tigraan/Wikipedia_copyright_inquiries . Thanks for your time, All the best, Tigraan

We shall see if they answer. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 17:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to email them! Felix QW (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, it’s been a week and a half, the Twitter account has been active, and I did not get any reply. Sadly, I am going to nominate the file for deletion. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

One of Enterprise Records logos

I previously uploaded a now-deleted image containing a rainbow crescent logo representing Enterprise Records (45cat, ebay), part of Stax Records. I thought about having it undeleted and then re-nominated for discussion, but then I'd be going around circles without taking this first. I wonder about its eligibility for US copyright. George Ho (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The logo could well be public domain in US. The wordmark for "enterprise" would certainly be. But the whole record image is really too much for public domain. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

But the whole record image is really too much for public domain. I respectfully disagree. As I can see, the whole info about the product itself is too factual, the font is very basic, and even the song title alone isn't original enough for copyright. Furthermore, the background is very plain, solid, and simple, not complex. Why do you think otherwise? I hope you're right about the logo, nonetheless. George Ho (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

If that doesn't convince you enough, then one of past Commons DR discussions would. Similar issue; the result there was "kept". George Ho (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Well that convinced me even less, as you voted in it, as I know you like to say images of records are public domain. That commons file should be deleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

If you think it should be deleted, then please re-nominate that file if you will. I'll stand by my vote, anyways. George Ho (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Almost forgot: How about one of FFD discussions, which resulted in transfer to Commons without opposition? George Ho (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Can I add arrows and letters to a non-free image? (Crown copyright, not OGL)

Can I add arrows and letters to a non-free image so I can describe in the caption what the picture shows? Specifically, it is a debris field from an aircraft accident, and the location of certain parts and ground marks are important to a full understanding of what happened. (The article is about the plane crash, not the image.) I think that would improve the article. Is there a rule against altering a non-free work, or making a derivative work of it? (I'm not sure I fully understand the difference.) Or are the derivatives and alterations simply another form of non-free material? Thanks! Dcs002 (talk) 09:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I would believe that adding very simple shapes to a non-free would not be considered a derivative work, but you should be clear in uploading and providing the rationale that points to the source of the original image and its copyright, and that the markups are yours. But I would see if you can do this without markup - can you say "in the upper right of this image" (for example) before trying to do markup

A different concern is that if you are adding these marks to an accident picture to try to point out things not picked out by other sources, this is original research and not appropriate for WP. Masem (t) 18:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much. The details are too small to be located by text. (For your info, the image in question is here.) They are small details in a large field. The details are specifically pointed out in an enlarged close-up of the debris field within the original source report, but that image (also non-free, same Crown copyright source) does not contain the whole crash sequence, as this non-free image does. This is a wider view than the one with the details marked in close-up. The fact that the uploaded non-free image contains the whole crash sequence and also the locations of certain important aspects (e.g., resting place of the main landing gear, ground marks of the initial impacts of engines, landing gear, etc.) was part of the justification for using the non-free image, so I think it's important to have some means of pointing those details out. That's where this question is coming from. Dcs002 (talk) 11:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Grigoriy Davydovich "G.D." Plaskov

I am looking to upload a photo of Soviet General Grigoriy Plaskov to his page, but all photos in existence of him are not in the public domain. Can I do this by using fair use rationale, and if so, how would I do this? TheUnabashedUkrainian (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Since he has been dead for over 40 years, an image could well be used under fair use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@TheUnabashedUkrainian, pick a good one, go to Wikipedia:File upload wizard, choose: Upload a non-free file > This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use. > This is a historical portrait of a person no longer alive. Don't worry about resolution, a bot will come along and fix that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I found one and uploaded it, and now the article looks much better. TheUnabashedUkrainian (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Uploading a map from a legal case

I am trying to upload a map from a judgment from 1989 by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and am unable to do so. My previous one was deleted for copyright reasons; I have tried to navigate around to figure out what copyright this may fall under to try to get it back but I have had no success and I am honestly getting quite frustrated. How would I go about attempting to rectify this, or is it even worth the effort? ATireOnFire (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

What makes you think a publication by the Province of Ontario is not copyrighted? I know U.S. states are all over the map [excuse the pun] on this, but don't know much about the provinces. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

This is where my frustration comes from--I can't find anything beyond this, which says that Ontario court cases are copyrighted by the province but that decisions and reasons can be reproduced without permission. Is a map a "reason" for a decision? It surely isn't a decision. I could see a map being part of how a tribunal reaches a decision but I can't find any specific reference to mapping or images in court or government decisions.

