Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2017/April

File:Alice Waddington's signature.png
Hello. I'd like to get views on File:Alice Waddington's signature.png. Signatures of living persons suggests that rules regarding signatures are rather vague. Is it appropriate that Wikipedia hosts a copy of this signature? Does it breach copyright rules? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not to worry - it's been deleted now. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Can File:Jianmei Guo.jpg be moved to commons?
I'd like it to be used in the Hebrew version of Wikipedia... Thanks, אנבה (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * well it says it was found on the US dept of state website but as no url is given, this is unverified and also just because it appears on a US federal website does not automatically make it a PD item in the US. Personally I'd want more information before I'd transfer it to Commons. Nthep (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I found the details at the Wayback Machine archive that was linked on the file page which has all the necessary information that I have updated. It is now ready to move to the commons. ww2censor (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

andrew radford photo (copyright)
i have written to cambridge university press to ask permission to use photo of andrew radford. once permitted, how do i then create appropriate tag for photo? please direct.

http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/authors/204122

sandbox for Andrew Radford (British linguist)

thanks, joseph galasso — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephgalasso (talk • contribs) 23:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well it is doubtful that Cambridge actually has the right to release that photo. It depends on who the copyright holder is. Generally, the copyright holder of a photograph is the photographer unless that copyright has been transferred by legal action or by contract (such as a work for hire contract). We would have to receive a release from the proper person. Otherwise it isn't valid. In any case, you would have to prove that the copyright holder has released the photo under a free license. There are about two dozen different free license tags that can be assigned to an image. Please see c:COM:CT for a list of them. Note, the "Free Creative Commons licenses" section as that is the most common free license used. Two options are available once a free license is chosen. Option 1: Add a line to the source page that explicitly states, "This photo is released under ". Option 2: Have the copyright holder fill out a release form (located here: c:COM:ET) and send it into our volunteer response team. If you have any other questions about this please let me know. --Majora (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Suppose they tagged a file for discussion and nobody came...
On March 30 my uploaded image, File:Big-Boy-Comic-Book-Composition.png, was flagged for discussion for NFCC:3a. It was a composition of 8 comic book covers. It is now clear that four covers that are pre-1964 did not have copyrights renewed. Three of the remaining show a merger of two parallel books, and the last a book started by a franchisee, a different company so to speak. Transformational treatment overall. The books were a monthly promotional item using a company mascot, given away, not sold.

