Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

1924 Russian book cover
image on ruwiki. This image was uploaded in 2015 as copyright fair use. Is it still copyright in 2024, the 100 year anniversary of publication? Desired destination is Commons or enwiki, for use in Plutonia (novel) as a free image not fair use. -- Green  C  20:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @GreenC Russian copyright is life +70 years (extended in some cases to 74 years). The source  according to the ruwiki file description says "Cover illustration and interior illustrations by M. Dobrov", so you need to find when M. Dobrov died to work out if the cover is out of copyright yet.  US copyright is going to depend on whether this image was used on an edition published in the US and when. Nthep (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It might be book illustrator Matvei Alekseevich Dobrov, but I can't prove it, and he died in 1958, only 66 years ago. -- Green  C  21:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * US copyright only depends on the year of publication, no matter where in the world. (Twin Books Corp. v. Walt Disney Co. is a ruling that says otherwise, but conflicts with other US courts and is generally considered wrong; I've never seen anywhere on the Wikimedia websites that worries about it and I believe certain WMF-connected individuals would love a chance to get that overturned at the Supreme Court level.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Prosfilaes: Does that mean a 1924 Russian book cover could reasonably be uploaded to Commons as PD, since Commons is hosted in the US? -- Green  C  20:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What that means for our purposes is that Commons would not be a good destination, given that Russian copyright is very possibly still enduring. However, with a 1924 publication date, it is free in the US, and therefore can be uploaded locally to enwiki. Felix QW (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * OK. File:Obruchev Plutonia 1924.jpg. If you have suggestions for changing the license. -- Green  C  21:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I exchanged the license tag. Thank you for coming here with the issues! Felix QW (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * thanks. I was unaware free in US but non-free elsewhere can be uploaded to enwiki, that would have solved some prior problems with files deleted from Commons. -- Green  C  22:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If there are any you still have in mind, c:Commons:Undeletion requests outlines the process for temporary undeletion so you can bring them over here. Felix QW (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A few months ago I lost this deletion request . It's a LibriVox cover based on a Swedish movie poster from 1921. LibriVox follows US Copyright so it's basically the same situation (Sweden has a 70+ year author rule). I can copy the image from LibriVox and use the same license tags.  --  Green  C  00:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * One could also go to Requests for undeletion and ask for the movie poster that used to be hosted here as non-free use to be undeleted on the same grounds. Felix QW (talk) 06:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * User:Altenmann confirmed Special:Diff/1230812682/1230999027 Matvei Alekseevich Dobrov (d. 1958), thus 2028 it could be moved to Commons. -- Green  C  00:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Pavancb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#c-Nthep-20240621211800-GreenC-20240621201100 2409:40F2:3057:F932:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Non-free photo of fraternity pin
File:Pi Lambda Sigma Pin.png was uploaded and licensed as non-free, but that only would seem to be necessary if the pin itself is eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:CB. If the pin isn't eligible for copyright protection (e.g. it's PD-US-1989 or PD-US-no notice, then a non-free license just for the photo would fail WP:FREER. On the other hand, even if the pin is eligible for copyright protection, then it would still seem that a non-free photo wouldn't be allowed per FREER since a freely licensed one could be uploaded and used instead, with a non-free license still being provided for the pin. FWIW, the design of the pin seems fairly simply and might actually be below c:COM:TOO US which means the only thing that matters would be the licensing of the photo, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you are right. So see if you can a photo! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As a 3D piece of jewelry, I do not think we can apply TOO here. We don't consider, for 2D art, effects that give the perception of depth or the like unless it was straight forward things like a drop shadow, and here, this is well beyond just raised letters on the center of the pin (eg why photographs of coins are fine, but not much more) M asem (t) 00:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

== Copyright on a journal's cover photoSwiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (talk) 11:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC) ==

Hello,

Could you please provide detailed instructions on how to properly upload and tag the cover photo on Wikipedia what belongs to a Journal?

