Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2024/August

PD-US-expired?

File:Andrew Mitchell Uniacke.png is licensed as non-free, but it's a photo of Andrew Mitchell Uniacke who died in 1895. Does this really need to be treated as non-free? Can't this be relicensed as {{PD-US-expired}} or something similar, and tagged for a move to Commons? According to the file's description, the original source is a book published (possibly in Canada) in 1901.-- Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes images are published a long time after their creation. If it was published in 1901 though then US copyright has expired. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Marchjuly: I've uploaded the following version of the file to the commons as c:File:Andrew Mitchell Uniacke-portrait.jpg generated from the same source but from the individual JP2000 files and converted from that format to jgp. It is almost 100% larger than the non-free file. ww2censor (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Jo-Jo Eumerus and Ww2censor for taking a look at this. @Ww2censor: Maybe you could explain what you did to the local file's uploader so that they don't try and reuse the file after the "orphaned non-free use" notification shows up on their user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done ww2censor (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Fake PD claim?

File:Coal Black and De Sebben Dwarfs (1943) by Bob Clampett 2.webm has a PD copyright notice, but that appears to be fake (the video is a relatively recent review of a cartoon from 1943); what is the right thing to do about this? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

That file is on Commons and would need to be nominated for deletion there. -- Whpq (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Before nominating it for deletion on Commons, though, you might want to first ask about it at c:COM:VPC just to see what others think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you; I will ask at commons. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

And now the file has been deleted by the person who originally posted it; thanks again. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Old WoRMS logo – two versions of the same version of the logo, one on Commons, the other here

Is the old WoRMS logo copyrighted? The Commons version is c:File:WoRMS.jpg and is said to be under a CC BY-SA license, but the version on the English Wikipedia is claimed to be copyrighted. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Alfa-ketosav: The local non-free file was uploaded more than a year before the Commons file was uploaded; moreover, even though the source url is the same, the uploaders of the two files are different. I can't see anything on the latest version (at least at first glance) of the source website that indicates the content contained on that page has been released under a CC-by-SA license; however, such information could be on a different inner page or I could just be missing it. The wesbite's Terms of Use page states that text is released under a CC-by-SA license but images are released under a CC-by-NC-SA license. Whether that was the case at the time the files were uploaded, I can't say; a NC license, however, isn't free enough for Commons. My guess here, per WP:AGF, is that the user who uploaded it to Commons just made a mistake and for some reason just thought it would be OK to do so.

FWIW, that's user's Commons user talk page is filled with lots of file licensing related notifications; some of the files have ended up deleted but others have been kept. The user hasn't edited Commons or any other WMF projects since 2018; so, they might've moved on and won't respond to a direct enquiry. The non-free seems fine at the moment; so, it's the Commons file that needs to be sorted out, and that needs to be done on Commons. Maybe try asking about it at c:COM:VPC? If the Commons file ends up deleted, then the non-free should most likely stay non-free. On the other hand, if the Commons file is kept, then the non-free is no longer need and can be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

At the Village pump's Copyright section, Felix QW said that When the old logo was uploaded, WoRMS said the web pages and their information was used under CC BY but did not say which version, and there was no hyperlink to any version of the license, so {{Attribution}} may be used there. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

==

File:The Spitfire Makers plaque, Sun Engineering Ltd, Newman Street, Shirley, Southampton.jpeg

Would File:The Spitfire Makers plaque, Sun Engineering Ltd, Newman Street, Shirley, Southampton.jpeg this be considered a 2D graphic work in the UK? If it is, then this might not be able to be kept since there's no freedom of panorama for 2D graphic works in the UK per c:COM:FOP UK and the textual content of noticeboards and signs is often eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:CB#Noticeboards and signs. This doesn't qualify for {{FOP-USonly}} and I don't see any justification for converting to a non-free license based on the file's current use in the article Blue plaque. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

There are numerous images of blue plaques on Commons, so unless there's a massive purge to come then they must be assumed to be 3D and are therefore covered by FOP-UK. Nthep (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

NIH History Office photo = US-GOV PD?