After seven days, by consensus or lack of objection, the file can be deleted. This occurs promptly. Seven days have passed without comment other than my objection. How long are these FfD tags permitted to last without response? — βox73 (৳alk) 07:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Until someone feels they have enough information to decide per closure guidelines.  -- Asclepias (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Image permission
i upload a file File:NtelabiBukariImage.jpg and add this file to ntelabi page .how can i add copyright permission to this image. this file send the owner of the page in my gmail id what proff i attach gmail id screen shot or other thing ? DudejaPrince (talk) 05:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Please note that only the original photographer can grant a free licence for the image. Ntelabi Bukari being the subject does not automatically make him the copyright holder and we need evidence that the copyright holder agrees to a free licence. Please ask the photographer to send an email as explained in Declaration of consent for all enquiries. They would have to grant a free licence for anyone to use this image for any purpose including commercial activities. A number of suitable licenses are also suggested on this page. The image may be deleted in the meantime for a lack of permission or licence but if we receive such an email, the file will eventually be restored. De728631 (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Budweiser.svg - Should this be PD-Textlogo?
I posted about this on Talk:Budweiser but didn't get anything. The Budweiser logo has a minimal crown and text. This should be "PD-textlogo" with a "Trademarked" tag, right? Is there a reason this hasn't been used already?-Ich (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a "selection and arrangement" copyright that may include this. Barring a court decision to the contrary I'd play this one safe. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with . Even the crown alone might count as a creative element (it's fairly complex; not a simple geometrical shape or "text"). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As a side note, the corresponding version on Commons has been deleted as a copyvio. --Majora (talk) 03:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe that the crown in the logo meets the threshold of originality that would make the logo copyrighted. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 02:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Fair Use
Why isn't fair use content allowed on Wikipedia? Seraphim System (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Huh? It is, just not liberally so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I just had an image reverted because it wasn't free, but I checked WP:IUP and WP:NFC. There seems to be some perennial dispute over the use of images in the USHMM archives, but after reviewing WP:NFC I think their use is within the exemption doctrine policy ("historically significant") Seraphim System (talk) 12:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * They might be but you must make out a fair use rationale for the inclusion of any non-free image for every article that you want to use it on. The argument, for example, on Einsatzgruppen may be that as there are several free images on Einsatzgruppen activites, what does any non-free image add to the article?  Nthep (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not see that when reviewing the policy, would you mind showing me the language you are referring to? Seraphim System (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Certainly, assuming you are looking at Non-free content the section on historically significant images includes "Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used if they meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance."  Turning to the NFCC themselves, I don't think WP:NFCC is particularly relevant here but  WP:NFCC says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose", WP:NFCC says "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."  So to use File:Einsatzgruppen Killing.jpg in an article where there are free images of Einsatzgruppen activities you need to show how the non-free image significantly increases understanding of the topic above that, if any, added by the free images. Before using any non-free image you must add the full rationale to the image page before adding the image to an article. The WMF line on free-use is deliberately more stringent than that allowed under US law for the reasons given at WP:NFC. Nthep (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * And, to clarify, specifically WP:NFCC addresses the requirement to have a rationale for each and every use of a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Given the historical significance of this particular photo I am confused why that is being applied here. it is not equivalent to the other photos, it is clear from looking at it that this photo is not equivalent to all the others. This is just my opinion, but it is one of the most significant war photos I have ever seen. Sources about the inscription and origin right now are sketchy, but I have contacted the USHMM and I am currently trying to track down other WP:RS to add this to the article. Seraphim System (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said in original reply it might be significant enough to justify it's inclusion but it is down to you to create that justification and add a rationale meeting all 10 of the NFC criteria to the image file and for the rationale be agreeable to other editors that it suffices to meet the criteria. Nthep (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand. I am trying to obtain more information about the image. I suspect the inscription story may be a rumor, but Vinnitsa and Einsatzgruppe D is verifiable from the limited information available on the source page (USHMM) - I will review the article again to make sure but I don't think Vinnitsa was discussed in the article. I will see what User:Diannaa thinks of adding it in on talk, thank you. Seraphim System (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Queiry about uploads
If the license is missing from the source of the photo, what can be done to upload it in a safe way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skrillex 722 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * An excellent question. To the abstract point; step 3 on the File Upload Wizard has a radio button which says, in part, " I am not certain what its status is. I found this file somewhere, but I don't really know who made it or who owns it." The response is; "Please don't upload it". As it notes, we assume everything is copyrighted unless we have proof to the contrary. There are some cases where we will upload a file that has no indication as to its license, or even a claim the image is copyrighted and protected. We do this because we can prove through other means what the image's actual copyright status is. An example of this is an image provably published before 1923 in the U.S. Such things are out of copyright, no matter what anyone claims. But, gaining knowledge of all the various potential copyright situations takes a lot of time and effort. To this specific case; can you provide a link to the image you are interested in uploading and the page that image resides on now? If you can provide that, we might be able to offer more insight. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to File:Mercedes CLK-GTR test mule, Jarama 1995.jpg, the image comes from, as you note, this location. Since this image was taken in 1995, it is automatically copyrighted, as most creative things are these days upon their creation. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW, it is not that a license is missing it is just not stated, because in most countries, as Hammersoft states, such images copyright by default and you must assume everything you find on the internet is copyright to someone unless it clearly shows evidence that it is freely licensed. Many websites do not have copyright statements but that is no reason to assume their content is freely licensed. Just be careful and you can always ask here about any particular image. ww2censor (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

copyright issues derivative work
Hello there,

I uploaded this file: file:Mosaics flies flowers.png

and got the warning as follows: "Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F4 of the criteria for speedy deletion."

The original work is available on the OpenImages dataset (see in the viewer).

The original soure is there and it is using this licence.

How do I modify the file to make it acceptable for Wikipedia?

Thanks Fpvidal (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The source you actually listed on the image page is different from the Flickr page, and returns a 404 when I try to see it. You then also mention Flickr and Github here. You need to find the original author and source of the image, and notate that as the source. If the actual author/copyright holder indeed has released the license under CC-BY, and you can demonstrate that (which will require a working link), then that is an acceptable free license. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the prompt answer. I modified the "summary" of the file to be as explicit as possible, and got rid of the 404 error. Is that what I was meant to do?