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Kind regards,

Kateryna

Research Assistant~ Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (talk) 11:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Answered on the now-blocked user's talk page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Mexican peso
Open question. Mexican peso has 103 non-free files in it and is undoubtedly the page with most non-free files on Wikipedia, beating the second place by some 80 points. Articles are structured and worded to minimize the total number of items of non-free content that are included within the encyclopedia, where it is reasonable to do so. can be read at WP:FU. So is this use of 103 non-free files really warranted? Jonteemil (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well I will comment that the article is quite long. Other analogous articles may be split into several pages, such as "banknotes of". I think it is fair to include these images as the appearance of currency is very important to identification. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Currency articles tend to be the highest image use-per-article on WP, however, it is fair that in a country where there is no automatic PD-ness of government coins or banknotes, that illustrating each major printing once (front and back) per issued note is fair. It does make sense to split banknotes from coins (and possibly both from the discussion of the peso as the unit of currency if necessary. There's a clear reason and purpose to that.
 * Of course, if there is an official image from the Bank of Mexico that includes all the necessary images in one single image, that would be far more preferrable as that would be a single non-free instead of a dozen or so. M asem (t) 00:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Moroccan cemetary photo
File:Rissani Jewish Cemetery.jpeg is a non-free photo of a cemetary currently being used in Rissani. The photo is being used in an image gallery (which is not really allowed) per WP:NFG, but there are a few sentences about the cemetary in the paragraph located above. I'm not sure whether there's enough though to meet WP:NFCC, but I'm also wondering whether this needs to be treated as non-free. c:COM:FOP Morocco seems to indicate that there's only a very limited type of freedom of panorama allowed under Moroccan copyright law, but it seems that this would be OK under US copyright law. Is there any way for this file to be treated as PD locally under US copyright law? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Since it is taken from a (recent) book, then it would be copyrighted, an not available under PD. A new photo could be taken and published here on Wikipedia so fair use is not appropriate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Illustration added to artist's artice
In the article about artist/scupltor Miles Teves, there is a paragraph under "Reception" that praises a specific piece of Teves's art created for the cover the role-playing game Skyrealms of Jorune. I tried to add a non-free image of trhis artwork in order to illustrate this, using the rationale "This artwork is specifically mentioned in the critical reception quoted in the article." However it was quickly taken down by JJMC89 bot because "No valid non-free use rationale for this page." Can someone provide guidance on what to do to reinstall this illustration in this article. Guinness323 (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The pic is here: File:Cover art of Skyrealms of Jorune RPG.png. @Guinness323 The bot must be told that the other article is also ok, compare File:The Rolling Stones' logo.svg. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, this is a 100% on you and not an issue with the bot. It's a self-inflicted wound that's relatively easily fixable, but still self-inflicted nonetheless. When you uploaded the file, you chose to use Skyrealms of Jorune for the article parameter (the part that states " in the non-free use rationale you provided for the file; yet, you added the file to Miles Teves. That bot has been tasked with finding images being used in ways that do not comply with WP:NFCC and the main way it does this is by looking for a link to the article where the file is being used in the non-free use rationale provided for the file. The non-free use rationale is telling the bot that the file is going to be used in "Skyrealms of Jorune", but the bot is seeing used in "Miles Teves" instead; so, it does what it's been tasked to do and removes the file per WP:NFCCE from the article or articles where it's being used without a corresponding non-free use rationale.  The bot isn't reading the non-free rationale in the sense that you or I might read it. It's not trying to assess whether the file meets non-free content use criterion WP:NFCC. It's only looking for a technical connection between the non-free use rationale provided for the file and the article where it's seeing the file being used. Changing the article parameter of the non-free use rationale from Skyrealms of Jorune to Miles Teves ("Miles Teves#Reception" might even be better) should stop the bot removing the file.  