Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2023/September

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Latvia_national_team_logo.png

Hi! This logo can be used in all Latvia national teams. All teams are playing with this badge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvia_national_football_team https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvia_national_under-21_football_team https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvia_national_under-19_football_team https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvia_national_under-17_football_team https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvia_women%27s_national_under-17_football_team Renārs Krīgers (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Request to update logos' informations

Hi, I would like to request you how could I add some non-free logos. Because if you check out this page on Internet Archive (https://web.archive.org/web/20190531154547/http://www.sonychannelasia.com/) you'll see the logo File:Sony Channel logo.png was the last logo of Sony Channel (Southeast Asian TV channel) and maybe other Sony Channel feeds. If I can't do nothing about it, could you update this information?79.21.5.205 (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I fixed it. A bot removed it because there was no fair use rationale on the image page. I added it and restored the logo. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Also Sony Channel (Russia) (https://web.archive.org/web/20171016174233/https://www.sonychannel.ru/) and Sony Channel (German TV channel) (https://web.archive.org/web/20161220174440/http://www.sonychannel.de/) used this logo. Can you fix it? 79.21.5.205 (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Probably not. Generally speaking, a nonfree logo should be used only once, on the article about the parent organization, not repeatedly on child organizations that use it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Photo of academic degree

Would the photograph of Adele Racheli's 1920 engineering degree on this site pass fair-use (of free-use) criteria? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 05:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Cl3phact0. Why would readers need to see a photo of her degree? Do you think they have a hard time understanding textual content about her educational background and degree without actually seeing a photo of it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Touché. That's another question and a fair one at that. As a first instance (in Italy) of a woman receiving such a degree, I thought it might have greater significance than in our times. Whether that justifies using the image, I don't know. Please advise.
For information and understanding, my initial question was about the admissibility of the image itself: is it, or, for that matter, are any of the photographs of the subject herself (for subject identification purposes) fair-use (either here or on Commons)? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
For future reference, Commons doesn't allow fair use. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
​ If it turns out that the diploma itself (sans frame) is no longer eligible for copyright protection, then the use of such content would no longer be subject to WP:NFCC. Even it that case though, I'm still not sure what encyclopedic value such an image has to the reader. Do you expect them to "read" what's on the diploma and gain some new insight into Rachelli? Is there some information on the diploma that can be expressed in some other way in the article per MOS:TEXTASIMAGES? Outside of copyright concerns, there are also contextual concerns related to image use. As for you question about an image of Rachelli, whether a non-free one of her could be used depends on whether such a use meets WP:NFCCP. Given the fact that she's dead, one could, in principle, per item #10 of WP:NFCI as a free equivalent image capable of serving the same encyclopedic purpose as any non-free one can neither be found nor created. If a photo of her first published prior to January 1, 1928, can be found, there's a good chance that it would no longer be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law and, thus, would now be in the public domain. It also most likely would be public domain in its country of first publication (e.g. c:COM:Italy) which would mean it would be OK for Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Marchjuly, very helpful information.
Re: diploma image: in addition to the above, it seems to pass Italian rules as a "government issued document", so I may go ahead and add it on Commons (for whatever it's worth), though I won't add it to the article itself without going via Talk page consensus. I'm frankly agnostic about this – thought it might add some interesting context as a "first", but also appreciate your questions concerning encyclopaedic value. (A lot of what I contribute here is related to subjects about which there is uncontestably ample reason for augmentation of the visuals – architects, artists, designers, etc. Also, as a visual learner, more is better tends to be my go-to. In this case, it's probably leaning towards decoration anyhow.)
As for an infobox photo (MOS:LEADIMAGE), the image I would love to use for this article is the photo of an older, bespectacled and besuited Racheli in front of a scholarly bookshelf. Would we be able to use this based on WP:NFCCP and/or WP:NFCI #10? Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
It's public domain in the US since it's over 95 years old. So you can freely upload it to Wikipedia. However, crop the frame out first:
  • The frame has decorative elements and could be newer
  • Copyright protection could apply to that part of the photo. (When you're photographing a 3-D object, it's arguably creative. But if you're photographing a 2-D object, no new copyright is created.)
Edit: and to upload it to Commons, the copyright in Italy needs to have expired too.
I'm sorry this is so complicated. Unfortunately, copyright isn't simple.
The Quirky Kitty (talk) 08:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Image for Stephen Sondheim's Old Friends