 * Here is the problem I see, the Flickr image source you now provided is that of a Flickr user who took a photo of a painting made by "Kate", see the signature and also on some other images is this users photostream. We have no idea if Kate give permission to release this image freely, even if the photo itself is freely licensed. Unfortunately Flickr users can assign any license they wish to images even ones that are copyright to others. Being a derivative work the artist is the copyright holder of that image, not Greg Westfall who merely made a derivative image of her painting, and we will need her permission. If you can make contact with her then she will need to verify her permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. I hope that makes sense to you. BTW, please sign your talk page posts with 4 tildes. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. OK, will do. Fpvidal (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello Fpvidal,
 * There are two serious problems with this image. One is about the rights on the original painting. The other is about the rights on the derived image. Both issues should be clarified satisfactorily for the image to be safely hosted by Wikimedia.
 * 1. The original painting: The author of this painting was a child who signed Kate and painted it apparently in 2011 at the age of 7 (the information about the age is not completely clear from the flickr album, but the author is probably a teenager now). The flickr user is not the author of this painting. There is no evidence that the flickr user has the right to license this painting in the name of the author. Maybe the flickr user is a parent of the author and might claim to have a right to issue a license as a legal tutor. But we would need evidence of that. One possibility for you could be to contact the flickr user and ask him to clarify exactly under what title or mandate he issued licenses on the works of the painter Kate, and if that's really what he wanted to do. If the answer satisfies you, then ask him to send confirmation of his mandate and of the license to Wikimedia by e-mail (see 2 or 1). Even then, generally speaking, it is not really a good idea to use works by minors on the basis of a free license issued by the minor or by someone else in her name. Many legal jurisdictions, probably most, protect minors against contracts and legal obligations to which they might not have chosen to bind themselves if they had been adults. They can denounce and void them later. Even if the obligation is contracted by a legal tutor in the name of the minor, it might be possible later for the author to say that it was an unreasonable action by the tutor to attempt to give away the rights of the minor by issuing a perpetual free licence. You placed yourself in a precarious situation by choosing to reuse this particular image, given the circumstances. If I may make a suggestion for your future publications, it would be safer to use works licensed by adult authors themselves, or works that are in the public domain. One other thing is maybe there was some technical reason why you took the copy from Open Images, but remember that Open Images gives no warranty about the licenses. When possible, it may be better to take an image from the source that is as close as possible to the original. Also, assuming the "CC by" license on flickr is considered validly issued, remember that to comply with the legal obligations under this license you must attribute the author, in this case Kate.
 * 2. The derived image: The article bears a copyright notice that clearly identifies the copyright holder essentially as © Springer International Publishing . Your username on Wikimedia sort of hints that you may be one of the authors of the article. However, the notice of the publisher strongly suggests that the authors have ceded their rights to the publisher. If you are one of the authors, you should check the terms of the contract to which you have bound yourself with Springer to see what you can or can't do with the contents of the article during the duration of the contract. If the contract does not allow you to freely license independently part of the material ceded to Springer, then it would not be safe for Wikimedia to host it if it infringes the rights that are ceded to Springer. Please clarify the situation, ideally referring to the terms of the contract. If you are the author and if you have preserved your right to freely license and publish this image independently from Springer, then please send a confirmation of your identity (this is necessary because anyone could have created an account with the username Fpvidal) and of the free license to Wikimedia by e-mail (see the OTRS links above).
 * -- Asclepias (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

New logo: Upload as a new version of the old image or as a separate image?
What is the correct procedure when a company has changed their logo? Should the new logo be uploaded as a new version of the old logo's file to keep the history in one place or should it be uploaded as a new separate file? I was unable to find the answer in WP:LOGO.  Deflagro Contribs/Talk 16:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My gut tells me to upload over the old file, but I don't recall it being documented anywhere. Provided that we're talking about non-free logos, it's either the old revision of the file (in case the new logo was uploaded over the old file), or the old file itself (in case the new logo was uploaded as a new file) that becomes orphaned and will be deleted. It's obviously easier to keep track of things when the logo's history is contained in one file. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The logo in question is File:Northern_Tier_National_High_Adventure_Bases.png. Both versions are non-free logo.  Deflagro Contribs/Talk 16:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am of a slightly different opinion than Finnusertop in that I think an update should be limited to cases where there's been no major change in the file, but rather perhaps just something minor as a re-sizing/cropping or straightening, etc. If the logo is changed in a fundamental way so that it is considered different enough to be a "different logo", then I think it's best to upload it as a separate file under a different name.. Non-free logo use is not automatic and their the new version of the logo might be seen as a contentious change by some requiring resolution through discussion. It would be easier, in my opinion, to do this using two separate files then one. It's also possible in some cases that the information provided about the logo in the non-free use rationale may be different as well. While I understand the desire to keep track of things in one place, I think if the logo is different enough it's better to treat as a different file altogether. I'm going to ask for his opinion because we have discussed this before regarding specific files and he may be able to add some insight. Just for reference, I personally think the update to File:Northern Tier National High Adventure Bases.png is a significant enough change that it should've been uploaded as a new file. -- Marchjuly (talk)
 * So, I'm of two minds on this one . If the image is a non-free logo and is uploaded directly to enwiki I overwrite, provided that the old logo is in a file format with a transparent background. That way it keep the entire non-free logo associated with that topic together in one place and makes it easy to do an orphaned non-free deletion of the old image. Generally, the fair use rationale for logos are all the same. Perhaps a source update but that is it. Now for free logos on Commons the answer is flipped. Mostly because their policy forbids overwriting of files unless the change is minor. In that instance, I upload a new file and attach "new logo" to the end of the file name. --Majora (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * is right concerning the rare occasion that the non-free logo has written rationales for many articles; a change in the file itself will affect each of those. But in my experience, 99% logos are only used in one article, in the infobox, and when the organization renews its branding every 5 years it is rather straightforward to simply overwrite the file. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If the old non-free logo was being acceptably used in multiple article it would be reasonable to believe that the new logo would also be acceptable. Keeping old logos on articles is where you would run into issues with WP:NFCCP #8. I could conjure up a situation where that wouldn't hold but I would probably be hard pressed to find a real life example of it happening. Otherwise, yeah, overwriting the file for non-free logos seems to be the best course of action in my opinion. --Majora (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Another thing I think worth mentioning should be added is that a major change in branding is also probably something which should be mentioned within the article itself, and preferably something sourced to reliable sources. It is often assumed that the context required by NFCC#8 for infobox use comes from the content of the article itself discussing the branding, etc. be shown in the infobox. It may be possible, therefore, to justify the non-free use of both the old and new logo if the change was the subject of sourced commentary. Simply overwriting the file will eliminate this possiblity since the older revision will eventually be deleted per WP:F5. That's is why I think it might be a good idea to upload them as separate files and then see (via the article talk page) if there's any possibility to use the older one. The older version will eventually be deleted if it is orphaned, but it could be restored at a later date if someone figures out a way to incorporate such content into the relevant article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC); [Note: Comment rephrased slightly by Marchjuly after originally posted. -- 22:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)]
 * Could always just reupload it if deleted or F5'ed. To be honest, this may be something to bring up a RfC about. I don't really plan on changing the way I process requests at venues such as WP:FFU which is mostly logo requests unless there is some community consensus to do so. I can understand your point of view which is why a RfC may be the best course of action. A conversation here doesn't really do much to solve the split in opinions. --Majora (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