Finally, tweaking the file's non-free use rationale should resolve the reason why the bot removed the file, but it doesn't automatically mean the file's non-free use is beyond reproach. Someone could still challenge the file's non-free use if they think it fails any of the other non-free content use criteria. Video game cover art is, first and foremost, generally considered to be acceptable when used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article about the video game itself. Trying to use such cover art in other articles or in other ways can be trickier and harder to justify per WP:NFC; so, the more critical commentary (supported by citations to reliable sources) you can add to that section of the Teves article about how the cover art is representative of Teves work, the better your chances of avoiding the file's non-free use being challenged. What 's there so far isn't bad per se, but it puts a lot of weight on entirely one source and one person's interpretation of the significance of the work. If you can show that others have been discussing the cover in such a way as well, it might show present a more balanced picture of critical acclaim the cover received. -- Marchjuly (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That image brings to mind the phrase "know where your towel is". In triplicate! Why doesn't the big green guy have a towel? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Illustration on National Park Service web page
I am asking about the illustration of Tlingit people catching salmon on this web page. Is it reasonable to conclude that this illustration is the work of an employee of the U.S. federal government and therefore in the public domain? Is the NPS notation at the end of the description of the illustration an indication of that? Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I would say yes, it looks to be NPS work based on the credit on the photo caption. -- Whpq (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Simple Maintenance: Delete >>File:Merkle-Ed-1946.jpg<<
I loaded an image with a wrong name. Issue has been rectified except an administrator needs to speedy this file away. Thanks. —tim /// Carrite (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Done. In future you might find it easier to use db-self to make such requests. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Reused a picture from another wikipage, but was removed by JJMC89 bot citing WP:NFCC violation(s)
I recently added a picture File:Chang'e 6 lander and ascender.jpg to the info box of wiki page 2024 in spaceflight, as I think this is a pretty significant event in spaceflight this year. However, it was removed by JJMC89 bot the next day, citing WP:NFCC violation(s). I tried to read the wiki Non-free content criteria, but was a bit overwhelmed. From what I can gather, there is no free equivalent for this picture as it's one of a kind, and is only available from CNSA--their rover took the picture. Besides, this picture is used on another wiki page Chang'e 6 so it must be valid?! Can someone knowledgeable in this area help me decipher this? Thanks in advance! Showmebeef (talk) 07:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Showmebeef fair use rationales (fur) are per use, so you must add a valid fur for every article you want to use an image in. As there isn't one for 2024 in spaceflight the bot removed the image from that article. This isn't carte blanche to use the image in multiple articles by simplay addingfur, the NFCC are deliberately written to restrict the use of non free images, so while the fur for Change 6 is good, it doesn't necessarily hold that a fur for 2024 in Spaceflight is valid. Nthep (talk) 08:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Media_copyright_questions may be of help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any way to justify an additional non-free use of that file in 2024 in spaceflight in either the main infobox or anywhere else in the article per WP:FREER and item 6 of WP:NFC, and trying to add enough content to do so probably wouldn't be appropriate for the particular type of article. The link to Chang'e 6 in 2024 in spaceflight is probably going to have to suffice in this case if a free-equivalent image can't be found to use instead of a non-free one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification! Showmebeef (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Adapting table of example words
Hello! I'm working on Gwoyeu Romatzyh, and a source I'm working from already has just what I felt I needed to add: a very basic table listing a handful of words and how they appear when written using different systems. I know information itself is not copyrightable, and there's not a lot of "work" here other than picking representative examples, but I still figured I'd ask whether it's alright to use the same examples adapted to a table in the article? Cited, it goes without saying. Remsense 诉  01:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you asking whether it would be OK to use an image of a table found in an external source within the article or simply just using the information found in the table within the article? In the first case, there would likely be issues with WP:FREER (if the table comes from a copyrighted source) and also with MOS:TEXTASIMAGES regardless of copyright status. The second case isn't really a question for this particular noticeboard and you might be better off asking at WP:CPN, but it might come down to WP:NPS and how much of the original source you want to use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The latter. Thank you for pointing me the right way: neither of these places seemed quite ideal for the question, but that seemed more for issues in progress. Remsense  诉  02:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Copyright status behind photo