Appreciate the answer! ATireOnFire (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

If it was pulled from the Ontario court system, then the entire decision is copyrighted.

A question to ask if you can recreate the map without too much difficulty? Using the court decision as the reference, as long as they are showing factual aspects (like, locations of events documented in the case), and not creative elements. Masem (t) 16:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't considered making it myself! I could certainly do that with reference to the original. Would that then be sufficient to make it my own and thus usable? ATireOnFire (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

If it's a large, street scale map, consider starting with openstreetmap.org - like the Wikipedia of maps! Dcs002 (talk) 07:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Textbook piracy

Hi I ran across an article that contained links to a pirated copy of a commonly used textbook that is still in publication. I have deleted the link. Are there other steps I need to take? Should I worry about it appearing in the articles history? Thenub314 (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

If the text book content is copied into the article, then the history may be cleaned up. If the link is just in one revision then that too could be removed But don't worry about a link if others have edited it with the link in. Just delete it from the current and future versions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Thenub314: the link you removed is also linked from a handful of other pages. Looks like amobbs is site used for file-sharing. All links to that site. DMacks (talk) 11:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Sigh, thanks, I will take a look through them. Thenub314 (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Daniel Logan (DALO).jpg

I believe the uploader does not have proper permission to use this image File:Daniel Logan (DALO).jpg based on their comments about the source of the image here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Logan (DALO). I have no experience in this area, so I bring it here.  // Timothy :: talk  12:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The image is listed at Files for discussion so the determination of what to do will happen there. There isn't a need to open a second discussion outside the FFD. -- Whpq (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The AFD won't deal with any issues with the image. You're going to have to nominate it for deletion at Commons as the image was uploaded there. Linking to the AFD where the admission that the uploader didn't have the appropriate permission will help though. Nthep (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Why

Why did the bot do this? What makes this one campaign logo different from any of the other campaign logos used on this page and across Wikipedia? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi BottleOfChocolateMilk. Actually, there's really no strong encyclopedic reason to use any of those campaign logos in that particular article, and I've gone and removed them. However, the reason the bot removed the one you're asking about has to do with it being licensed as non-free content. Even though all files may seem to the same when you see them being used in articles, they're often licensed differently and it's a file's licensing that determines how it can be used on Wikipedia. Non-free files are required to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and there are ten criteria that each use of a non-free file needs to satisfy. The bot removed the file you're asking about because it's use didn't comply with non-free content use criterion #10c; this is why the bot included a link to WP:NFC#Implementation in the edit summary it left when it removed the file. Each time a non-free file is used, a separate, specific non-free use rationale needs to be added to the file's page explaining how the relevant use meets Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. The bot that removed file has been tasked with finding non-free files lacking such rationales and then removing them from articles. When the file File:Logo John Wood For Mayor.JPG was uploaded, the uploader provided it with a non-free use rationale, but didn't specify where the file was going to be used: they mistakenly added "n/a" to the |article= parameter instead of the name of an article. Since the bot checking on this file was not able to interpret this as being for the article 2023_Philadelphia_mayoral_election, it removed the file. However, even fixing that error most likely wouldn't enough the justify the file's non-free use in that article since the use of non-free content in tables like the one in that article is considered to be WP:DECORATIVE for the most part and it almost never allowed per WP:NFTABLES, WP:NFLIST, WP:NFC#CS and MOS:LOGO. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Folies Bergere Tropicana Matchbook front closeup.jpg

I just had a bot delete my image of a matchbook ad from 1960: Folies Bergere Tropicana Matchbook front closeup.jpg. It should qualify under copyright exception "PD-US-no notice advertisement". What is the best way to reactivate the file and get the proper exception template updated? Gumballhead1of2 (talk) 10:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Gumballhead1of2 it was deleted from Commons for a lack of licence. You'll need to ask a Commons admin what the deficiencies were. Nthep (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Delaware Blue Hen

Last year I uploaded this image as fair use for identification in our page on the Delaware Blue Hen. I've just adjusted the crop on it, and find myself less than certain that it is really acceptable under our criteria, so I'd appreciate some feedback from others. (Note: it seems to have a complex earlier history including a statement of permission in 2005 and a transfer to Commons in 2011, incomplete details on request; I can't find it on Commons now). Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

What exactly is at issue? This looks like a non-free, copyrighted work that has been devalued (cropped and shrunk to <100k pixels), with a fair use rationale provided. It is the image used to depict the subject of the article, the only image used in the article, and it is used in only one article. It was sourced from a state government website, which further minimizes commercial loss because state governments are not commercial enterprises (though of course they do have the right to earnings from their copyrights). It seems to tick all the boxes for Wikipedia's fair use rationale as far as I know.