copyright infringement
I believe posting the plot of any movie is a form of copyright infringement. It not only kills the suspense from the film but also kills the purpose of it. Music cannot be explained; in a similar manner, movies cannot be explained, they are best seen visually. Being told about the plot is a spoiler. Wiki Boogeyman plot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:640A:398B:75A1:9950:8A43:6382 (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope. Not a form of copyright infringement in any way as long as the plot is written in the editor's own words and not copy/pasted from somewhere else. If you don't want to be spoiled, don't read the article. Wikipedia has spoilers. That isn't going to change. --Majora (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Images from University Wesbites
I am trying to get an image on the article Manoug Manougian. There is a picture for him on his University page, here. Does this image count as fair use? Astronyte (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope. Sorry, fair use images of living people are not acceptable as it is reasonable that anyone can walk up to them, take a photo, and release it to us under a free license. --Majora (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Is the image usable in any form as a employment picture public university website or just a no go? -- Astronyte (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless Manougian is dead and there are no freely-licensed pictures of him left, that's a definite "No." Right there at the bottom of the page, big as life: "Copyright ©2014, Department of Mathematics & Statistics, 4202 East Fowler Ave, CMC342, Tampa, FL 33620-5700". Additionally, the photo itself is presumed to be copyrighted by the photographer, who (we hope) has licensed its use on the University's page. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  23:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, unless the image is explicitly released under a free license we must assume it is under an "all rights reserved" situation. Which means it is a no go. You could always attempt to contact the copyright holder and see if they are willing to release the photo under a free license. Just keep in mind that the copyright holder is not generally the person in the photo. It is the photographer. So that would make that route a little bit more challenging but it is doable. You'd be surprised how many times people agree to release a photo if they are just asked to. --Majora (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Understood, thank you for your help! -- Astronyte (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Corey Cott.jpg?
Can you please confirm that the file File:Corey Cott.jpg is permissible for use on this project? No URL is provided and the licensing may need review. The source is listed simply as "Instagram" with no additional information about whose Instagram or anything else. The file is a recent upload by a new, single-topic user. Thanks! X4n6 (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * All uploads by the user have been tagged for deletion. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. --Majora (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the review. X4n6 (talk) 05:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Rainn Wilson.jpg
Assuming that the non-free use of File:Rainn Wilson.jpg is acceptable as the infobox image of Dwight Schrute (see Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 67 for why I'm not sure non-free use is OK), the file's name probably should be changed per WP:FNC. There are quite a number of freely licensed files of Rainn Wilson at c:Category:Rainn Wilson and if this is supposed to represent the actor, then it would not pass WP:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Its been established in the past that if the character is notable for a standalone article, a picture of the character (even if non-free) is reasonable under NFC. The argument is that there are elements of dress and poise that such actor-in-role shots capture that a random free image of the actor do not. --M ASEM (t) 14:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If that's the consensus, then fine. However, the name should probably be "File:Dwight Shrute.jpg" or something similar then, shouldn't it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Images from Flickr
Hi, I found a file from Flickr that has a license of Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic. Is this license allowed in Wikipedia? Pacphobia (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Greetings. Unfortunately, we do not allow noncommercial licenses. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

copyright permission for photo
Ticket#: 2017040510021232

I've emailed the copyright information to permissions-en@wikimedia.org twice now and have not received a response back. I don't know how to put a photo up without it being taken down for copyright. Please give me steps on how to fix this. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Flesher (talk • contribs) 19:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please try at WP:OTRS/N That is their specific noticeboard and an OTRS agent will be able to assist you there. This board is for general copyright inquiries. --Majora (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * On what date did you send in the first OTRS ? There is currently a  back log in processing OTRS's.  Also,  it would help us to know if you are the famous Andrew Flesher himself or if you're editing on his behalf, etc. As you sent it into Commons:OTRS you will see the backlog is about two months before you get a reply from them.  So a bit of extra information here may help to untangle any knots. Aspro (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Update: this question from the OP is now moot. The article has been deleted under G11. Aspro (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