Hello, I am working on creating an article relating to the Cuban revolution, and in finding images to use for the article I came across this photo on Ecured. I know that Ecured is very different from Wikipedia as it was created by the Cuban government and also has different rules, however I feel the fact that it was uploaded here and has remained there for 14 years without being taken down due to copyright violations may mean to me that it is not a copyright violation. However, the page itself does not present anything regarding it's copyright status, only a fountain bringing a a link to a news website. I searched the website for anything regarding the photo but I could not find anything. I don't feel 100% like I can use this so I am posting here to see if this image is okay to use Pavansur (talk) 06:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC) Pavansur (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Pavansur This may help a little: Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If "For a work by an unknown author, or a work published anonymously or under a pseudonym, copyright is valid for 50 years from the first publication of the work." applies here, this may be acceptable on Commons, but it's a big if. You could try asking there if no one here knows. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In Cuba, there seems to be "perpetual copyright" for works of corporate authorship including government works and presumably party works. This could well affect many images that could otherwise class as "anonymous", such as those by staff photographers. Felix QW (talk) 07:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The issue is that essentially all post-1946 images first published in Cuba are still copyrighted in the US (due to the URAA), and the English Wikipedia must apply US copyright law since it is based there. Therefore, I think your best chance would be images published contemporaneously in the US (e.g. press photos of the time), which could be in the public domain for failure to renew their copyright, or images that the (Cuban) government or ruling party has explicitly released under a free license (perhaps because they have an interest in their dissemination too). Felix QW (talk) 08:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The 50 Greatest Cartoons
Re: copyright question. The 50 Greatest Cartoons is a 1994 book about the fifty greatest cartoons of all time. This table list of Wikipedia articles, which lists the cartoons mentioned in that book, has been repeatedly removed as a copyright violation. So, my question — is that table list of Wikipedia articles a copyright violation, just because those particular cartoons are mentioned in that book? Furthermore, at least three of those cartoons listed, Felix in Hollywood, Gertie the Dinosaur and Steamboat Willie are in the public domain, so the authors of that book can't claim any copyright status over those particular cartoons, and I'm failing to see how any of these Wikipedia cartoon articles being listed would be a copyright violation in relation to that book. If this isn't the correct board for this question, please advise where I should ask. Thanks.And also, how is this different from these films (Wikipedia articles) being listed in The Sight and Sound Greatest Films of All Time 2022 from Sight and Sound magazine, or these films (again, Wikipedia articles) being listed in AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies, or these films (again, Wikipedia articles) being listed in AFI's 100 Years...100 Thrills, both from the American Film Institute. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The Sight and Sound Greatest Films of All Time 2022 lists the top 10 rather than the whole 100. I would say that copyright would apply to a list of 50. It would be fair use to mention the top several, but not fair to use the top 50 of 50. Whether the film is PD or copyrighted is irrelevant as the copyright is in the whole list of names. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Isaidnoway although it's only an essay, not policy, Copyright in lists is a useful read here. The copyrighted content in 50 Greatest Cartoons is the order in which the list is presented, not the cartoons themselves. This is because of the selective way, and therefore, creativity was used in generating a top 50. Nthep (talk) 09:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to follow up, according to – WMF legal has ruled on the issue in the past: reproduction of a list that was compiled by any form of creative effort is a copyright violation (from article talk page – Alleged copyvio). I actually own a copy of this book, and for instance, number one on the list in the book is What's Opera, Doc?, which consists of pages 30-36 in the book, with intricate details and commentary about the cartoon, and all we have on the table list is the cartoon, rank and release year.  So I don't see how a bare-bones list of this type infringes upon the authors "creative effort", when we are not reproducing any of those intricate details and commentary from the book. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The ranking is a copyrightable element in its own right due to the creative effort used in compiling the list. Nthep (talk) 10:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * AFI's 100 Years...100 Thrills is a list of the top 100 most exciting movies in American cinema, and all 100 films are listed in that article, AFI's Greatest Movie Musicals is a list of the 25 top musicals in American cinema, and all 25 musicals are listed in that article, seems like to me the same standard would apply - The ranking is a copyrightable element in its own right due to the creative effort used in compiling the list. In fact, AFI has a whole series of articles. Seems strange to me there is no consistency, 50 cartoons can't be listed, but 100 or 25 films can be listed, when creativity was used in generating the ranking in all of these lists. I guess we have different standards for different articles.  Isaidnoway (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And here is the list from AFI's website - AFI's GREATEST MOVIE MUSICALS, with a copyright notice at the bottom of the page, and our article is identical to that AFI list. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know where it is at but I believe we have gotten an okay directly from AFI to use their lists.<span id="Masem:1720535122221:WikipediaFTTCLNMedia_copyright_questions" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 14:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not so sure. Reproducing the order is akin to saying that this book has ranked the cartoons in that order, which sounds to me like a non-copyrightable fact about the book. How is this different from having a footnote remarking which cartoon received an award from which organisation? Surely, deciding which cartoon to give an award to requires creative effort, but that does not mean that the fact that it was awarded a certain rank is automatically copyrightable. If typographical elements or textual fragments of the book have been reproduced, then that is a different matter. Felix QW (talk) 10:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well the rank of one item would just be a fact, but the whole collection in order is a creative effort. AFI's 100 Years...100 Thrills should be chopped back. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Almost every single article in that series is the same. AFI's 100 Years...100 Heroes & Villains, AFI's Greatest Movie Musicals, AFI's 100 Years...100 Laughs, AFI's 100 Years...100 Passions, AFI's 100 Years...100 Songs, AFI's 100 Years...100 Cheers, AFI's 100 Years of Film Scores. And then there is BFI TV 100, a list of 100 television programmes or series that was compiled in 2000 by the British Film Institute, with all 100 programs listed. And Abraccine Top 100 Brazilian films with all 100 films listed. There are dozens and dozens of these types of lists, like I said, there is no consistency.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">(talk)</b> 11:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what kind of answer you're looking for here. For one, this noticeboard is related to media copyright matters and this discussion doesn't really seem to fall under its purview per se. Moreover, it appears the list you're asking about has been previously discussed before on the article's talk page (at least it seems to have been discussed) as far back as June 2007, and it appears that the consensus reached on the talk page is that it was (is?) a copyvio. So, it's unlikely anything that's discussed here is going to all of a sudden change the mind of everyone whose been removing the list over the years. I guess you could try an WP:RFC or even perhaps ask somewhere like WP:VPP or WP:CPN to see whether opinions have changed over the years, but going on and on about what basically seems to be an WP:OTHERCONTENT based attempt to argue is probably only going to get lots of "Well, perhaps those other list articles shouldn't exist (at least not as they currently do)" types of responses. Please understand that I'm really not trying to be disrepsepectful here, but Wikipedia is full of all kinds of inconsistencies; it's the nature of the beast given the type of project Wikipedia is. Many who have been around for a long time seem to have at some point come to terms with that and realized it's pretty much always going to be that way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There's a note on the top of this page that says - If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template and, if possible, leave a note on the poster's talk page. No one seemed to mind responding to my query, including you, thanks for your reply. Have a nice day.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">(talk)</b> 17:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There is a ticket associated with the AFI lists (see their talk pages) that affirms with AFI the lists are in the PD. So we can include them in full.<span id="Masem:1720535237631:WikipediaFTTCLNMedia_copyright_questions" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 14:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I missed that, the ole eyes ain't what they used to be. I gleaned a lot of new information from this discussion, thanks to everyone who participated.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">(talk)</b> 17:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I got pinged, and yes, I had a direct conversation with WP legal over a decade ago, and was told that the complete inclusion of the list was a problem. I'm not particularly in the mood to trawl through all those conversations to find that one. &mdash;Kww(talk) 02:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Assistance required