Working on a draft for a former National Institutes of Health (NIH) virologist and I ran across this photo posted by the official social media account for the NIH History Office. Is there any way to figure out if this counts as an "official publication of a US government employee during the course of their work", which would make it public domain? Silverseren^C 01:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Resolved

I contacted the NIH directly. They said all photos of her are from various issues of the NIH Record and, thus, are all public domain. So I'm good now. Silverseren^C 02:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Fair Use of non-free political cartoon?

On the page Stochastic Terrorism, I would like to use the non-free cartoon published by UK artist Dave Brown in The Independent on 2 August 2024 - Image from this page depicting UK politician Nigel Farage throwing petrol bombs into a riot whilst saying "Me? I'm just tossing a few questions out there!". It would be included in the Incidents section, with the section on the 2024 UK riots.

I think - but am not entirely sure - that this can meet Fair Use, but have little experience with non-free media outside organisation logos. Aside from being an excellent piece of commentary and illustration of Stochastic Terrorism, the work represents a very rare (and thus significant) example of directly linking Farage's speech to violent disorder. UK mainstream media have been very reticent to publicly call out right-wing extremists (especially elected MPs!) for encouraging violence - carefully couching their criticism behind free speech concepts. It is therefore of encyclopaedic value in illustrating both the concept of stochastic terrorism, and commenting on the UK media's increasingly critical position on such speech. In terms of fair use policy:

• No Free equivalent - It is not realistic to find a free image that represents "commentary by mainstream media", as the latter is always copyright!
• Respect for commercial opportunities. - As a daily cartoon, the work is intended to be disposable - little secondary value is envisaged. A low-resolution version would not inhibit the limited market for prints or signed copies
• Minimal usage - Min legible resolution
• Previous publication - published by the Independent
• Content & media policy - I believe it meets these.
• Contextual Significance - Stochastic terrorism is a concept that is being increasingly discussed in public discourse and this art is an early and significant piece of commentary that succinctly describes it and would increase readers' understanding.

What does the gallery think? Hemmers (talk) 10:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it fails WP:NFCC#8 as the lack of it does not really detract from a reader's understanding of the concept. -- Whpq (talk) 11:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Flag of Bangladesh Nationalist Party unusable

This file getting copyright claimed and removed from pages. It is needed for List of political parties in Bangladesh and probably various other pages involving anything about the Bangladesh Nationalist Party ComradeJarif (talk) 10:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The file in non-free which means that each individual use of the file must meet all of the non-free content criteria and must have a separate non-free usage rationale. The image is being removed from the list article because the file description does not have a non-free usage rationale for its use in the list article, nor should it as the use in a list article is essentially decorative and fails to meet WP:NFCC#8 for contextual significance, -- Whpq (talk) 11:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

File:BUCEES STATUE.png

Hello, I recently received a derivative work warning on an image that I added on the Buc-ee's article, File:BUCEES STATUE.png. The former image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BuceesRichmond.jpg depicted the exact same work I uploaded, only that the former image was up for 2 months and mine got a warning. I don't understand why that one didn't and what can I do to fix it. I took the image, disclosed everything, and wouldn't ever upload a copyrighted image if I wasn't aware. Please help explain. FloridaMan21 (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

My main question is how should I go about it? Reupload? I'm not sure how to use a double license. I'm willing to wave all rights and have someone else do it if possible? FloridaMan21 (talk) 02:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The issue is not about your license. The issue is about the copyright status of the statue. There is no freedom of panorama in the US for statues. As such, unless the statue is under a free license or public domain, then the image is not usable unless a suitable non-free usage rationale is provided. As currently used, I do not see how all the non-free content criteria would be satisified. As for the Commons image, it will likely be deleted in due course. -- Whpq (talk) 04:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok thank you for that information. Copyright isn't my thing as you can see :( FloridaMan21 (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Mary Kay Bergman photos

I have a question about the Mary Kay Bergman photos. Are they in fair use, or are they freely licensed? I really want to illustrate the images to justify the context better, and I keep getting notifications about warnings that they may be deleted after two days. I couldn't find any evidence of a Creative Commons Attribution license. The files are in below:

If you want me to delete these photos on the article, please let me know. I do agree that they can be covered by text alone. Aubreeprincess (talk) 08:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Aubreeprincess: Generally only one non-free image of deceased people are allowed in their biographic articles. If there is supporting sourced prose, you might justify the use of File:Mary Kay Bergman 1980.jpg as an example of her very different appearance around that time. Otherwise, without any "contextual significance" all 10 WP:NFCC#8 guidelines apply. ww2censor (talk) 12:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Note that if one were to successfully show with significant sourced critical commentary that the appearance in the 1980 photo should be included, then it should be placed in the infobox and replace the existing infobox image. To have both images, one would need to provide justification that both images are needed in the article. See WP:NFCC#3a. -- Whpq (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

"Leave It All to Me"

Should the song clip on this page be replaced with File:ICarly 2021 theme song.wav? This file was extracted from a video that was posted to YouTube by Paramount under CC-BY 3.0, and while the license no longer appears on the page, my understanding is that the license is still valid for anyone who receives a copy of the video or any derivative work of it and has not violated the license. (However, the full version of the song, which is two and a half minutes long, is not covered by the license.) Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 20:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Update: I have asked a relevant question at commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright § iCarly theme song extracted audio. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 20:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Draft:James Herbert Williams

Could someone take a look at the images on that draft? I'm no expert, but I believe that at least some are tagged with the wrong licence unless the uploader uploaded the images themselves. Nobody (talk) 05:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Those are on Commons, so it would have to be handled over there. I am indeed very dubious that all of those photos are the uploader's own work, so I think it would be worth requesting deletion there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Seraphimblade, @Krd could you take a look? I saw you deleted some from the draft some time ago. Nobody (talk) 06:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I dropped the uploader a message on his talk page. Let's see what they say (if anything). Felix QW (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Scan & upload 1930 German scientific publication?

I have a physical copy of a historically important scientific publication. I cannot find any existing digital version of it. I would thus like to upload it to Wikimedia Commons and/or the Internet Archive, for example.

My understanding is that the text ought to be public domain by now, but perhaps the physical layout, the journal's logo, etc., prohibit it from being published 1:1.

• The publication is a special print (Sonderabdruck) of: Berger, Hans. 1930. Das Elektrenkephalogramm des Menschen. Die Medizinische Welt 4: 911–913.
• The author died in 1941.
• The journal is no longer active ("Erscheinen eingestellt").
• The publisher has been bought and appears to still exist in some form.
• It is a three-page publication, with the first page, containing a prominent logo/header, looking like this.

Am I allowed to scan my copy and upload it with a CC0 license? Lrkrol (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The paper would need to be public domain in both Germany and the US.

• In Germany, the copyright term is up to 70 years after the death of the author. So it is in the public domain in Germany as of 2012.
• In the US, there are different rules for works published abroad, works published before 1978, and those published before 1929. These rules are listed at Commons:Hirtle chart. If it is not in the public domain, it will enter the public domain on 1 January 2026. Also, if it was owned or administered by the Office of Alien Property Custodian (like many Nazi copyrights), it is in the public domain.

Note that {{CC0}} should only be used for works that you own the rights to. For other works, a template like {{PD-old-70}} is more appropriate. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 21:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, when was the special edition published? Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 21:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Qzekrom! The special print is from the same year, 1930. My understanding now, then, is that it is in the public domain in Germany, but because it's "Solely published abroad, without compliance with US formalities or republication in the US, and not in the public domain in its home country as of URAA date", I'd have to wait until 2026 for my upload to Wikipedia or other US-based platforms. Indeed it'd then have to be PD rather than CC0.

In the meantime, it should be alright to upload it to sites hosted in Germany, is that correct? Lrkrol (talk) 10:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can see, that is exactly right. Only if the journal had also been simultaneously published in the United States would that be different. Felix QW (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Resolved

Thanks @Felix QW, I think this has been cleared up for now then! Lrkrol (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Videos by Combating Islam

Someone has uploaded several videos from an obscure YouTube channel called Combating Islam, found under Commons:Category:Videos by Combating Islam, which I am pretty sure does not hold the copyright for the videos in question. The videos in question are originally published by the YouTube channel JihadWatchVideo of Robert B. Spencer, and seem to have been re-published by this other channel under an unlawful CC license. The videos are not actually under CC by its original publisher. Thismess (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Update: I found out how to nominate the files for deletion myself. Thismess (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Linda Kearns.jpg

Hi, I think this is from USA. See File:Linda Kearns, three-quarter length portrait, facing forward.jpg, probably taken at the same session. Yann (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The source credit the photographer as "Boyé, O. H." and looking for such a photographer, it's probably the person mentioned here which states Otto H. Boyé, who operated in San Francisco 1896-1900 and later. So yes, looks to be taken in the USA. -- Whpq (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I moved the file to Commons. Yann (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Guidance Needed on Copyright Submission for Journal Cover Page on Wikimedia Commons

Dear Wikipedians,

I would appreciate your guidance on how to properly comply with the Wikimedia Commons rules related to copyright.