"Published" but ... not really?
Archive.org has put out a whole bunch of field notebooks or ornithologists. As far as I can tell they are using "published" to mean the date of the book, as seen here, and not actual publication. For some of these, whether they are published or not seems to make all the difference as to PD status. Specifically regarding this one, am I correct that if only published recently it's copyrighted until 70 years after the date of death of Alexander Wetmore (so 2048), but if actually published in 1958, without renewal, its PD? And if so, what do you think about the use of "published" here? Any way we can consider this PD for uploads of these photographs?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * According to Alexander Wetmore he was an employee of the Smithsonian from 1925-1952, so it may well be a moot point because his work would then be covered as US government work and therefore by PD anyway. I am assuming his field notes were part of his work. If that is the case then published or not does not come into the question but we would need to determine what his relationship with the IS was after 1952. This may not really be very helpful and you may have to do more research for each individual. ww2censor (talk) 14:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Information from Archive.org about publication dates and copyright status is notoriously unreliable. It should not be taken without caution, but it can be used as a starting point to find better sources or to do your own evaluation. In the case of this Wetmore field book, Archive.org seems to merely reproduce the information from the Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL), which is usually reliable. Also, in this case, the BHL itself seems to take the information from the Smithsonian Institution Archives (SIA), who own the physical object and digitized it. So, at the primary source, it seems to be an evaluation by the Smithsonian. The SIA has information about the Alexander Wetmore Papers. After his retirement in 1952, Wetmore was a research associate of the Smithsonian from 1953 until 1978. The SIA don't seem to explain exactly why they consider this field book as having no copyright restriction. Possibilities may be that Wetmore made the document for the Smithsonian, or that Wetmore donated it or bequeathed it, with the rights, to the Smitsonian, or that his wife donated it with the rights, or that the document was actually made available in 1958 to people to view or to make copies of it. If you want to go to the bottom of this matter, you might contact these people: the Digital Collections Manager for the BHL, who is the recommended contact by the BHL and who is also with the Smithsonian Libraries, or the Cataloging Coordinator for the Field Book Project of the Smithsonian, who catalogued Wetmore field books. Or you can use the general inquiries form of the SIA.  -- Asclepias (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, the Smithsonian takes the position that copyright status of its works depends on whether the work was one produced by an employee of the Smithsonian Trust, paid with monies from the trust; or one paid by an employee paid with non-trust federal funds. It claims copyright over the former, but does not dispute the PD status of the latter. A lot of copyright attorneys think this is nonsense, but there you go. TJRC (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

File:IM Creator.png
Is there any particular reason why File:IM Creator.png needs to be a licensed as a non-free logo instead of PD-simple? If it really needs to be non-free, then it needs to be removed from the user sandboxes per NFCC#9. I can do that, but I just want to make sure first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It is PD-simple. It is a US logo and certainly nowhere near TOO. Change away. --Majora (talk) 02:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK . I am unable, however, to get the source url to work and can't find the image on the company's website except for a very small icon in the top-left of the homepage. It also looks like a different logo is being used on Twitter and Facebook. Perhaps the can help out? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I always go with what the company's homepage has since it is assumed that that is the most up-to-date. Here is the link taken directly from their site: . That should do for the source. --Majora (talk) 03:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that link . -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Lexoo logo (lawyer marketplace) - 24 June 2015.jpg
File:Lexoo logo (lawyer marketplace) - 24 June 2015.jpg is the non-free logo being used in the infobox of the UK company Lexoo. Can this be converted to PD-logo even though the UK has a much lower TOO than the US? -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think yes. And I am not sure that plain text without even minimal modification on a green background is copyrightable in the UK; the prototypical UK TOO case involved slightly modified letters. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

File:John Francis Grant circa 1860's - courtesy of Montana Historical Society - B and W photo, 942-461.jpg
Can File:John Francis Grant circa 1860's - courtesy of Montana Historical Society - B and W photo, 942-461.jpg be converted from non-free to PD-US or some other type of PD licensing? Photo is supposed to have been taken in the 1860s. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Just because something was created in the 1860s doesn't mean it is PD. If the estate of the author first published the photograph in 1930, for instance, it would still be a protected work. this article gives an example of a letter composed in 1755 that is still copyrighted. Without better information about publication date and author, we cannot confirm it is PD.-Ich (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

How to upload a picture
How to upload a picture in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupalavanyan (talk • contribs) 03:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Assuming that the image you are interested in sharing is freely licensed you should use the upload wizard here: c:Special:UploadWizard. ww2censor (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

File:DowntownLogoMusicCo.png
Not sure why File:DowntownLogoMusicCo.png needs to be licensed as a non-free logo. The company Downtown (company) is based in the United States and this seems definitely OK as PD-logo based upon c:COM:TOO. Is there something about this logo that I'm missing? -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think so. However, I would request reinstatement of the higher resolution that was removed. ww2censor (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed it's PD-textlogo and the higher res version has been restored. Nthep (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking and sorting this out . -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Upload question
how do you upload — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.63.78.249 (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You can click on the "upload file" button at the left side of the page BUT, you must be a registered editor and be autoconfirmed which means you must have made at least 10 edits. ww2censor (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

