Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2018/February

Help needed which is specific to this situation
How can I add an image to an article, with this situation?

The photograph was taken by Arthur Howard Hiner about 1954. It was never published and never copyrighted.

He is deceased. His negatives are owned by his daughter and son-in-law. The son-in-law is scanning them and uploading them to Facebook for public use. The son-in-law, a friend of mine, said I could put this one on Wikipedia. I have a screen shot of his permission.

What exactly do I need to do to add this photograph, if possible? Thank you.

Mark

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Twin_Coach_moving_van,_circa_1954.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wvamark (talk • contribs) 00:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please have the copyright holder, the heirs in this situation, fill out the form located at WP:CONSENT and send it into our copyright response team. Please have them include the file name you uploaded it under in their email and please have them contact us directly (do not forward permissions). It needs to be sorted out using that method and once permissions are confirmed the image can be undeleted. --Majora (talk) 02:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Image by a public university
I do not know if a photo of a faculty member taken by the University of California, Irvine is acceptable for a Wikipedia article about the same person. There is no copyright information for the photo. Can I use it? Harris-san (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No you cannot. The exact rules for the state of California can be found here: c:template:PD-CAGov and are a little extensive. Schools are pretty much covered under the "Agencies permitted to claim copyright" section. Oh, and for future reference, copyright attaches upon creation (unless prohibited by law). Images don't need copyright information. You could always as for permission to use the photo from the copyright holder by having them fill out the form WP:CONSENT and sending it into our copyright response team. --Majora (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In case it's an old photo, it's worth mentioning the following: Images after 1977 get copyright without copyright information. But if you can prove that it was published (not just created) in the U.S. before 1978 in something that didn't have a copyright message in it, then it's public domain. --Closeapple (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You'd had best be pretty darn sure if you are going to use the no notice or not renewed exceptions. In any case, I didn't mention them since it would be highly unlikely to find a 40 year old photo of a faculty member. Especially considering they are probably talking about Dave Min who is 41. --Majora (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * True enough: He would have been 2 years old &mdash; still under 18 even if we made it to 1991. --Closeapple (talk) 08:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

completing an image upload
I've been trying to upload an image of John Beebe and am confused. I did it incorrectly the first time, and the image was deleted because the permission was not clear. Following instructions on my talk page, I forwarded an email from Beebe giving permission to use his image to.

When I did, I immediately received the automated email from Wikipedia acknowledging receipt of my email. This is the same response I received the first time.

Now I am trying again, using the file upload wizard. The wizard is asking for "OTRS ticket received." I do not have that information. How do I get it? Thanks. --Halcatalyst (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have the ticket number that the automated email gave you? And is it the same image that was already deleted? Let me take a look at it. Please don't reupload if it is the same image. I can just have it undeleted. --Majora (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, here it is. Looks like I overlooked the obvious.
 * Ticket#: 2018020210009923 --Halcatalyst (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is the same image that was already deleted. It is File:John Beebe China 2006.jpg.
 * Thanks. I'll take a look at it now. --Majora (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Permission is not sufficient. Email responded to. --Majora (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Album art on band article
Is it legitimate to use (reduced) cover art in an article about a band that includes critical commentary of the album, if there is no article dedicated to the album?

The particular case is Sudden Rush where I'd like to add the cover of one of their albums (probably Ku'e since that's discussed in most depth, though Ea might be the better choice if the image were free). The primary subject of the article is the band so this doesn't quite match the upload wizard text ("... at the top of the article about the book, movie, etc. in question") (though that phrasing is ambiguous - in one sense this is the only article about the album; in another it's not an article about the album, it's about the band). It does seem to fit the wording on Non-free content, though: "for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item". There's discussion of Ku'e in the article, including review excerpts. There's no article dedicated to the album for the image to go on instead, which would be the normal way for the band article to identify the album, through a link.