Hello, I uploaded an image from the following website [1]

I am unfamiliar with the process of uploading an image from a website. The file is: File:SOF TodayTix 480x720.webp

Would you be able to help me process this the right way just so there is no mixups, etc? Thanks. Smitty1999 (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Smitty1999. Content like this posters is almost certainly protected by copyright. Such content can, in many cases, be uploaded to Wikipedia and used in articles, but it's considered to be non-free content and needs to satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy each time it's used. Each non-free file requires two things as explained here: (1) a copyright license and (2) a non-free content use rationale. Most non-free files only really need one copyright license regardless of how many times the file is used, but a separate, specific non-free use rationale needs to be added to the file's page for each use. When you upload the file, you failed to provide any information about the provenance of the file or a copyright license, and this is why the file has been tagged for speedy deletion per speedy deletion criterion F4. Assuming that you're not claiming that the file is either within the public domain or otherwise has been freely licensed, the file needs to be provided with a non-free copyright license and a non-free use rationale to avoid the file being speedily deleted. Provinding these things don't necessarily make the file's non-free policy-compliant and the use can still be challenged, but it provides enough information to avoid speedy deletion per criteria F4 and F6. Since this file appears to be poster art for a play, I suggest using Template:Non-free use rationale poster for the non-free content use rationale and Template:Non-free poster for the copyright license. Go to the file's page and click "Edit" at the top. Remove the syntax for the two deletion related templates and replace them with the syntax for the non-free content use rationale and the non-free copyright license. Once you've done this, makes sure to fill in the parameters of the non-free content use rationale template per the instructions given on the template's documentation page. Some of the paramters might not be applicable or otherwise optional and you can fill the latter in if you know that information, but you should make sure to fill in the ones for |article=, |source= and |use=. When you're done, click "Show preview" to check to make sure everything looks OK. If it does, make sure to add an edit summary briefly explaining what you did and then click "Publish changes". -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Marchjuly Thank you for this information. I just added the templates you provided. Would you be able to look at the link and see if I did the templates correctly. I appreciate your help. Smitty1999 (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello again @Marchjuly! I was able to add the templates you mentioned so everything should be ok now. I again do apologize for not providing that information. All should be good now. Thank you again for your help and I will remember to do this in the future. Smitty1999 (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
I tweaked the formatting a little, should be fine now I think. Felix QW (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Bildarchiv der Österr. Nationalbibliothek

Could anyone please tell me if this image and this image are in the public domain or otherwise acceptable for an article? I asked a simillar question a few months ago here, and in turned out that those images could not be used, but these images are different and perhaps they are free to use. Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I have just included this image and this image to the article Alfred Verdross. Since it's WP:GA article, I'd appreciate if someone could check if everything is OK in terms of copyright. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Why do you need a photo of him in 1933? What is it about his appearance in that photo that "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the section topic"? In other words how does this non-free image meet WP:NFCC#8? -- Whpq (talk) 03:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
The section explains that Verdross was not a Nazi, but an early sympathiser with Nazism, especially at the beginnings of the 1930s; later, after the annexation of Austria in 1938, he struggled to adapt to Nazism (he was a Catholic and a pacifist) but eventually accommodated to political pressure and found a modus vivendi with the Nazi government. Arguably the reader may find it instructive to know that at the time his appearance, particularly his haircut and moustache, resembled that of Hitler, as can also be seen in this photo from 1935, which is even more indicative and clear. Toothbrush moustaches were popular in interwar Europe, but wearing them in 1935 might look like a political statement - indeed he cut them off after the war, as shown in this picture (which, by the way, I also would like to include in the article, but I'm afraid it is copyrighted, or is it not?). Do you think that this rationale meets WP:NFCC? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
No it does not meet WP:NFCC#8, because when I reviewed that section there was no sourced commentary about his appearance at all. And his appearance in the photo seems to be quite similar to the free photo in the infobox. -- Whpq (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
OK, I've self-reverted and removed the image from the article (here). You're right that there's no sourced commentary about Verdross's appearance: I thought that WP:NFCC#8 could be assessed using WP:COMMONSENSE. What should I do with this page? Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
AS the uploader, and sole significant contributor, you can tag it {{db-author}} to request its deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 Done Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Helmfrid-sofa4 Touched.JPG

Suitable for the Main Page in October? The Kinks' 1965 US tour will be at TFA. - Dank (push to talk) 19:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@Dank: Since that particular file was uploaded to Commons, there's not much that can be done about it here on English Wikipedia. It's licensing seems OK, but you probably should ask about it at c:COM:VPC if you feel otherwise. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Thx. - Dank (push to talk) 00:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Does File:Hebei Finance Uni Name.png meet the US threshold of originality?