File:CarminePecorelli.jpg
Anyone have any ideas on how to sort out File:CarminePecorelli.jpg? If it's non-free content, then it's use is probably only compliant in Carmine Pecorelli. If it's PD, then it would not be subject to WP:NFCCP. It looks like its been tagged as having license problems since 2008. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It was not tagged as having problems since 2008. Only since someone changed the templates to display on all files the "wrong license" tag by default. Which, of course, artificially created a ton of false positives, making all files uploaded before that change look like they had a conflict of license, when actually they don't have that problem. In general, assuming that most files had been correctly licensed, the appearance of this apparent problem tag in this manner does not indicate a problem. That said, this particular file is poorly sourced and its date of creation and publication history are not specified in the description page. There are better versions and on this site (image) it is attributed to ANSA press agency. Its status on Wikipedia depends on your evaluation of the degree of confidence to which this photograph meets the conditions for this PD tag on Wikipedia (simple photograph, created before 1976, first published in Italy before 1989 without a copyright notice). It may not be unreasonable to think that it might meet the conditions, although it's not certain without better documentation. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look . What I meant by "having license problems" was the "This image may not have the proper copyright or licensing information, or there is a conflict of license" template which was added with an edit made in 2008 (hence the "since 2008"). Anyway, if the file is fine as is, then there's no need to treat it as non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , I know what you meant. :) What I was trying to say is that you were, understandably, misled by the fact that templates were modified, long after 2008. The template that says "This image may not have ..." (the name of this template is "Wrong-license") was not added to this file in 2008. Actually, it was never added to this file. Nor to maybe thousands of valid files where it looks displayed. This apparent warning artificially popped into those files much later, through the fact that someone modified licensing templates to make them display this warning template by default on all files, valid or not, that use those licensing templates, most of which files actually do not have a problem. As such, this warning has been made quite meaningless, because when this warning looks displayed, like that, by default, on files on which it was never actually added by any user, it does not indicate a problem.
 * Let's take this file for a detailed example. You have already looked at the history of this file and you saw that it was uploaded in 2008. If you look at how it was tagged then by the uploader, you see that the uploader tagged it with the template "PD-Italy". To know what the uploader actually did and what it actually means, we must look at what the template "PD-Italy" said at that time (i.e. in 2008, before someone edited this template years later), when the uploader tagged this file with it. In 2008, the template "PD-Italy" was this. See, it's just a normal public domain status template. Even in 2013, after some minor adjustments, it was still this. That is what the description page of this file, and of the other files using this template, looked like at that time. And that is what that template still actually means. Note that the uploader of the file (nor the only two other users that edited the file description page in 2012) never tagged this file with the "This image may not have ..." ("Wrong-license") template to which you refer. This warning was never specifically added to this file. As such, it does not mean that this file has a problem. In cases like this, it tells nothing useful about the file.
 * Independently of the meaningless warning, we can of course examine and evaluate the status of this file, just like we can do it for any other of all the millions of files on Wikipedia and on Commons, to see if they may or may not have a problem. This file is in the same situation as any other file with a PD template. Users must evaluate if the known facts about the image meet the conditions for the template. When facts are not certain, users must evaluate with some subjectivity what the odds are that a fact likely exists or not. It depends of the level of confidence users want to have, taking in consideration the precautionary principle. In the case of this file, the odds may seem good that the file meets the conditions for the PD template, but it's not certain. Like for many other files. I'm not saying that it does or that it does not meet the conditions, but if it is decided that it does, it may be good to upload a better version. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information about the "Wrong license" template. I misunderstood how it worked and thought it was something added by the user, but didn't realize it could have just as easily simply been the result of a change in the template itself which has (had?) nothing at all to do with the file itself. This is a very good thing to be aware of for future reference. I wonder if there's a way to add something about this to the template's description. Perhaps a small note which states something like "this template was revised on XXXXXX and thus the "Wrong license" warning has been retroactively applied to all files uploaded prior to that date regardless."-- Marchjuly (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Tags - twitter
What tags do I use if I got the picture from twitter? --Lorisa214 (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Normally you cannot use images from twitter here. Copyright will apply, and normally copying is not permitted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

File:IDEAL Logo.png
This looks to me like a candidate for commons with a "PD-textlogo" and "Trademarked" tag. Is there a reason this hasn't been used already?-Ich (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you are right. You would have to ask user:Benedikt Aron why they tagged it the way they did.  To go on commons you would have to check if it is copyrighted in the Netherlands. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Jaeger Kahlen Partner logo.svg
File:Jaeger Kahlen Partner logo.svg seems simple enough for PD-simple unless there's some reason it needs to be treated as non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The text and image may be public domain, but when I look at the .svg file the code inside fills up a whole screen on my monitor, and would certainly qualify for copyright. So whoever generated the .svg file has the copyright on this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