However, Wikimedia, as an archive, does not actually use images. Therefore, fair use cannot apply to Wikimedia. This picture could not be stored on their servers, per policy, which is why all fair use material used on Wikipedia must be stored on Wikipedia servers, with fair use rationale in place. This all looks proper to me, but I'm not exactly an old timer here. I've had a crash course on these issues due to a few recent blunders of mine, so I'm kinda studied up on this topic. I hope others will also chime in. Dcs002 (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Dcs002, I agree that on the face of it it looks OK; however, this chicken still exists (in tiny numbers), so one could argue that a free image could be created at any time. That's why we don't allow non-free images of living people; does the same also apply to living chickens? On US regional government copyrights, I checked this page, and found that it doesn't mention Delaware. And yes, I'm hoping that some user(s) with broad expertise in this area will chime in. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The question would be on how accessible these chickens are. If they can be seen by the public, then WP:NFCC#1 is not met. If these chickens are fenced off in a farm somewhere that is available only to researchers, etc then WP:NFCC#1 would possibly be met. I'll note that the current NFUR identifies it as not replaceable because "no free image identified" but that is insufficient to satisfy the replaceability criteria. Not only should there be no current free image, it must also be the case that a free one cannot reasonably be created. -- Whpq (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Whpq, thanks for this, which confirms what I suspected. There are apparently about 40 of these birds at the University of Delaware, so access to them is not inconceivable. This is a very low-grade image and not worth the expenditure of much effort – I'm going to go ahead and delete it. Thanks all round, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Copyright/Licensing on University image

I recently uploaded this image, which has associated metadata listing all the copyright holder information. It was flagged for deletion for lacking information on copyright and licensing status. What can I change to make this file copyright-compliant? Would {{Non-free promotional}} be an appropriate tag? Thank you! Spagooot (talk) 05:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Spagooot. Non-free images of still living persons are pretty much never allowed per non-free content use criterion #1 or Wikipedia's non-free content use policy since it's almost always considered reasonable for a free equivalent image that can serve the same encyclopedic purpose as any non-free one to either be found or created. So, unless you took this photo yourself and want to give your WP:CONSENT for it to be released under a free license or you can get the person who did take the photo to give their consent, this file is going to end up deleted, most likely fairly quickly. It's OK if you didn't know this, but there's really nothing that can be done for a photo like this other than getting the copyright holder's consent. For reference, the copyright holder of a photo like this is in almost all cases the person taking the photo and not the subject of the photo; so, even if the subject said it's OK for you to use on Wikipedia, that's not going to be sufficient for Wikipedia purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Spagooot:The page that image is used on might also be problematic. It looks like a brief resume. If you have an interest in that article, you should probably look at WP:GNG for general notability guidelines and WP:PROF for notability guidelines for professors. Nearly all of the sources on that page list him as a co-author, and what remains looks like department information pages, profiles, that sort of thing. As it stands, there is nothing I can see in the article that establishes his notability. He needs coverage in media other than his own publications and his own institution. (Citation trackers aren't coverage.) Sorry to be a downer, but the WP:AFD patrol might challenge that page, and I don't think it can stand up. Dcs002 (talk) 06:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Play sets

What are the rules around copyright/FoP for play sets in the U.S.? Would I be justified in uploading a photo of w:Shear Madness, even though the set is copyrighted? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sdkb. I'm assuming you mean props, background scenery and other stuff that is used on stage during the performance of a play. I don't think any of that would be considered something covered by c:COM:FOP United States since I don't believe the US FOP applies to interior photography. Something more akin to c:COM:CB#Museum and interior photography might be more relevant, but even then it would depend on the amount of creative and artistic attributes of set.