If it is allowed, what's the preferred placement? At the top of the article, a future free replacement would presumably do a better job, since that spot should be taken by a picture of the band, so that seems to go against the free content rules. To the right of the discussion of the album would make more sense, but would go against the upload wizard text. Mortee (talk) 04:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Non-free album covers tend to be allowed when they are used at the tops or in the main infoboxes of standa-lone articles about albums themselves, but other uses can be quite tricky per WP:NFC and generally it's considered that cover art itself (not just the album) needs to be the subject of sourced critical commentary to provide the context required by WP:NFCC. So, if part of the relevant article content includes specific critical commentary about the album's cover art (perhaps such things as why it was selected, what it represents, who created it, any controverseries associated with it, etc.), then in may be possible to justify non-free use; however, if it just includes critical commentary about the album songs or production, etc. (for example, "Band A released their latest album in January 2017. It was produced by Person B, sold so many copies and received favorable reviews in reliable sources"), then I would say the justification for non-free use would be pretty weak and not sufficient to meet NFCC#8 and NFCC#1. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Got it, that makes sense. I remember reading some commentary about the symbolism of one of the covers in relation to the political message, so I'll see if that makes sense for the article and if so whether it looks like enough to justify using the image. Otherwise I'll just leave it out. Thanks for the explanation. Mortee (talk) 05:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Is this pre-1909 image public domain?
I want to use this image of Woodside Mansion in an article. It's from a Google Books scan, so the best I could do is a crop from a screenshot. I don't know anything about provenance of the image other than that it's a picture of a building which was torn down in 1909, which means the photo had to have been taken earlier than that. So, it's more than 100 years old, which means it must be in the public domain. Does this seem like a reasonable analysis? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that your analysis is pretty good,, but for the sake of discussion, let's assume that this was a long unpublished archive photo, and then included in a book published many years later, perhaps in 1999. In such a situation, the old photo might be copyrighted. But in this specific case, the book (and the photo) was published in 1913, so it is clear that the copyright has expired. The original publication date of a photo is more important than the date that the shutter was clicked. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

URGENT : Digital Reproduction Request and license
Good afternoon, I am writing to you today regarding a project from the National Film Board of Canada directed by Alanis Obomsawin. We would like to license a photo of the University of Manitoba owned by James Teterenko and currently available under the Wiki Common ShareAlike license : Rights: For this production we will need worldwide, all media rights in perpetuity. The Wiki common license seems problematic under those terms.

Is there a the fee? How quickly would you be able to provide us with the license and invoice? Many thanks ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.84.162.26 (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The license is Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0). As specified in its terms, it is worldwide and perpetual. There is no fee and no invoice. There is no delay, as the CC BY-SA 3.0 license is already issued by the copyright owner and it would become effective for you by your action of using the photo under its terms. Please explain what parts of the license seem problematic to you. If you want exclusive rights, that is not possible, because the license is not exclusive. Other than that, you can do pretty much anything with the photo, as long as you comply with the terms of the license (in particular, credit the author, mention the license and the url of the license). If you want to negociate a different license, you must contact directly the copyright owner JamesTeterenko. However, this is a photo of an architectural work. As you probably know, in a certain number of countries, architects have rights on images of their works. A quick search tells that the architects of this building were Samuel Hooper and Victor W. Horwood. Hopper died in 1919. Horwood died in 1939, which means that his heirs may still own copyrights in some countries. It's not a problem for using the photo in Canada and in the United States, but you may want to consider that if you want to use the photo worldwide. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