File:MB Midvagur logo.png
File:MB Midvagur logo.png is licensed as non-free, but per c:COM:COA the blazon of coats of arms is typically not considered copyrightable and the shield imagery is quite simple. Does this really need to be non-free? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Microsoft Windows 95 Logo.png
File:Microsoft Windows 95 Logo.png looks like a duplicate of c:File:Windows 95 logo and wordmark.png. The file names are slightly different so the non-free is not shadowing the Commons file. Should the non-free be tagged for speedy per WP:F8 or simply just replaced per WP:NFCC and left to be deleted per WP:F5? Of course doing either of these things is based upon the assumption that the Commons licensing is acceptable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I really dont think this would qualify as PD-textlogo, and that logo hasn't look like it has been checked appropriately for that at Commons. --M ASEM (t) 02:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input . I started a discussion about the Commons file at c:COM:VP/C. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Ofo bike logo.png
Is this image eligible for copyright? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:DA8:201:3512:3439:47EA:DE81:73D7 (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

File:C3cs35486e-f1.gif
File:C3cs35486e-f1.gif is used on the artificial enzyme page with a caption saying it is from Chem. Soc. Rev. (the journal Chemical Society Reviews published by the Royal Society of Chemistry). The upload indicates it is "own work" of and releases it CC-BY-SA 4.0. That editor edited en-WP on only a single day, 11 December 2015, which is also the date of the upload. I'm not sure if it was uploaded here and then moved to commons, but either way I suspect this image is copyright to the RSC and thus a copyvio. Would someone with admin permissions have a look, and if also a commons admin, act? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The source of the information appears to be this PDF of supplementary materials for the 2013 Chem. Soc. Rev. article . The image itself is copyright to the RSC according to the attribution where it is reprinted (with permission) on page 2 of this Springer publication from 2016.  That book attributes the image to the Inorganic Chemistry Frontiers article  first published online on 7 December 2015, four days before its upload to WP.  EdChem (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I posted a copyvio notice to the image page at Commons, suggesting speedy deletion, and the image has subsequently been deleted from Commons as a copyvio by c:User:Sreejithk2000 (thank you) and the link to it in the artificial enzyme article has been removed by the CommonsDelinker bot. No further action needed.  EdChem (talk) 05:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

File:St. Lawrence Saints.svg
Is the combination of letters in File:St. Lawrence Saints.svg simple enough for PD-logo? St. Lawrence University is located in the US so don't think it needs to be non-free per c:COM:TOO. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Subnautica logo.png
File:Subnautica logo.png is licensed as a non-free logo, but it seems to be nothing more that block lettering. Can this be converted to PD-logo? Unknown Worlds Entertainment is the creator of the game and they are headquarters in the US. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It has 3D effects, which we generally consider to be unique to how the person chose to render the logo (similar to the creativity of lighting and shadows for photographs), so it would fail PD-logo. --M ASEM (t) 13:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Turbo AI logo.png
Does this image of concentric circles need to be treated as a non-free logo? It appears to be the logo used by Draft:Phonemetra, a US company, for one of its products. If it doesn't have to be non-free, it could stay in Draft:Turbo AI; if not, it's non-free use would fail WP:NFCC.

The above also applies to File:Turbo Store logo.png. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Tides logo.png
Does File:Tides logo.png need to be licensed as a non-free logo? It the logo of the US-based Tides (organization) and seems to be below the TOO for the US. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Definitely too simple in US, so I've edited the file and tagged it for a move to commons. ww2censor (talk) 10:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking care of this . -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Harry g pellegrin 2008.jpg
Uploader appear to be person pictured in File:Harry g pellegrin 2008.jpg. Occasionally old photos like this with a claim of ownership made on the file's page are grandfathered in without OTRS permssion. Even though this file was uploaded after January 1, 2007, I am unable to find it bening used anywhere online which shows the file being used prior to its upload to Wikipedia. Should good faith be assumed here or is formal OTRS verification required? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

File:VCU Rams Old Wordmark.png
Does File:VCU Rams Old Wordmark.png need to be non-free? It appears to be an older version of File:VCU Rams logo.svg. If it's PD-logo is could be moved to Commons; if it's not it probably should be deleted because there's no way its non-free use could be justified on the 9 pages it's currently being used on, except for possibly the oldest season article if that was the season this logo was first used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Velodyne Company logo.jpg
Logo for the Silicon Valley-based Velodyne LiDAR. Seems simple enough for PD-logo so is there any reason it needs to be non-free? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

permissions-en@wikimedia.org
RE: File:ShrinivasKulkarni2016.jpg

I have tried to forward the copyright release information regarding this image 3 times, since copyright holder's permission e-mail seems not to have reached you. However, the message sent from my yahoo account always bounces back with message "the address does not exit".

Is the e-mail box working? Or do I have a typo? Or is the information on the Wiki outdated for this procedure? I am assuming that since I received a Ticket number: Ticket#2017041510012198, at one point you received something from us regarding this file or its previous uncropped version. (If possible, I want to create the thumbprint of the original and put on to the infobox. (Original was sent earlier), but do not know how to create the thumb print, so I uploaded the thumbprint the second time). I would like to know the proper procedure for this as well. I have not intentionally violated the copyright, so please understand.

