Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2018/August

Fair use of images from museum websites
I am having a difficult time understanding fair use. Many websites for museums state that their images may be used under fair use but some exclude use for commercial purposes. If I understand correctly, that would rule out putting those images on Wikipedia; is that correct?

Specifically, I would like to add some images to Michael Lax, and I have identified the following images at Smithsonian Institution and MOMA:
 * Fondue pot (SI Terms of use)
 * Ionizer
 * Lytegem lamp (MOMA terms uf use)

I have looked for images from other sources without success. Can I upload any of these? Leschnei (talk) 13:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Assuming the pieces are on display at both SI and MOMA, we'd rather you take your own images of these objects to use. The art pieces are non-free so we can't get a free image, but as they are also 3D items, photographs of them create a second copyright for the photographer (due to artistic choices of composition, lighting, and shadows). The Terms on both sites suggest that the respective galleries own the copyrights on those photos, and are allowing non-commercial fair use. As both MOMA and SI allow photography, it is possible that one can go and take their own pictures of those art pieces, then upload that image as non-free, but putting the derivative work into a free license, thus making a "Free-er" image than the museum website shot. We'd still treat it as non-free, but when Lax' copyright runs out on the original works, this user-taken photo would then immediately become a free image, (both art and derivative work free), whereas the MOMA/SI image would remain copyrighted.  --M asem  (t) 13:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick reply. I'll have to stick a photo request on the talk page and keep looking. I don't live in New York or D.C., and I don't think that these objects are on permanent exhibit. Leschnei (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * you could search for a wikipedian or commons user who lives or works nearby and request they take a photo to release under a free licence. Have a look at Category:Wikipedians in New York City or Category:Wikipedians in the District of Columbia or commons:Category:Users in the United States (less focused) as a start. ww2censor (talk) 10:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Great idea, thanks. Leschnei (talk) 13:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Wrong license?
File:PTV logo June 2017.png is licensed as PD-PhilippinesPubDoc and PD-textlogo, but the file has been tagged with Wrong-license. if the license is indeed OK, then a non-free use rationale is not needed and Information can be used instead. The question is whether this would really be below the WP:TOO for the Philippines. I can't find anything in c:COM:TOO for the country. The other PD tag might be sufficient, but the sources for the file are Facebook and some Wikia site, not an official public document per se. Any suggestions on what to do here? If the file is Non-free logo, it will likely have to be removed from all of the individual station articles where it's currently being used. -- 02:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Just a guess: It has the two PD licenses, yet contains non-free use rationale. Mojoworker (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes that's what's causing the licensing conflict. I am just curious if there are any opinions on whether this should be non-free or PD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like PD-textlogo wouldn't apply, since it appears to fail the "image or logo only consists of typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes" clause. Does PD-PhilippinesPubDoc really apply? It seems to fail the "Philippine texts of a legislative, administrative, or judicial nature" – at least I read that as applying only to texts. I think the safest course of action is to go the fair use route and supply NFCC rationale. Mojoworker (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * PD-Philippines might apply, but see Philippines copyright law, "No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the Philippines. However, prior approval of the government agency or office wherein the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such work for profit. Such agency or office may, among other things, impose as a condition the payment of royalties. No prior approval or conditions shall be required for the use for any purpose of statutes, rules and regulations, and speeches, lectures, sermons, addresses, and dissertations, pronounced, read or rendered in courts of justice, before administrative agencies, in deliberative assemblies and in meetings of public character. (Sec. 9, first par., P.D. No. 49)" Since this is a work of the Government of the Philippines, and it's a non-free license, so it looks complicated, but it seems those PD templates currently on the file appear to be incorrect. Mojoworker (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Also see c:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-PhilippineGov and c:Template talk:PD-PhilippinesGov on Commons. Mojoworker (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