If you were just taking a photo of the entire stage in which the set was visible but incidental to the primary focus of the photograph, then such a photo might be OK and the set considered to be de minimis; on the other hand, if your photo focused on an individual element of the set and this element was something considered to be more creative/artistic (e.g. painting-like backdrop, costume, poster art) than utilitarian (e.g. household furniture, building facade, streetlight), then you might have a problem. There are probably lots of gray areas where certain photos might be OK depending on who you ask and the specific nature of the photo. That's why it's probably a good idea to ask about this at Commons and if possible provide a specific example of the type of photo you would like to upload.

In addition, to the copyright status of what's photographed, you would also need to consider the copyright status of the photo itself. If you take the photo, then you can release it under a free license that Wikipedia accepts; however, if it's a photo taken by someone else, you will need their c:COM:CONSENT to upload the photo regardless of the copyright status of the set.

Finally, none of what I posted above has to do with non-free content since FOP isn't really relevant when it comes to non-free content and Commons doesn't accept non-free content of any type. If you're asking about whether such a file can be uploaded as non-free content, please provide more information about the type of photo and how you intend to use it. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is quite restrictive and there are ten non-free content use criteria that need to be met each time a non-free file is used, and meeting some of these crtieria can be quite hard. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that info! Emailed you with the photo. It's of the stage as a whole, but the set is the main thing on stage, so I don't think there's any de minimis argument. I took the photo. Using it as a non-free image would be a possibility if it doesn't end up being free. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sdkb: There was really no need to send me anything by email. Even if I said, "Sure, looks fine, go ahead and upload it", there's no guarantee others would agree or that the file would never be nominated for deletion. Moreover, any comments I make regarding the photo are going to be meaningless to others who are unable to see it. FWIW, many venues have "house rules" in which they say "photography is not permitted" for one reason or another. These rules might be formally stated in some way on a ticket stub or a sign, or they might be things that someone like an usher or staff member verbally tells patrons. For the most part, though, they seem to be more of a "moral right" matter than an "image copyright" matter, and Commons and Wikipedia isn't too concerned about the former per c:COM:NCR and v:Museum photography. Of course, if you're a regular customer of a business that tells you not to take photographs, then ignoring them might create problems between you and the business; those problems, however, don't usually seem to end up being copyright violations but things involving private property laws, public safety laws or other local laws/ordinances. Things could even vary quite a bit depending upon where the photo was taken. So, when trying to take a photo at an event and you're approached by a staff member who says "no photographs are allowed because of copyright", they might just be repeating what they were told to say because people taking photographs detracts from the experience of others at the event who are complaining about it. What you would need to do is check your ticket stub or what the official policy is of the venue and then figure out if uploading such a photo to Wikipedia or Commons can somehow come back a bite you in the butt in some way. The thing about the free licenses that the WMF accept is that they pretty much allow unrestricted commercial and derivative re-use, and Wikipedia/Commons are very well-known websites. The combination of those things might make it more willing for a copyright holder to try and claim a photo is an infringement, then if you uploaded it to your personal social media account. This doesn't mean they would be necessarily justified in doing so, but rather something that they might feel like an image uploaded to Commons is more of a "threat" to their commercial interests. The copyright holder might still feel that even uploading the file as non-free content still violates their rights in some way and argue its an invalid claim of fair use to do so without their permission. Anyway, whether your photo is really a copyright violation is probably something you would need to talk to a copyright expert like an intellectual property attorney about if this really concerns you. For reference, I did find this, this, this and this, but there's a lot more online about this type of thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Image of Chucky doll