 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IAF_squadron_135.png#mw-jump-to-license

The source of this image (Hebrew wiki) states that this image has been released into public domain by IDF so can someone fix that Waleed  (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @M Waleed The file is on Commons File:IAF Squadron 135.svg with a VTRS processed permission attached. A local upload isn't needed unless there is some specific reason for a png version. Nthep (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Nthep, actually commons isn't available in my country so I had to resort to uploading images on en wiki but are there commons files for these images too that I uploaded
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IAF_Squadron_101_2.png#mw-jump-to-license
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IAF_Squadron_105.png#mw-jump-to-license
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IAF_Squadron_106.png#mw-jump-to-license
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IAF_Squadron_107.png#mw-jump-to-license
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IAF_Squadron_109.png#mw-jump-to-license
 * Waleed (talk) 03:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @M Waleed OK, I didn't know there were places where some Wikipedia's are available but not Commons. If you've replaced the usage with the Commons files, these can be deleted. Nthep (talk) 09:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Nthep, can you provide me with the commons files for these and I have about 20 more files also Waleed  (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @M Waleed sure. I'll look them up later. Nthep (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for this assistance :) Waleed  (talk) 10:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @M Waleed none of those five; 101, 105, 106, 107 109 have their insignia on Commons. However the 101, 107 and 109 suqadron insignia on he.wiki were uploaded with a cc-by-sa 3.0 licence so you can convert those three files that you uploaded to that licence with the attribution Hebrew Wikipedia, Yaron S, Cc-by-sa-3.0 (taken from the he.wiki entries).
 * 105 and 106 are on he.wiki under fair use, so the images you've uploaded under fair use will be ok. Nthep (talk) 12:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Nthep ,I've given Hebrew wiki as source in all of the images I uploaded and they are all under a fair use license but what I wanted for them to be changed is like if you compare the rationales for them the Hebrew wiki has the fair use but it's used on multiple pages, same is the case for commons images so can you help me by correcting the rationale of one of the images so I can do the same for the rest? Waleed  (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @M Waleed I've done File:IAF Squadron 101 2.png by translating the information from he.wiki. Nthep (talk) 12:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Nthep, I've done so for the other 4 so check them and tell that is it alright or did I screw something up Waleed  (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @M Waleed Two are fine, but I've reverted the edits to 105 and 106. They were not uploaded to he.wiki under a cc licence but as fair use. Nthep (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't IDF spokesperson unit images have like their own policy where they can be put on other articles Waleed  (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Nthep, Those images were IDF spokesperson unit and they have the template
 * so help me out with that Waleed  (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Also @Nthep, I've edited the helicopter squadrons with attribution on Hebrew wiki but these don't have attribution on Hebrew wiki
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IAF_Hornet_Squadron_113_Logo.png#mw-jump-to-license
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IAF_Squadron_124.png#mw-jump-to-license
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IAF_Squadron_125.png#mw-jump-to-license
 * Waleed (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @M Waleed the he.wiki images for 105 and 06 do indeed have a template relating to the IDF but it says that the images are protected by copyright. Therefore the best we can do here is to use them under fair-use. Nthep (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But then how are they on multiple articles without any issue Waleed  (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Nthep, thanks a lot dude for your help though Waleed  (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The images for 113, 124 and 125 are all fair use only - the same as 105 and 106. I don't know what he.wiki policy is on us in templates (that's why each appears to have multiple uses, there's a template showing all the squadrons at the bottom of each page) but here fair use images can't be used in templates, only in articles. Nthep (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Anyways @Nthep Thanks for your assistance I'm editing all those with rationale but there's a thing that you've to request IDF for public domain by using the template in Hebrew wiki but I don't know how to do that Waleed  (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Neither do I but Yar who uploaded some of the images is active on he.wiki. You could leave a message on their user talk page there to see if they can help. Nthep (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Left message on his talk page :) Waleed  (talk) 02:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Kuntisuyu wiphala
Hello, I recently uploaded an image of the wiphala of the Kuntisuyu, which like the Chinchaysuyu and Antisuyu, has a variant on the wiphala design most recognize (Qullasuyu) specifically representing that suyu. Unfortunately however, the other wiphala are criminally underrepresented beyond some use from fellow Andeans, and I had to screenshot an image of this wiphala from this Reddit post. Because this image was a screenshot of a wiphala that I couldn’t find anywhere else, I’m completely lost on how I should tag its copyright status. I’ve never done this before, and I simply wanted to add the missing wiphala to help complete the quadfecta. I’d appreciate some assistance on adding the copyright status. Intichkanmi7378 (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Seeking Guidance on Uploading a Key Artwork for Lobo (DC Comics) to Comply with Non-Free Content Policy
Hello, I am planning to upload an image of the original painting for "Lobo #1" from 1990 by Simon Bisley to enhance the related article. Before proceeding, I want to ensure that my approach complies with Wikipedia's non-free content policy. Here's my plan:


 * 1) Justification: The image showcases Simon Bisley's distinctive style that significantly transformed Lobo’s visual representation and popularity.
 * 2) Educational Purpose: I aim to use the image for critical commentary on the artistic evolution of the character Lobo, demonstrating Bisley's impact on comic book artistry.
 * 3) Copyright Info: The image is copyrighted by DC Comics, published in 1990. I intend to use it in low resolution to comply with fair use, discussing its significance in an educational context.
 * 4) Relevance: The image is crucial for the readers to understand the specific aesthetic and cultural shift in the character portrayal introduced by Bisley.

Additionally, I have resized the original image to a resolution of 300x453 pixels to further comply with fair use guidelines. (300x 453 px). My primary motivation is to present the most relevant and popular portrayal of Lobo. Could you please confirm if this approach is in line with the guidelines or suggest any modifications needed?

Thank you! Ketzalcoat (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Swedish company logos
File:Addtech logo.jpg is essentially a text-logo, but there might be a tad of creativity to it. It's find as non-free, but I'm not sure it needs to be treated as such. Any opinions on whether this would be OK to relicense as PD-ineligible-USonly even if it would be considered eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:TOO Sweden?File:Duearity - logo.png is also a Swedish logo uploaded by the same person. This one is a bit more than text, but i'm not sure whether the maze-like element on the left is enough for copyright protection per c:COM:TOO United States. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think both of these would be too simple for copyright in the US. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