David Meade Images
I'm planning to add a image of David Meade in the infobox section so does anyone know which one of these files on Google Images Wikipedia will allow. Does anyone know where you find the license (say like Creative Commons Attribution 4.0) of this image for example? -- LovelyGirl7  talk  01:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably none of them. If you can find one legitimately and clearly marked as cc-by-sa or some other free license, then yes. I don't see that any of these are so. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. However, I just want to know where you find where the photo's license is marked, like this one. -- LovelyGirl7  talk  02:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hard to know without the page on which the image is hosted. You can use a metadata sniffer to check the metadata, like this, but in this case there's nothing to show. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * on Google image search, if you click 'Tools' there's a 'Usage rights' drop-down form which you can select 'Labeled for reuse with modification'. That won't find everything, but it's generally worth a try. On Flickr there's generally a visible license to the right under a photo (but even if one is marked with a suitable license, it's important to consider whether it's likely to be right; if the photo seems like they were taken by the person posting then it's probably fine but in other circumstances there can be mistakes) Mortee (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Concur with Mortee. Also, any site where anonymous users can post files needs to be carefully scrutinized to determine if the image truly is available under the license indicated. It is all too common for people to engage in license laundering by way of posting images to Flickr that are not their own and indicate its under a free license, then posting the same image to Commons, and a bot will dutifully check the flickr location and proclaim that yep, the license was accurate at the time of posting. See Licence_laundering. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for telling me. However though, I tried "Labeled for reuse with modification" and I can't find an image of Meade the Planet X guy. This photo is the only one I could find on Flickr but Wikipedia doesn't accept "All rights reserved", which sucks. Is there a chance the article can pass the GA criteria even finding his image or even without having his image in the infobox, since it's hard to find a photo of him that Wikipedia would accept (I tried those and I can't find any photo of him). -- LovelyGirl7  talk  22:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've never been involved with Good Article nomination/review so I don't know how much images weigh in, but note 10 on the criteria reads "The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then such images should be provided." Mortee (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This biography became a Good Article on January 28 and doesn't have an image of the subject: Chanchal Kumar Majumdar so it's definitely possible Mortee (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -- LovelyGirl7  talk  23:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Purchasing an image from Getty images to illustrate an article on Wikipedia.
If I were to purchase an image from the site to illustrate an article here, would that image be something I am allowed to upload? If so, what would be the proper procedure for licensing tags and such? Trafalk09 (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it depends on what you mean by "purchase". If you mean you are purchasing the rights to an image and that there will be some sort of official copyright transfer agreement between you and Getty, then you might be able to upload the file under any of the free licenses listed in WP:ICT/FL or c:COM:CC. However, if you just mean you are just purchasing a physical or digital copy of the image and not the rights to it, then I don't think you'll be able to upload it under a free license. I would also suspect that you would not be able to upload the image as non-free content as well because of WP:NFCC (see WP:F7), but that could depend upon how you intend to use it per item 7 or WP:NFC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * You would need to be very careful. Unless you enter into a special licensing agreement with Getty Images, images purchased from them are burdened with licensing requirements that make them incompatible with any definition of free license. Have a read through their Getty Images Content License Agreement. Most images from them cost hundreds of dollars at a minimum. So, in short, no you can't purchase Getty images and upload them under a free license here. What is it you are wanting a picture of? Maybe we can help you find one? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think from their recent upload at File:Leila Goldkuhl Lanvin ss2018.png they may want a picture of Leila Goldkuhl. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I see. Unfortunately, this isn't usable. The person in question is living, and thus under WP:NFCC #1 we presume a free license image of her can be created. I'm removing it from the article, tagging it as orphaned, and tagging it as replaceable fair use. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed di-orphaned. The file wouldn't be usable even if it were used in an article, so there's no point to ask for it to be inserted in a relevant article, which is basically the idea of di-orphaned. Also, di-orphaned doesn't add a delay, since di-replaceable has a shorter delay.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asclepias (talk • contribs)
 * And I restored it, as it is properly tagged with the orphaned tag. Both deletion criteria apply, and are not mutually exclusive. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Carykh neuralnets.jpg
File uploaded by a new user as PD-because, but I don't think that's likely the case. Perhaps this is PD, but I think it needs to be clearly shown that it is by providing a link or some other information besides a link to a google image search. This might be possible as non-free content, but not in Draft:HyperGAN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems like someone is confused about how PD-because tags work. This clearly is non-free. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Old Street station 1920.jpg
Can somebody double-check the assertion of PD on this photograph? It was published in 1929, with copyright solely being marked as "Underground Group Photo Dept". That suggests it's an official photograph for a public building (which are pretty common things if you ever go digging in places like the National Archives). However, it pre-dates the London Passenger Transport Board (which would have given claim to being Crown Copyright which would have now expired) by four years, but is not obviously a photograph created by a specific individual. My understanding for "works for hire" photographs in the UK is that they expire the year after 70 years from publication - this is how, for example, the National Library of Scotland are able to publish works by John Bartholomew and Son as recently as 1935. So I would speculate that the photograph has been PD since 2000. Does anybody disagree with that? If so, I could always create a FUR for the photograph, as it depicts a building that has since been demolished. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Question regarding use of company logo in article infobox
I am creating a Wikipedia article about a company with a copyrighted logo. I would like to add that logo as the image within the article's infobox, as is the case with articles in Wikipedia. Is there any problem with doing so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eromtlib (talk • contribs) 01:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If it is in draft space? Yes there is a problem. It can't go in draft space. If it is published? It has to be under fair use and it has to have a proper fair use rationale and be sized correctly. Once the article is live you can always request upload at WP:FFU and someone who knows exactly what they are doing would be able to help you there. --Majora (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Follow Up: So I assume that means I should publish the article without the logo, work on completing a fair use rationale, and at some point thereafter request upload at WP:FFU. Is that correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eromtlib (talk • contribs) 02:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. It should be published without the logo to start. Articles don't necessarily need images to be put into main space. The uploader at FFU will do the rationale for you if you go that route. It has to be done on upload. They will also make sure it meets the policy. --Majora (talk) 02:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Followup—logos that consist only of type and geometric shapes may fall into the category of not subject to copyright. I'm not sure if the logo for ToxPlanet quite meets this criterion, but given that it consists of two spheres, a rectangle and type, it might.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  06:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The shading would make it so it would meet the threshold of originality. That would be deleted off of Commons. --Majora (talk) 07:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Follow up question, asking a photographer permission to use one of their images in an article on Wikipedia
I've contacted the following photographer: https://www.instagram.com/snap__pat/ about the possibility of using this image https://www.instagram.com/p/Bd2wiqOBZNp/ in the article for Leila Goldkuhl. This is a copy of the email I sent, and the agreement I received: https://imgur.com/0Gm01i9