Another logo with Chinese writing that's public domain

I changed it to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} because it is simply writing, and because the US Copyright Office refused protection to File:JeetKuneDo.svg, which also has Chinese handwriting. Then @User:Benjamin Ceci reverted my edit disagreeing with my assessment. He then left a message on my talk page with his rationale:

I'm not particularly interested in the copyright status of this file, but a better understanding of the originality of calligraphy would be useful to me since I change many "non-free" simple logos to {{PD-Textlogo}} or {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I think I just found my answer. This is Circular 33] from the US Copyright Office:
The Quirky Kitty (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
{{PD-ineligible-USonly}} would be correct. It can't go to Commons since it is copyrighted in its home country, but US law would not see that logo as eligible for copyright. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the third opinion. I will make future edits accordingly. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Bernard Gotfryd

The Library of Congress lists Bernard Gotfryd's photographs as free of restrictions--Gotfryd willed his image copyrights to the public domain (he also has a dedicated Commons template). However, the LOC has only scanned and made separate image pages for the color photos, and not the thousands of Gotfryd's black of white photographs in its physical collection. Meanwhile, the National Museum of African American History and Culture has scanned some, which they list as copyrighted to Gotfryd--e.g., this one, which would be perfect for our article on him. Can it be assumed that the NMAAHC has just not updated its information following Gotfryd's death, and the LOC's statement to apply to all of his photographs? Thanks. blameless 21:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The Library of Congress said "There are no known copyright restrictions on Bernard Gotfryd's photographs in Library of Congress collections.", which means they aren't offering an opinion on photos held elsewhere (such as the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture). Can you show that it is the same photo held in both places? You might contact the library and museum to inquire (and perhaps ask them to forward the result of the correspondence to Commons:Volunteer Response Team if it is indeed public domain). The museum may not be aware of the will. Alternatively, do you know of a place where his will has been analyzed (i.e. verifies fairly conclusively that the grant exists and is valid), that we could rely upon directly? TheFeds 19:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Is Global Times images non-free

User:Applaused uploaded several images from Global Times and claim that they are licensed under CC-SA-4.0. Such as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Depo_tegalluar.jpeg
However, I believe those images are non-free as there is no evidence those images licensed under CC-SA-4.0. I just want here some opinions to ensure those images are actually non-free and the request of speed deletion is not a mistake. Benjamin Ceci (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

It's a copyright violation -- Whpq (talk) 11:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Where's the copyright tag that says an image is over 95 years old, and the publication date isn't known, but is generally assumed to be right after it was created? I can't find it anywhere. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@The Quirky Kitty: Are you looking for {{PD-old-assumed}}? It uses 120 years rather than 95 years, but it refers to creation date rather than publication date, and it only works for creators whose death date is not known.
Alternatively, are you sure that there is a template for this? Even on Commons, we don't have a template for this (as far as I am aware). It's an assumption that gets made conditionally depending on the medium of the work that we're examining. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
@Red-tailed hawk Maybe the tag doesn't say that. I don't think it's a license tag. It's a warning tag that says something like, "This work was created more than 95 years ago but there's no evidence it was published 95 years ago. Thus the copyright status is uncertain." Edit: I know it exists though. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't fit what you are describing but perhaps you have a couple of templates mixed together in your memory. Might it be {{PD-anon-expired}} that you are thinking of? -- Whpq (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Commons now treats works created before 1928 (etc.) without proof of date of publication as if they were published at the time of creation.[2] Thincat (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit: Many months later, I found it: {{PD-US-suspect}}. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 07:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

File:0x10c logo.png, 3D renderings of text logos, and the US TOO

I've noticed that this logo seems to be based of text rendered on a typeface (Arial?), but then some depth effect is applied to give it a 3D feel. This file is tagged {{Non-free logo}}, but I wonder if that 3D effect is still below the TOO in the United States, so it could be retagged to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}? (and, in the rare case that it's also below Sweden's TOO, could also be moved to Commons.)