A learned society publishes a scientific journal, and it appears that the copyright for the journal's cover page is held by the society. The journal's chief editor, who has the managerial authority, has used the Commons:Wikimedia VRT release generator - Wikimedia Commons to upload a high-resolution version of the cover page to Wikimedia Commons. He received confirmation via email from Wikimedia Commons acknowledging his permission to use the media file(s) on the platform.

As he prepares to upload the image, he is prompted to confirm that it is not a logo. We are uncertain whether this should be selected, as the cover page does feature the publisher's logo, which could technically be considered a logo in that context. However, there doesn't seem to be an option for "submit logo" on Wikimedia.

Could you provide any advice on how to proceed in this situation?

Thank you for your assistance,

Firefly2024 Firefly2024 (talk) 10:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

For questions about Commons, you should ask at Commons. Try c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. -- Whpq (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt reply. Firefly2024 (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Why is a photo permitted on one Wikipedia page, but banned from another?

Why is a photo permitted on one page and not another? Why isn't "non free rationale" true for *both* usages of the photo?

Every photo I add is one I have found elsewhere in use on wikipedia already. Last time it happened: File:PinUps.jpg ; why was this photo allowed on the album's page, but not on Twiggy's page, when she was on the album cover?

Oodles of album covers permitted on pages of individual models, musicians and artists--so is there some magic formula why some are allowed and some are not? PB57 (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

If it's under a non-free usage, then it's only allowed on the article that is the subject of the image. So, in this case, the album article itself and nowhere else. If you're seeing covers on other pages, those covers may not being used in a non-free manner. If they are, then that's against the rules and they should be removed, but no one has gotten around to it yet. Silverseren^C 18:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

There are ten non-free content criteria, and all must be met, for each separate use of an image. In this case, I think the key difference is contextual significance. The cover of an album is very significant to an article about that album, but it's probably not as significant to an article about someone who happens to be on that cover. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, looks like this is already explained in a footnote of WP:NFC:

NFCI#1 relates to the use of cover art within articles whose main subject is the work associated with the cover. Within such articles, the cover art implicitly satisfies the "contextual significance" NFCC criterion (NFCC#8) by virtue of the marketing, branding, and identification information that the cover conveys. The same rationale does not usually apply when the work is described in other articles, such as articles about the author or musician; in such articles, the NFCC criteria typically require that the cover art itself be significantly discussed within the article.

jlwoodwa (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Uploading a picture

Hello! I want to upload a picture I took of a Epargyreus clarus to Wikipedia for potential use on its page. I'm totally confused with the copyright since the picture isn't really licensed, it was taken by me with my phone and cropped to 1403x1879. I plan the file name to be "Epargyreus clarus on wooden floor"

Lucy LostWord 17:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Never mind, I think I can just attach a free license to it.

Lucy LostWord 17:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

ILike Leavanny, just for clarity, you are quite correct. Since you took the photograph, you are the copyright holder to it and may license it however you so choose. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Lucy LostWord 20:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure you know this, but for the sake of completeness/generality: this also depends on whether the subject of the photograph is copyrighted. Wikipedia:Image use policy § Photographs describes this in more detail. It wasn't important for this particular photograph because the appearance of a plant is not copyrightable. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Marcia Lucas

Greetings, I recently uploaded a now-deleted image File:MarciaLucas.jpg because a user quickly advocated for a speedy deletion because supposedly it failed the section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file from a commercial source (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images).