Is their a site on wiki where I can upload the scanned copy of the signed document and the copyright holder's e-mail?

I am in the limbo, although I am trying to follow the legal protocol. I am also worried that I would be forbidden from uploading anything, in the future.

Sincerely, Smallshrine 9:42 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Greetings, . Have you tried with a "i" instead of "e"?
 * Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Actually that is a typo in the header, so I will correct it. Thank you. Smallshrine 20:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Now my signature does not appear to have link... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallshrine (talk • contribs) 20:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4 tildes, like this ~ BTW, you do not actually need to reupload a different size for the infobox, unless you really need a closeup. The image size can be defined in the code of the box though some infoboxes size it automatically. The image now has a ticket number indicating contact has been made and they will deal with it in due course. Be patient as the OTRS system is backlogged. ww2censor (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --(talk)Smallshrine 02:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

File:The general habitat of the Western Sand Darter.jpg
Can File:The general habitat of the Western Sand Darter.jpg be licnesed as PD-USGov-Interior-USGS since it appears to come from the this fact sheet posted on the official website of the United States Geological Survey? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree and fixed. ww2censor (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for checking into this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Logo for ABC Spark.svg
Is this image free to transfer in Commons? The ABC logo is used in Commons, but I'm unsure about the "Spark" logo. --George Ho (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

What type of pictures am I allowed to upload?
I have tried uploading pictures that are free for distribution, but they got deleted. I have seen others upload similar pictures with no problems. I know I am making a mistake while uploading them, but I don't know what. For instance, I want to add an artist picture and I used pictures distributed by her studio online for promotional purposes but they still got deleted. Same with posters for dramas that were distributed for promotion. Which type of pictures can I upload? I appreciate the help. Nutellaforbap (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Generally, you want to upload images that you yourself shot, and only these. Images you didn't make yourself are usually copyrighted and can't be uploaded (for those people wondering which images, they are talking about Commons uploads) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Nutellaforbap, images that are distributed by a studio or film companies for promotional purposes are almost always encumbered with copyrights that are in conflict with our licensing requirements. While we do accept film posters for movies (say, for example, File:The Secret Life of Pets poster.jpg which is in use on The Secret Life of Pets), we use those under terms of fair use, and they must comply with our Non-free content criteria. Where I think perhaps you are running into a problem is not understanding that a promotional poster or image isn't free for us or anyone else to use as we please. It might be 'free' for, say, a newspaper to run a review. However, it is not free for, say, someone to make t-shirts with the image on it and then sell those shirts. Have a read through Gratis versus libre. What you are wanting to upload is gratis, not libre. We do not generally accept gratis media, unless we use it under the aforementioned non-free content criteria. We do accept libre media. All 11 of the images you have uploaded to Commons have been deleted as copyright violations. This is because you were treating gratis as if they were libre. This is where your error lies. If you have questions about a particular image you would like to upload, you can ask us about it here. We'd be happy to help. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for such a good explanation. I figured there was a problem when they got removed, but I couldn't understand why. Let's say I want to upload a promotional poster for a drama, similar to this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_O2O_(TV_series). How would I go about checking to see if they comply with your free content criteria? For instance, this picture http://wx2.sinaimg.cn/mw1024/0068CmKZly1feu0ps9iqfj31kw2t54qq.jpg It was posted for promotional purposes by the production company on weibo. It has circulated Chinese news media and sometimes a website would add their own logo to it. E.g. Baike Baidu: https://imgsa.baidu.com/baike/c0%3Dbaike272%2C5%2C5%2C272%2C90/sign=38377c1dba7eca80060831b5f04afcb8/55e736d12f2eb9381176a0ccdf628535e5dd6ff1.jpg It is hard to see their logo here since it is white, but you can find it after zooming in on the left bottom corner. Is that libre? Once again thank you so much. Nutellaforbap (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You have to always presume that anything you find on the Internet is under copyright, and not available under a free license, unless you can prove otherwise. Given modern copyright conventions, anything created now that is above the threshold of originality (basically, anything not very simple) is automatically copyrighted. So, the film poster you noted here would never be accepted at Commons. At Commons, they only accept libre media. You can upload the image here to en.wikipedia, but again it must comply with our Non-free content criteria policy. If you were to upload it, and follow the example laid out in File:The Secret Life of Pets poster.jpg, along with proper source attribution, and reducing the size (it's currently 1024px wide; take it down to 300), you would be ok. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Page Act to Restrain Abuses of Players

 * I have found a web page with the text of this act on it (Anno 3 Jacobi I cap XXI: An Act to restrain Abuses of Players, about 1605 AD) on it; but would it be allowed for me to copy the text of this act (about 2 Kbytes long) into this Wikipedia page? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, no copright issues here, since the text is far too old to be copyrighted (and the mere visual reproduction in that webpage doesn't create a new copyright). Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)