I found another question regarding the same exact file at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2023/May, but recieved no response... SergioFLS (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

File:William Pitt Ballinger.jpg

I'm not sure File:William Pitt Ballinger.jpg needs to be treated as non-free given that the subject of the photo William Pitt Ballinger died in 1888. It seems that it should be OK to assume at least {{PD-Old-100}} or {{PD-old-assumed}} for this file, unless the argument is that first publication took place after 1 January 1928. Even in that case, {{PD-US-not renewed}} might apply unless first publication took place after 1 January 1964. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Commons now treats works created before 1928 (etc.) without proof of date of publication as if they were published at the time of creation.[3] Thincat (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for that infomation Thincat. I'm assuming that makes this file OK as {{PD-old-assumed}}, right? Is the 2016 publication any cause for concern? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Well, I think over time you have learned more than I have about these things! By a complete fluke I happened to browse into this discussion and the Commons one in close proximity so I'm glad to have had an opportunity to make my remark. It is first publication that counts, later are irrelevant. In this case we may have no evidence of date of first publication. Also, we (and Commons) very strongly treat any respectable publication (in a newspaper or book, say) as authorised publication (and unauthorised publication would not count). I was also wondering about the appropriate template but I came to the same presumption that you have. Thincat (talk) 09:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
The ultimate source of the file seems to be this print kept at the Rosenberg library. It certainly looks professionally published to me, so {{PD-old-assumed}} seems just fine. Felix QW (talk) 10:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

PD-old-templates

I noticed when looking through the Wikipedia files with disputed copyright information that {{PD-old-70}} automatically places an image in the Wikipedia free files category tree. This is an issue though since {{PD-old-70}} usually acts like {{PD-UK}} and similar templates, asserting that an image is free in a non-US jurisdiction, which usually has no bearing at all on whether it is free as a Wikipedia file (which follows US copyright), and it leads Fastilybot to add {{Wrong license}} whenever such an image also has a non-free use license. Therefore I would propose bringing {{PD-old-70}} in line with {{PD-UK}}, which has an option to either assert that the file is free in the UK and thus good to go to Commons, whether US copyright has been restored and the image is treated as non-free or whether the image should be categorised in Category:All media requiring a US status confirmation and the Category:Images with an unknown US copyright status tree. Does anyone here have any thoughts on this matter or could assist with the technical part of making this happen? Felix QW (talk) 09:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I have now created a sandbox version of the changes I would propose, Template:PD-old-70/sandbox‎.
The new categories for restored and unknown copyright status would have to be created, in analogy to those that already exist for the individual countries. Felix QW (talk) 17:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

My mind just stumbled upon something. On a site like Getty Images, one can buy the right to common uses of a photo for up to 15 years. Common uses on GettyImages include: "Newspapers and magazines (except for covers), editorial broadcasts, documentaries, non-commercial websites, blogs and social media posts illustrating matters of public interest"

Wikipedia is a non-commercial website. If a Wikipedia editor for some reason or the other wanted to voluntarily spend his own money on buying en.wikipedia.org the temporary rights to use a certain image, should he be able to do that? English Wikipedia does already use copyrighted images in the form of fair use. Is this something that has ever been discussed?--Marginataen (talk) 12:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

non-commercial websites doesn't work, since (outside fair use) pics on WP/Commons has to be available for commercial use, like the text content. What you can do is pay/convince a copyright holder to release the picture with an acceptable license, and those don't have time-limits. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Claimed CC-by-SA images that can no longer be verified

I'm doing a content review and the article uses a number of claimed free images from a commercial television series. The images say that at one time the press kit they were sourced from had a CC-by-SA license, e.g. File:The Chosen - Jesus touches the leper.jpg, but the press kit link is now dead, and the archived versions don't seem functional enough that I can replicate the convoluted steps on the page to verify it was licensed that way. I'm not entirely sure what I should do in regards to determining whether these images meet our policies (at least with Flickr offline photos we've got a bot-verification check.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The validity of the licence was verified in 2021 by a Commons license reviewer. That it was accepted in 2021 as valid, appears to be sufficient for the file to be retained on Commons. I don't think any other action is required. Nthep (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
D'oh, I didn't scroll down enough to see that, which renders my question moot. Thanks! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2023/September&oldid=1213128280"