I do not see how it failed the criteria because it was clearly the subject of sourced commentary. It was also cropped from a larger portrait photograph, so it would hopefully avoid copyright infringement. PrinceArchelaus (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@PrinceArchelaus. I think you're slightly misreading the criteria. WP:NFC#UUI #7 states A photo from a press agency or photo agency (e.g., AP or Getty Images), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. (my emphasis added). If you want to use a press image then that specific image has to be the subject of commentary, not that the subject appearing in the image is being commented upon, i.e. "this picture depicting a person is special because ...", not "the person in this picture is special because ..."

There's an additional issue in that Marcia Lucas is still alive, so the use of any non-free image of her is likely to fail WP:NFCC#1 as a free image could be found or created. Nthep (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

If that's the case, the subject(s) of commentary would be both George and Marcia Lucas. Could I reupload the full uncropped image? As for any free image, it's doubtful I can find one. I can suggest this image in which the copyright owner is Athena Studios, but I don't think it's free. PrinceArchelaus (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you're still misunderstanding. What is the commentary about that particular image? Not, what does the article say about Marcia and George, but what does the article say about that specific image of Marcia and George that is significant (and sourced) in their careers/life. As far as I can see it doesn't say anything, it's there solely as an image of the couple.

Uploading the uncropped image isn't an improvement for the same reasons. Wikipedia's policy on non-free content is deliberately strict in order to minimise the amount of non-free content as this runs contrary to the aim of making information freely available for others to read and re-use. That's why the majority of BLP articles don't have illustrations - because free images haven't been found or created. Nthep (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

How do add license tags

I know I have to edit the description page but what do I write down to write the copyright tag. Please tell me soon or my image will be deleted JimmyCarterLover1 (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@JimmyCarterLover1: Are you asking about File:William Wheeler Grave.jpeg? If so, then can you provide more information about the provenance of the file? Did, for example, you take this photo yourself or did you find it online? If you took it yourself, then you should take a look at c:Commons:Licensing and Wikipedia:Image use policy because both those pages contain information on the types of copyright licesning you can use if you really want this photo to not end up deleted. If, however, you didn't take this photo yourself, then Wikipedia can't really keep with obtaining the WP:CONSENT of the person who did or having some sort of formal way of verifying that person who took the photo has already released it under an acceptable free license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Florida mugshot

It seems like File:Mugshot of Sky Bouche, the Forest High School (Florida) shooter, April 2018.jpeg is OK to relicense as {{PD-FLGov}} given that it was taken by the Sheriff's Office of Marion County, Florida, shouldn't it be? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Yes, it's okay to relicense as that if the mugshot was taken by a Florida county. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Does the Bible Methodist logo need permission?

I don't know if the Bible Methodist Connection of Churches (this one: the image) logo needs permission or not because if it does, it probably should not be uploaded to wikipedia, but I believe it's non-free. However, I am still unsure if needs permission right now, I want to know if it's fully compliant with Wikipedia's policies before proceeding. MJGTMKME123 (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@MJGTMKME123 It looks to pass the threshold of originality to me, so could only be used as a non-free file. (Note. I'm British where TOO is very low, US editors may disagree with me) Nthep (talk) 06:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@Nthep I'm just asking if it needs permission or not. MJGTMKME123 (talk) 11:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@MJGTMKME123 not if you're going to upload it as non-free. You just need to fill out a non-free rationale. Nthep (talk) 12:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@Nthep Thanks! MJGTMKME123 (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Rooms by the Sea

Rooms by the Sea uses a non-free image of Edward's Hopper 1951 painting. How do I determine instead, if this is in the public domain in the US, as it may have been published between 1929 and 1977 without a copyright notice? The only copyright public record I could find is this one, which appears to be filed by the New York Graphic Society, which is an art reproduction company. It is not a copyright record for the original painting. Does this mean the painting is in the public domain? Viriditas (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Works attributed to Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Do I understand correctly, that this text is in public domain? Thank you in advance, Викидим (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

cover of DVD

Why was a cover of a DVD removed when new art from Alien: Romulus#/media/File:Alien Romulus 2024 (poster).jpg is OK. I scanned the DVD cover myself. It was taken off from Superheroes: A Never-Ending Battle page.

See: below.

Wikipedia:Use rationale examples

# It illustrates educational articles about the album from which the cover illustration was taken.

# The image is used as the primary means of visual identification of the article topic.

# The use of the cover will not affect the value of the original work or limit the copyright holder's rights or ability to distribute the original. In particular, copies of the image could not be used to make illegal copies of the album artwork on another CD.