And, there are thousands of images on Commons using c:Template:PD-PhilippinesGov. Note that File:PTVLogo2017.png exists on Commons, so the easiest thing would be to use that logo in the People's Television Network article (as the DXWP-TV article does), then delete File:PTV logo June 2017.png here. Alternatively, move it to Commons and tag it with c:Template:PD-PhilippinesGov, or copy the Commons PD-PhilippinesGov template here and use it on the image. Mojoworker (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The images claimed as the sources for the image under discussion don't appear to match the file we're hosting, having no text under the logo. I changed the infobox logo in the People's Television Network article to use the version from Commons, but perhaps a version should be created with the logo only and no text. Mojoworker (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Uploading images from VKontakte
If I wanted to upload to Wikipedia an image that originally showed up as an upload in a group on the VKontakte social network, would I be permitted to do so? And if yes, which of the three categories should I pick from step 3 of the upload process: This is a free work, This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use, This file doesn't fit either of the categories above. I do not believe it is copyrighted (there is no logo on it and nobody is claiming the photo, so its origin is unknown), and many news media outlets have since re-used the photo, citing it back to the social network. Despite it being re-used time and gain by media outlets, nobody has claimed the photo. I think I should choose the option "This is a free work", and then either the sub-option "This file is from a free published source" or "This file is in the Public Domain for some other reason", but I wanted to check first. EkoGraf (talk) 02:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Just because there is no logo on the image doesn't mean that it isn't copyrighted or has been released under a suitable license - without evidence that the image is free it should be treated as non-free, and would therefore be subject to the requirements of Non-free content.Nigel Ish (talk) 07:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well that's the thing, a number of reputable media outlets have been using the photo (citing VKontakte as the source) and actually the photo has been the SUBJECT of a number of the news stories, while its origin has remained unknown. Like in those news stories, the image would be a partial subject of the article it would be used in. EkoGraf (talk) 11:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * well in many countries media outlets use copyright images under a fair use or fair dealing claim, however, we use a much stricter policy for images as mentioned by Nigel above. Such images must comply with all 10 non-free content guidelines and such an image would require sourced critical commentary about the image itself to pass. Please provide a source for the image you have in mind and maybe we can be more specific. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply. Here's the primary source for the image and here's one of the first few media outlets reporting  on the image showing up on VKontakte. As you can see in the primary source, when translated from Russian, there is actually a comment that the photo was probably taken on the sidelines of the reception shown in it, but nothing about who actually shot the picture. Between, the image would be used in the article Wagner Group which has a paragraph devoted to the image. EkoGraf (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * PS Forgot to mention that it appears the image is low-res. EkoGraf (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to tell you that unless there is something very unique about this photo of Putin with four other men, there is little chance you can comply with WP:NFCC and there is no attribution. I now see the paragraph in the article and don't see how you can comply with WP:NFCC because the image is plainly explained in prose, so the lack of an image will not significantly decrease the readers' understanding of the topic. ww2censor (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought the image is significant due to the possible links of the Russian president with the PMC leadership, but ok if you think it wouldn't comply with NFCC and its already explained enough in the article that's fine. Thanks once again and sorry for the trouble! EkoGraf (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No trouble, it's better to explain things so you are ready for any future similar issue, but think about how the image in question, without the prose, makes a significant difference or proves any connections. For other image issues you may also find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

What are copyrights restrictions to images with text?
In the image http://www.ncsm.nl/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/How_Long_Marijuana_Stay_in.gif (from article: http://www.ncsm.nl/english/thc-weed-detox) posted information about how long does marijuana stay in your system. I plan to add this image into article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_cannabis. What are copyrights restrictions to images with text? If I'm image owner should I proof it somehow? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marina Katz (talk • contribs) 12:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't bother to be honest. The spelling mistakes and lack of sources for the claims in it, mean it probably won't stay in the article. - X201 (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Help With Album Artwork
Hello, I'm trying to include album artwork for an article currently in drafts. The image keeps getting pulled down even though I have used a proper template and provided reasoning for the non-free use. I have compared it to other album wikis and cannot tell why those are still up, and why mine is being pulled down. I would love to learn what I can do better to use this art correctly.

File in question: File:Tom_Morello_-_The_Atlas_Underground.jpg Page (draft): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Atlas_Underground

Thank you in advance. Peterstormer (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterstormer (talk • contribs) 18:24, 6 August 2018‎
 * Our strict non-free policy guidelines only allow the use of such image in mainspace, specifically #9, so placing it in a draft is against policy which is why it has been removed. Wait until the article is in good enough condition to be in mainspace and then add the image. ww2censor (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Got it, thank you! Peterstormer (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * . That's pretty much what I posted in the edit sum I left when I removed the file from the draft. When the "article" was moved back to the draft namespace, the non-free use rationale for the file became invalid and the file could no longer be used there. If the file is by chance deleted before the draft is re-added to the article namespace, don't panic and re-upload the file. Deleted files are not gone forever; they are only hidden from view and can often be restored at a later date per WP:REFUND or by discussing things with the deleting administrator once whatever issue(s) led to the their deletion have been resolved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * . Didn't see the note about the draft namespace. I thought there was still an issue with the file itself. And I got the notice that it may be taken down in the meantime, so that is good to know about getting it back. Thank you for your help. Peterstormer (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (logo).gif
Seems like the bird-like imagery might just push this above c:COM:TOO, so I'm wondering if it might be best to convert this non-free logo just to play it safe. Can this be kept as PD-logo? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea to be labelled non-free. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Benny Hill photo
Was wondering if anyone might be able to find out the original source for this photo? It looks like some kind of official service photo which might be a possible PD-UKGov. Benny Hill did serve in the British Army during WWII, so it might've been taken around that time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There is another military image here with more details about his service that may assist you. Remember that he also played a soldier in some of his shows, such as this or this, so such images could be misleading. ww2censor (talk) 09:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Because he looked quite young I thought it may be actual service photo. But that first eBay link looks awfully similar regarding age and uniform. Alexis Jazz (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Just adding a link to c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Benny Hill WWII.jpg for reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Trainload Freight logos
File:Railfreight Construction logo.svg, File:Railfreight Petroleum logo.svg, File:Railfreight Coal logo.svg and File:Railfreight Metals logo.svg being used in the main infobox are all being licensed as non-free. They might need to be non-free per c:COM:TOO (based upon c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Railfreight sub sectors.svg), but maybe they can be converted to PD-ineligible-USonly. Otherwise, I'm not sure the non-free use of a user-created gallery can be justified per WP:NFG and WP:NFCC.