File:TRENDS Research & Advisory logo.jpg
The article where File:TRENDS Research & Advisory logo.jpg is being used has been nominated for deletion; so, depending on that outcome, this could end up being deleted per WP:F5. However, I'm wondering whether the shading-effect giving the sphere a 3D appearance is significant enough for this to need to be treated as non-free. There's nothing in c:COM:UAE about the TOO of UAE copyright law, but perhaps this could be OK to relicense as PD-ineligible-USonly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Zulfikar Ali Bhutto with Yahya Khan and Ghulam Ishaq Khan.png and its URAA date
I'm not sure about the copyright status of File:Zulfikar Ali Bhutto with Yahya Khan and Ghulam Ishaq Khan.png. It does seem to be PD now per c:COM:Pakistan, but it would've still been eligible for copyright protection in Pakistan on January 1, 1996 (Pakistan's URAA date), right? This seems to indicate per c:COM:HIRTLE that copyright protection in the US lasts for 95 years after creation. Is this a correct understanding of things? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, absolutely. Unfortunately, this will have to be converted to non-free use if eligible, otherwise deleted. Felix QW (talk) 06:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes I believe I was wrong then in the addition of proper copyright status Canned Knight (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:CSD § F8 and keep local
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:CSD § F8 and keep local. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Crown copyright and the NPG
File:Nigel Henderson.jpg was uploaded as non-free and is sourced to the National Portrait Gallery, London. The image appears to be an official Royal Navy photo taken in 1957. I'm wondering whether this needs to be treated as non-free given c:COM:UK since Crown copyright for photos seems to be 50 years from the date of creation/publication according to File:UK Crown copyright flowchart.pdf. It seems unlikely the NPG is the originl copyright holder of the photo and more likely its claim of copyright ownership has to do with the digitlization of the photo given National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute. Since Commons tends to ignore NPG claims when it comes to content like this, I'm wondering if Wikiepdia can do the same and relicense the photo as PD. The photo was still under copyright protection in the UK on January 1, 1996 (the UK's URAA date), though. and might still need to be treated as non-free jsut because of that. Any opinions on this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The photo is credited to Elliott & Fry, a commercial photography studio and therefore probably won't be Crown Copyright, even if the negs (or even the rights) are owned by the National Portrait Gallery.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching that. Silly miss on my part. Anyway, that would seem to mean it would still be eligible for copyright protection for up to 70 years after being first published; so, that would mean it's protected until at least 2027 if published in 1957, right? One thing, though, is that COM:UK states the author must be a "natural person" and "not a corporation". How would that apply to a commercial agency like Elliot & Fry? Is a business entity like Elliot % Fry considered a "natural person" in this case? According to natural person, a business entity is considered a "legal entity" but not a "natural person". Does that mean the work should be treated as "anonymous"? -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe standard practice is that if a studio employs more than one photographer and the actual photographer executing the photo is not named, then the work counts as anonymous. In any case, URAA restorations mean that the image will be protected in the US until 2052 inclusive. Felix QW (talk) 11:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Film4 logo 2018.svg also exists on Commons where it's marked as free
On commons the file is the same except it's not an svg: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Film4_logo_2018.png but it's marked with PD-textlogo instead of PD-ineligible-USOnly|the United Kingdom. Which one is correct? Should the image be removed from enwiki or commons? @Xplora8 @AxG PaperHuman (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The threshold of originality in the UK is very low so it might not be appropriate for Commons. As such, the best place to ask this question would be c:COM:VPC.  -- Whpq (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Mabel Lucie Attwell
I've uploaded the photo File:Mabel Lucie Attwell.jpg of Mabel Lucie Attwell under a non-free rationale. I'm unsure whether it is in the public domain, though it is entirely possible. It is from the National Portrait Gallery and is labeled "circa 1924", but I can find no evidence of when it was first published. Is this the best place to ask this kind of question or should I take it to c:COM:VPC? gobonobo + c 14:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * As a professional studio portrait, we can consider it published under contemporary US rules around 1924. So, it is PD in the US and in my mind should be treated as free on the English Wikipedia. As it is an anonymous work (unclear which of Elliott & Fry's photographers made the photo), its UK copyright should also have expired, around 1994. Felix QW (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Great. Thank you Felix QW! gobonobo  + c 21:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

America-250-logo.jpg
File:America-250-logo.jpg is listed, in good faith, as public domain. It does appear on the Library of Congress website, albeit on a blog there. But other U.S. Government websites, such as the VA and IMLS, show a very similar logo with a "TM" at the upper right. The non-government website of the Museum of the American Revolution also shows a TM version with this statement: "The AMERICA 250™ trademark and logo is owned and licensed by the United States Semiquincentennial Commission. Unauthorized use of the AMERICA 250™ trademarks is strictly prohibited." I know a trademark is not a copyright, but is it possible to trademark something in the public domain? If not, can this logo be used at United States Semiquincentennial as fair use? Station1 (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is possible to trademark something whose copyright is in the public domain. Yes, you can use it on here with rare exceptions. See Restricted materials. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