# The image is only a small portion of the commercial product.

I bu Qstor2 (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I checked there's no copyright to the image ITSELF just the movie

https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=Superheroes%3A+A+Never-Ending+Battle+&Search_Code=TALL&PID=xotPCWxsXMkEHIGVrOlyRiit8Ich3&SEQ=20240826172254&CNT=25&HIST=1 Qstor2 (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Qstor2: The bot that removed File:Image of cover of dvd.jpg from Superheroes: A Never-Ending Battle left an edit summary explaining why that contained a link to WP:NFC#Implementation. Did you take a look at that page? What that bot is looking for is a non-free use rationale that's specific to the article where you want to use the file; more specificlly, the bot is looking for some kind of indication (i.e. a WP:WIKILINK) to the article where the file is intended to be used. Since the bot didn't find such a link, it removed the file. So, even though you did provided part of a non-free use rationale for the file's use on its page, you didn't provide any link or other indication specifically stating where the file is intended to be used. All you need to do is add a link to the article when the file is being used to the rationale and then re-add the file to the article. That should be enough to stop the bot from removing the file again.

Finally, the DVD cover art is copyright protected separately from the movie itself. Any type of creative copyright eligible work first published in the US on or after March 1, 1989, is automatically eligible for under current US copyright law as soon as it's "fixed". Copyright formalities (registration, notice, renewal, etc.) are no longer a requirement for copyright protection under US copyright law, and most other countries due to the Berne Convention. Registration, for sure, can help a copyright holder file successful claims of copyright infringment against others, but it's not required for copyright protection. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Qstor2 (talk) 10:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The bot approved it. How do I "move" it back to the page? Qstor2 (talk) 11:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Qstor2: I'm not sure what you mean by the The bot approved it since that's not really what the bot does; however, you seem to have figured things out on your own. If the bot doesn't remove it again (for that very same reason), then I guess that is a kind of "approval" so to speak. Please understand for future reference, though, the adding of a non-free use rationale for a particular use doesn't automatically make said use policy compliant as explained in WP:JUSTONE. In this case, things should be fine. If, however, the file should by chance get removed again by someone else or a bot, pause for a minute and try to sort out why; if there's a proper reason given for its removal, further discussion/review may be needed to assess the file's non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Qstor2 (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Removed WP:NFCC violation(s). No valid non-free use rationale for this page. See WP:NFC#Implementation.

Why can't the Beijing Normal University logo.svg be placed on the Beijing Normal University at Zhuhai page? Realmomo (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Realmomo for the reason you've put in the section heading, file:Beijing Normal University logo.svg has no fair-use rationale for its use in Beijing Normal University at Zhuhai, it only has a rationale for use in Beijing Normal University. Every individual use of a non-free file requires its own discrete rationale. Nthep (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Beijing Normal University at Zhuhai is part of Beijing Normal University, and the two schools share the same logo. Realmomo (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Realmomo: The fact that the two schools share the same logo doesn't automatically mean that the same logo file should be used in both articles. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy tells us to minimize our use of non-free content as much as possible and use free equivalents (which includes using no images as all) whenever its reasonable to do so. For this reason, as explained in items 14 and 17 of WP:NFC#UUI, policy discourages the use of parent entity logos in articles about child entities. A university, for example, may have a main campus and several "other" campuses at other locations; in such cases, Wikipedia policy tells us it's generally OK to use the university logo for primary identification purposes in the main infobox or at the top of the stand-alone article about the main campus, but not OK to use for the same reason in stand-alone articles about the other campuses. Even if all the campuses are using the same logo, relevant policy says the logo shouldn't be used in the other campus articles. Now, if one or more of the campuses has their own specific logo that identifies them, then it's usually OK to use that logo. Policy in a sense is telling us it's better to use no logo at all in the other campus articles than reuse the same logo as the parent entity. So, even though you added a non-free use rationale for the file's use in the other article, that particular use could still be challenged as being invalid according to relevant policy, and the file still could eventually be removed. Adding the rationale should stop the bot from removing the file, but it doesn't automatically mean the non-free use in question policy compliant as explained in WP:JUSTONE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)