Is the image File:Chucky the doll.jpg eligible for Creative Commons and permitted to be used without a non-free use rationale? It's a picture of a toy and it's on Wikimedia Commons, but I'm skeptical because it involves the trademarked likeness of a fictional character. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Thebiguglyalien. Since that file was uploaded to Commons, it's probably better to discuss things at c:COM:VPC since Commons is where any issues with the file will need to be resolved. However, my personal opinion is that this is probably a derivative work as explained in c:COM:TOYS depending on source country of the toy (i.e. the country where the copyright on the "Chucky imagery" is likely to have been registered). Tecnically, this seems like a case of Flickrwashing; most likely unintentional, but nonetheless it's still Flickrwashing. For reference, what bots like Flickrviewer2 do is check to see whether the licensing for the photo uploaded to Flickr matches the licensing for the file uploaded to Commons, and whether that license is OK for Commons; the bot can't look at a photo like this and say, "this might be a derivative work since it's a photo of doll" or "this photo doesn't look like the original work of the Flickr account holder". That's where human reviewers are supposed to step in, but unfortunately there are more Flickr files being uploaded and verified by bots than there are users re-checking the bots work. So, it's usually only when someone like yourself starts asking questions about a file that it gets more thoroughly assessed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I'm here to learn. If I take a picture of a toy that I own, any toy, say it was made by an American company, does the toy's presence in my image mean the toy company owns the copyright for the appearance of the toy, and my picture is a derivative work? Does the toy have to be the primary subject of the photo for that to apply? If so, could a photo of a child playing with the toy be used if the child is more prominent than the toy? I'm not sure where that line is drawn. How can we get free license on pictures of people without getting clearance from their clothing and jewelry manufacturers? I know that's a lot of questions, but it seems to me there's a great big gray area in there somewhere. Is there an easy answer? Thanks! Dcs002 (talk) 06:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Dcs002: Try taking a look at c:COM:CB and c:COM:DM since they provide some general guidance about the things you've mentioned. You also need to remember that everyone on Wikipedia and Commons is a volunteer and is just trying to answer questions to be helpful. There's no guarantee that anything posted will be 100% "correct" per Wikipedia:General disclaimer. The only way to 100% sure about something such as image copyright would probably be to contact a specialist in the field and ask them about a specific image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm asking because I want to be a better contributor. I have inadvertently run afoul of WP and Wikimedia copyright rules before, and I just want to understand them better, as well as learning more about copyright law as it applies to fair use (which peripherally affects my own life as a teacher on occasion, concerning what I may or may not distribute to my students, which of course is beyond the scope here, but useful to me nonetheless). I have found that a lot of the people here and on Wikimedia's copyright discussion pages have a great deal of expertise, though not lawyers. (I suspect some of them might be!) I will read those pages you linked. Thanks again! Dcs002 (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

So, as I understand these (and other) pages, the only ways that toys are allowed to appear in images here is if their appearance is de minimis or if the toy is of such a simple design that it cannot be copyrighted. Or under a fair use rationale if on the WP server? Does that sound right? Dcs002 (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I guess the other option would be that the design of the toy is sufficiently old for its copyright to have expired (e. g. the classic Victorian doll designs). Felix QW (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

No, pictures of toys that are more than simple shapes are fully eligible for copyright (photos would be a derivative work). Masem (t) 21:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Why Bangladesh Football Federation logo is removing from Bangladesh national football teams???

Hello!

Since a year, many of us Wikipedians trying to add logo of Bangladesh football federation.svg on Bangladesh national football team & Bangladesh women's national football team. But everytime someone is deleting showing the reason: It was removed in accordance with the non-free content policy, with which you are obligated to comply.

My question is If we can't use that public domain logo how Argentina, India, Brazil and other national football teams are using their respective federation logo?

Also, this exact same logo is currently using on Bengali Wikipedia Bangladesh national football team pages including under 17, under 20, under 23 and the national teams (both men and women). See here: Men's National & Women's National

Please help by adding the logo and add some sort of file protection so that others don't delete this again!

At the end, it represents Bangladesh to the world with pride!

Update: I asked many administrators but all of their answers were unclear and unsatisfied. The best they said the policy Bengali wiki is different from English wiki so you can't use that here. Ok I agree! Then how other national teams are using? Like: India Men's National Football Team, Brazil Men's National Football Team etc. Their federation logo also comes under public domain. So how are they using?

My simple request: Either add the Bangladesh Football Federation.svg logo to national football teams with file protection or delete all the federation logos from their respective football teams. They are also violating copyrights!

Thank you, HridoyKundu (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The issue is that some logos are simple enough to be considered ineligible for copyright, and some are not. For instance, the logo of the Indian football federation is hosted on Commons as free, as is this logo of the Brazil football federation.

I do think there is something to discuss though, as Wikipedia uses the file we actually include for the Brazilian federation and the file we actually include for the Indian federation under fair use, in contrast to the situation on Commons.