For reference, the same user-created gallery was also used in Railfreight along with File:Railfreight General logo.svg, but files' non-free uses didn't meet WP:NFCC so I removed them per WP:NFCCE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I think that PD-ineligible-USonly would apply. Do not add non-free TEMPLATES. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Mouse is too small
File:Mickey Mouse concept art.jpg

The resolution is too low to really serve "visual identification of the subject". I know there is non-free no reduce, but for an existing image I don't know how to handle this. Alexis Jazz (talk) 05:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You can ask the deleting administrator to revert to the previous larger version though you may have to go through the undelete request process if they are not convinced by your justification. ww2censor (talk) 10:01, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Track listing
Can Wikipedia (CC BY-SA) violate the copyright of the publisher when we publish the order (and column "number") for the track list? (WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_advice, Spotify case: ) --Sunpriat (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If it is the track list of an album, it will be mere factual information that cannot claim copyright. Note that it is recommended to include the length of the track too. But the play list for a radio station for the day could be covered by copyright if someone published it. For something like Spotify there may be a terms-of-use that someone agreed to that may limit their actions. However I think I will agree with that article, in that the lawsuit sounds ridiculous. (for more reasons than they give). In the same kind of thing you are allowed to give full referencing information for a publication, even if it copies something that someone may have in a table of contents, or a website when you click the "cite" link. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The inclusion of the track in the album - fact, but a copy of the order of tracks (order numbers) - non-trivial fact, it's a specially chosen order by the publisher. Copyright in lists describes similar cases not in сс-licensing favor. In the case of albums, "table of contents" is almost the whole work (publication). --Sunpriat (talk) 11:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Non-free Canadian military ensignia
I'm wondering whether File:Air Force slip-on Maj.png and some of the other non-free files used in in Major (Canada) really need to be licensed as non-free. The imagery seems fairly simple, so maybe it would be below c:COM:TOO, or at least below c:COM:TOO. If the original imagery is not eligible for copyright protection, then there's no justification for keeping non-free files per WP:NFCC simply because they are someone's original graphics. On the other hand, if the original imagery is still covered by Crown Copyright as the non-free use rationales claim, then it seems it would be better to find something from an official source as opposed to using someone's original work because the latter is basically a non-free creation of non-free content, which seems to imply two copyrights need to be considered. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

CSD - Living people
Is there a CSD specifically for photos of living people that don't qualify under fair use but claim fair use or should it go through FFD? The Doctor Who (talk) 00:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You can try rfu per WP:F7; if someone disagrees, they can use Di-replaceable fair use disputed to contest the tag. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That works. Thank you! Don't know how I missed that. The Doctor Who  (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Two logos in Ride the Ducks
The article Ride the Ducks includes two logos, both of which are labeled as being non-free. It would seem that having a modern logo in the main infobox would be useful. My understanding is that if the only modern logo(s) for a business are non-free, then it is acceptable on the English Wikipedia to use a non-free modern logo in the main infobox in the article about that business. For the second logo, there is the question as to whether the logo is copyrightable in the US. Assuming that the second logo is copyrightable, there is the question as to whether its inclusion in the article is justified. --Elegie (talk) 09:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Updating Company Logo
Vacasa recently updated their branding. The new logo appears across the Vacasa site as well as the respective social channels (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter). Wikipedia hasn't been updated yet so I was hoping to do just that. However, I'm having a hard time figuring out the proper way to fill in the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. Could someone provide some guidance? Thank you.Nicolejolma (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually their own media resources page https://www.vacasa.com/media-resources/ shows the previous version image used in the infobox as their official logo. I could not find one page with the logo you uploaded, some pages use a yellow house logo but none with a blue background. This image is even better and is likely not copyrightable either and might use . ww2censor (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

geography
Back ground information on viljoenskroon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.113.209.171 (talk) 10:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This page is for copyright related questions. Why not just look at Viljoenskroon? ww2censor (talk) 13:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Correct new logo for WLYB FM Wikipedia page.
This is the correct logo for radio station WLYB (Link) http://963wlyb.com/logo.png please change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WLYB (talk • contribs) 18:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