2025 Pennsylvania License Plate
Hi, I uploaded an image of the upcoming new Pennsylvania License Plate File:PA LicensePlate 2025.png and got a warning about the copyright status on my talk page. Would it have the same status as File:Pennsylvania 2017 license plate.jpg since they are both from the same official site? 7s3s (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The warning you received was because you didn't put a licensing tag on the image page. It doesn't necessarily mean that the image has any copyright issues. However, in this case, the image you uploaded probably isn't in the public domain.
 * While publications of the U.S. Federal government are not protected by copyright law, individual states have the ability to decide if their publications may be copyrighted. A few states explicitly release all state government publications into the public domain, but most, including Pennsylvania, do not (hence why you'll notice a "Copyright © 2024 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. All rights reserved." notice on the bottom of the webpage where you found the plate images). Therefore, we can't automatically assume that the image is in public domain. (see Copyright status of works by subnational governments of the United States for more)
 * The 2017 plate is allowed because it doesn't meet the threshold of originality for copyright protection – it consists solely of letters and simple geometric shapes. Meanwhile, the 2025 plate has the engraving of the Liberty Bell, which probably means it passes the threshold of originality and therefore is protected by copyright unless the state were to explicitly release it. P 1 (talk / contributions) 19:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, yes i know what the warning was received for, but i asked this question in order to correct it.
 * The Liberty Bell is public domain, no? Would that make it then fine because its the only other thing besides text? Or would that not count because its an outline or illustration? 7s3s (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The bell itself is certainly in the public domain, but the illustration of it may not be. P 1 (talk / contributions) 21:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, do you know where i could find out more about this, or which copyright tag i could use for the image? 7s3s (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If the file needs to be treated as non-free content, it use would need to meet all ten non-free content use criteria for that article. In my opinion, that might be possible if the file was being used in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article about the this particular version of the license plate itself, The plate image would be treated similarly to non-free cover art or images of non-free 2D/3D works of art. It would, on the other hand, be near impossible to use the file the way its currently being used to illustrate a single entry in a list/table since that's not typically allowed per WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFTABLES. So, to use the file in that way, it will either need to be licensed as public domain (which seems unlikely) or released under a free-license (which could be possible). In order to determine either of these things, though, the provenance of the plate design would need to be clarified out and the Pennsylvnia DOT might be able to help with that.Often new plate designs seem to be part of some type of contest in which private individuals submit entries which are then jusdge by some committee. If that's what happened here, then the copyright on the orginal design could still totally or partically reside with the artist who created it. So, Wikipedia would need the WP:CONSENT of that person if the rules of the contest didn't require the winning artist transfer any claim of copyright to the Pennsylvania DOT. The other possibility is that some employee of the DOT (perhaps someone in the graphic design department) or an outside third-party contracted by the DOT created the imagery as part of their job (i.e. a work for hire). If that's the case, then the copyright holder would be the DOT and its consent would be needed. All of these questions are probably only things that someone at the DOT is going to be able to answer unless you can find some news article or some PR release that describes the new design, its selection process and who created it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the help. Is there a way to delete the image, or do i have to wait until Tuesday? 7s3s (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you want, you can request the the file be deleted per speedy deletion criterion G7 using the template db-g7. Go to the file's page, click on edit, add the syntax  to the top of the editing window, click on "Show preview" to check your work and then click on "Publish changesd" if everything looks OK. In the rationale parameter field, you can just add the reason while you're requesting deletion.  Before you click, "Publish changes", though, you should also leave an edit summary explaining why you're requesting deletion. The file should be deleted shortly thereafter depending on how quickly it's noticed by an administrator. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Nova Religio low res cover.jpg
File:Nova Religio low res cover.jpg seems to be a fairly simple combination of colors and text; even the logo-like element is nothing more than the letters "N" and "R" inside a circle which is then inside a square. Is there any reason this can't be relicensed as PD-simple and tagged for a move to Commons given that Nova Religio is publsihed in the US? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The logo itself looks PD-simple simple to me, but I find it counter-intuitive to argue that a magazine-cover with a list of articles and authors would fall under it. Not sure which Commons-guidance would apply, Template:PD-textlogo doesn't fit for the whole page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As the person who uploaded the "under NFCC but actually readable" version I agree with the above comment and don't think this can be transferred to commons. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

File:President Mohamed Amin (cropped).jpg
File:President Mohamed Amin (cropped).jpg is licensed as PD-Maldives, but that license contains a qualifier which states the image might still be protected under US copyright law. The image would probably be OK as non-free in Mohamed Amin Didi, assuming WP:FREER is met and the colorization isn't an issue; it doesn't, however, really need to be converted to non-free if it's PD in the US. In that case, the image could be moved to Commons. Anyone got any opinions on this? Should it be converted to non-free? Is the colorization a problem? What looks to be a black-and-white version of the same image can be seen here, but there are several other official looking images like this which could be used instead if the colorization is a problem. -- Marchjuly (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete it, after i uploading it, i realized and i was going to request deletion. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The best thing for you to do then would be to request speedy deletion per WP:G7 by adding Template:db-g7 to the file's page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Santi Romano's works
"DigitUniTO. Collezioni e fondi digitali dell'Università di Torino" [DigitUniTO. Collections and Digital Funds of the University of Turin] has published digitized versions of many works by the Italian jurist Santi Romano(1875-1947) here. They claim that his works are in the public domain (see e.g. here, "dominio pubblico"). Should we trust them? Please see this discussion with LegFun. Thanks for your help, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)