I'm not sure if it makes more sense to discuss this here or simply to open a FFD entry for those two files though. Felix QW (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

This keeps coming up but there is this discussion Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 December 14#File:Bangladesh Football Federation.svg and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive348#JJMC89 bot deleted the Bangladesh Football Federation logo from their National Team pages (both men & women). They all seem to come down to WP:NFC#UUI17 and that the logo is already used in the parent association article. Nthep (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Felix QW: There's sometimes inconsistency when it comes to logos like this between Wikipedia and Commons. Usually, it happens when a non-free logo gets removed from an article for WP:NFCC reasons, and the person who added the file to an article where it got removed either doesn't understand why or just doesn't care why and still wants to use the file as they please regardless. So, sometimes they or someone else mistakenly assumes that uploading the file to Commons automatically makes everything OK. Since Commmons also doesn't vet files before they're uploaded, these often go unnoticed until someone points them out. I wasn't aware that Commons was hosting the files you mentioned and local Wikipedia bots wouldn't be looking at them because they're Commons files. Perhaps Commons shouldn't be hosting those files, but that's a Commons issue. If they were discussed in a c:COM:DR and kept, then that would (at least in my opinion) be sufficient to justify there's no longer any need for local non-free files of these logos, but others might feel differently. Finally, Wikipedia isn't hosting those two team logos under fair use, but rather under as "non-free content". "Non-free content" is sort of Wikipedia's version of fair use, but it has intentionally been set up to be more more restrictive than fair use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The issue I see is that if we treat these files (the Indian and Brazil ones) as non-free content, then they probably shouldn't be on the national teams' articles per WP:NFC#UUI17, while if we take the Commons public domain claim at face value then it obviously doesn't matter. So in my opinion English Wikipedia does have to make a decision one way or another. Felix QW (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Files uploaded to Commons are not subject to English Wikipedia non-free content use policy. Whether a file should be uploaded to Commons is a matter for Commons to decide. Now, if you want to start a FFD about the two local files and suggest they be relicensed to "PD-logo" based on the fact that they've been uploaded to Commons, then you may do that. If the consensus is that they are PD, then they'll probably be deleted in favor of the Commons files. However, none of those things are going to affect the non-free use of the Bangladesh team logo, unless the argument is that it too should be "PD-logo", and the fact that the OP is "unsatisfied" with the answers they received so far seems to be more of a case of them not understanding or not accepting that WP:OTHERIMAGE and WP:DELETEALL are almost never valid arguments for non-free use. I'll also add that a similar post was made at WT:CP#Why Bangladesh Football Federation logo is removing from Bangladesh national football teams???. Finally, I'll also add that neither Wikipedia nor its non-free content use policy is concerned with whether the logo represents Bangladesh to the world with pride!; that has nothing to do with why the file was removed from the individual team articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

All I understand you have to accept biased opinion in Wikipedia also!

Thank you, HridoyKundu (talk) 03:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Bot action on ADX Florence

I recently added some images to the ADX Florence page, in the Notable current inmates section. However, after some time, JJMC89 bot did this, and removed the images. I have since reviewed the Non-free content criteria at WP:NFCC, and have found that these images met all but one condition: I apparently forgot to add a rationale for the image addition.

If I add another rationale to all the image pages, on the lines of what can already be found at Richard Reid "Shoe Bomber".jpg, and then revert the changes made by the bot, will they be accepted?

Thanks in advance for your help.

Lorenzo Diana (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Lorenzo Diana. Adding non-free rationales would stop the bot, but it wouldn't necessarily make the way you intend to use those images non-free content use policy compliant per WP:JUSTONE. The bot is just checking to see whether there's a non-free rationale as required by WP:NFCC#10c; it's not checking any of the other WP:NFCCP that need to be assessed. In principal, non-free images to identify individual entries in list articles or list-like tables is almost never allowed for the reasons given in WP:NFLIST and WP:NFTABLES, and don't see any reason how that particular section would be an exception. In such cases, a link to the entry's Wikipedia article where the same image can be seen is pretty much considered an acceptable alternative to another use of the file. You can start a discussion about the files and how you want to use them at WP:FFD, but I think it's going to be hard to establish a consensus in favor of such non-free use. You can certainly disagree with my assessment, but you might want to ask for feedback from others at WT:NFCC before trying to re-add the files to that article.-- Marchjuly (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Public domain in country of origin but not in US