New Zealand crown copyright material
I'm in the process of acquiring some New Zealand crown copyright material via a request under the Official Information Act 1982. Is this material compatible with uploading to wikipedia / commons? I know about fair use, but that's really a last resort. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The commons template c:Template:PD-NZ states any Crown works created prior to 1 January 1945 are PD. For anything after that date then crown copyright is 100 years from creation unless it is one of the items listed in s27 of the Copyright Act 1994 here which are copyright free.  So it depends on what the material is.  It might also be worth checking with the NZ government to see if they have gone/intend to go the way of using an equivalent of the UK governments OGL. Nthep (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

ESPN BottomLine redesigned
The ESPN BottomLine has been redesigned starting today, but the image that currently exists shows the BottomLine as it was before the redesign. I am planning to upload a new image to illustrate the redesigned BottomLine, but I was wondering if there was a case for retaining the older image for historical purposes, or whether it was better to delete it. --Dial (talk) 03:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

My pic is being deleted
Hello!

I am facing an issue that the pic I've uploaded twice into the Commons of pictures to use it in my article Jonty Yamisha (it's so far published just in my Userspace). Initially, I took this pic on LinkedIn page of the person I'm writing an article about. I asked him as a copyright holder to send his permission from to use this picture under free license on a specified email address (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) and I was expecting this picture to be in a pending status until confirmed. But it was deleted again.

Is there something that can be done about it? Copyright holder agreed to send an email and to place a pic in the article. How should I add the picture now and what should I do?

Thanks in advance. Tania — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetiana Tmenova (talk • contribs) 19:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * currently the OTRS verification system is backlogged over 4 months, so if the copyright holder has in fact sent their permission, the image will be restored when their ticket is confirmed. In that case the copyright holder will have received a ticket number that you can ask and OTRS volunteer to look at for you. ww2censor (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Using Creative Commons Information
Is incorporating text available under the CC by 4.0 license (using the code) acceptable? Can I use directly from a source with this designation or would that be considered plagiarism.
 * , text licensed under CC by 4.0 is not compatible with Wikipedia. You can use text that is public domain or licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0. See WP:Compatible license. (Descriptive material in Wikipedia Commons is entered under 3.0 though the images are 4.0). The material needs to be attributed to the source. See Plagiarism for details on how to do this. StarryGrandma (talk) 10:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * CC by 4.0 is compatible. Please read the FAQ you linked to. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed the difference between BY and BY-SA. CC by 4.0 (just Attribution not Attribution-ShareAlike) is fine. Thanks for catching this . StarryGrandma (talk) 10:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Inserting photo into the infobox with informal license from the author
(Sorry for the repeat – I brough this over from another QA Talk page)

Hello all, I am editing my first wikipedia article in a decade (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Judit_S%C3%A1ndor), and I want to insert a photo of the person into the infobox on the right. The author of the photo (https://vegeldaniel.com/portrait) has given me permission informally, in an email, but has not uploaded the image into the Wikipedia Commons for easy and officially licensed use. This is where the photo appeared in public, it says "Image credit: CEU/Daniel Vegel" – How should I proceed? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miksa.v (talk • contribs) 03:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . Since the subject of your draft is still living, it's highly unlikely that such a photo would be allowed to be uploaded as non-free content due to non-free content use criterion #1; so, that means that the only option you have is to upload the file to Wikimedia Commons under a free license, such as the ones listed at c:Commons:Creative Commons. However, in order for that to be done, the original copyright holder has to agree to give their explicit consent for to be released as such. Basically, the original copyright holder has to agree in advance to pretty much allow anyone anywhere in the world to download the file at anytime for any purpose (including commercial use and derivative use). Certain things such a attribution, etc. can be required depending upon the license used, but any license which restricts commercial or derivative use is not going to be allowed. Moreover, once a file has been released under such a license, the license cannot be revoked or canceled after the fact. One thing to understand is that it is the photographer who takes a photo, not the subject, who is generally considered to hold the copyright on a photo; so, it is the photographer's explicit consent which is typically needed. In addtion, appearing in public doesn't mean public domain or not protected by copyright. There may be an agreement between photographer/studio and subject which allows the subject to use the photo on social media, etc., but those agreements are generally not sufficient for Wikipedia's purposes. If you want to try and convince the copyright holder to release their photo under the above-mentioned conditions, please read c:Commons:OTRS for more information on what you need to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

US Government works
I came across something while looking at https://www.usa.gov/government-works which might be relevant to how Wikipedia treats PD-USGov. I've started a discussion at c:COM:VP/C about this, so i'm just posting a link here for those interested in this kind of thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)