What are the rules for an image where it is in the public domain in its country of origin but it's still under copyright in the United States? Are there any special considerations, such as a non-free use rationale, or can it be used as a 100% public domain image? I'm looking specifically at File:Ghidorah The Three-Headed Monster Poster.webp. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien As the note on the file says to be hosted on Commons, the image has to be PD in the country of origin AND also PD in the US as that's where Commons is hosted. To be hosted on Wikipedia as a free content file the image only needs to be PD in the US. This file is of course the opposite and is PD in country of origin but not PD in the US. The only option in this case is to host the file on Wikipedia under the non-free content rules. As a matter of personal preference and this isn't obligatory, I note files that I upload as non-free content if they are PD in the country of origin. Nthep (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: Looks to me like this is PD in the US because this poster seemingly wasn’t published in the US, and was published without a copyright notice – see Commons:Template:PD-1996. Nope, that’s wrong, sorry.Snowmanonahoe (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

PD-ineligible-USonly for Maltese political party logos.

Would like some input on whether File:Logo of the Nationalist Party (Malta).svg, File:Maltese People's Party Logo and Motto.svg, File:Communist Party of Malta logo.png, and File:Għarb l-Ewwel Logo.svg are simple enough per c:COM:TOO US for local use on Wikipedia. The TOO for Malta is unclear per c:COM:Malta, but it might be close to c:COM:TOO UK given Malta's historic ties to the UK. If it is, then I don't think these files can relicensed as {{PD-logo}} and moved to Commmons, but they might be OK to be convert from {{non-free logo}} to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. The Nationalist Party's logo is pretty simple with only the crown to worry about. The People's Party logo) is bascially text with two simple shape elements.The Communist Party's logo seems to be nothing more than imagery (e.g. hammer sickle, laurel wreath) commonly used by many communist party logos and said imagery might be PD in its own right. The last of the four (The Għarb l-Ewwel logo) actually has been uploaded to Commons and is currently being discussed at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Għarb l-Ewwel Logo.svg. If the opinion is that all or some of these files need to remain non-free, then their use in List of political parties in Malta would fail WP:NFLISTS and the files should be removed from that article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Logo of the Nationalist Party (Malta).svg: Assume it's copyrightable. The crown is not a simple arrangement of geometric shapes but an actual picture.

File:Maltese People's Party Logo and Motto.svg: Change to PD-ineligible-USonly. The logo is just two P's with a slight degree of flourish.

File:Communist Party of Malta logo.png: The logo consists of timeless motifs but presumably draws them in a unique way. When does a drawing of wheat stalks or a hammer and sick become copyrightable?

File:Għarb l-Ewwel Logo.svg: It's geometric shapes, but the way they arrange to depict a castle is somewhat novel and creative. I'm personally uncertain, so would leave the license as is. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Shape of a country or state in logos

Does simply including the shape of a country or region in a logo make it copyrightable? If I understand what I'm talking about, there's no creativity in simply depicting a geographical area. Relevant examples:

• File:Acadia Parish Schools logo.gif
• File:AdvanceArkansasInstitute.jpg
• File:All-Africa Games (logo).png

The Quirky Kitty (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Schreck.jpg and File:Nosferatu.jpg

Could someone please determine what the copyright status of these files in their home country is? There's been a slow-motion edit war over it by several IPs. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Thomas Reed (Alabama politician)

Anyone know if we are able to use this image or a crop of at Thomas Reed (Alabama politician) Hiding T 13:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Dated 1966, too young for public domain, and afaict the website wants to sell their pics, so I don't think so. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Hiding Sorry, I see now that the subject is dead. Yes, you can use it as leadimage non-free on WP, but isn't there a better one? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I think this is better:[2]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes that's much better, thank you! Hiding T 15:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Editing description of already added image

I need to add source for the existing image on my page and I am not able to edit the description of that existing image. What should I do? Pofw (talk) 08:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Pofw: Are you asking about File:Teaser poster for BB.jpg? That file currently is lacking information about its source and it's also lacking a non-free use rationale. You can resolve both of these issues by filling in and adding the template {{non-free use rationale poster}} to the file's page. However, non-free content can only be used in the article namespace per non-free content use criterion #9; this means you can't use the file in Draft:Bhagwan Bharose as explained in WP:DRAFTS#Preparing drafts. Once the draft has been approved as an article, you can re-add the file to the infobox. If the file ends up deleted before the draft is approved as an article, don't worry since it's not gone forever. It's only hidden from public view and can be restored by an administrator by posting a request at WP:REFUND. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)