Noted, I know this means nothing If an email is not sent to commons, I'm just worried about how the ownership would be verified from their end. How would commons determine whether the email is legitimate? Trafalk09 (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , you can read about the means at their disposal here: Commons:OTRS. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Google Now logo.webp
Uploader tagged this with PD-textlogo and Non-free logo and the resulting license conflict is causing it to be flagged by a bot as a WP:NFCC violation. Seems like this can be PD since Google is based in the US. Is there any reason why this might need to be non-free? -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Simple shading like that is probably fine. It is different from the heavy and multiple shading in the above section. I would say that that is PD-textlogo. --Majora (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look. File's licensing was cleaned up by . -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Haiwenlogo.png
This was uploaded as non-free logo. It's being used in Draft:Haiwen & Partners which means it fails WP:NFCC and it also is missing a non-free use rationale so it can be tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F6. The question though is whether this can be converted to PD-logo. The Chinese characters are just the name of the company and the font seems pretty standard, so it looks like it would be PD in the US for sure. I'm not sure though about c:COM:TOO which is where the company is located. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Bing Images
Does Wikipedia allow Bing Images if they are Public Domain or Creative Commons? I'm looking for a Jim Bakker image and I found some from this link and I'd like to know. -- LovelyGirl7  talk  22:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . Public domain images are always fine on Wikipedia. Creative Commons licenses are only acceptable if they allow commercial reuse and modification, so that they can fit Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA license. So you'd want to search with this link instead. Also, Bing is a search engine, it doesn't host any images itself. So if you do find an image that works, make sure to credit the source page, and not the Bing results page. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, as explained above not all CC is allowed so it is better to use the selector "Free to modify, share, and use commercially". --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I searched and I found this image: . It's under the "Free to modify, share, and use commercially" category. I'm just curious, I wonder who's the author. Are "Free to modify, share, and use commercially" images "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0", "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0, or a different category? If a different category in Special:Upload, which one do you think the "Free to modify, share, and use commercially" category would fall under? -- LovelyGirl7  talk  23:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's likely to be license laundering and is also known as a "derivative work". Someone took a copyrighted image, superimposed their own text on it, and then put it under a "free" license. You have to be careful of those things but they are relatively easy to spot most of the time. You can read more about license laundering on our sister project, Commons: c:COM:License laundering and c:COM:Derivative works. --Majora (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

More than one fair use image in an article
Towards the end of last month User:Begoon and User:Masem were kind enough to give me some advice on whether I would be likely to justify using three fair use images in an article on an artist and designer to illustrate the three difference strands of his work (cartoons, stage sets and architectural history). I have now put three such images into the relevant text at Osbert Lancaster. Osbert Lancaster, and Osbert Lancaster. I wonder if either of those editors, or indeed any other who knows about fair use, would be good enough to have a look at my text and the rationales on the three image pages and let me know if they think I have done what is needed.  Tim riley  talk    16:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * All good. You have commentary in prose to justify each example, which is probably better than most "example work" images used for other bios of visual artists. --M asem (t) 16:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think there is a good NFCC argument based on what you wrote in the article and the images chosen that they meet NFCC. The only quibble is the actual images chosen, instead of some other 'unfree' images, but I don't think that is much of a quibble.  Also, in the first, there does not seem to be a present commercial opportunity -- the second, is  a bit more recent and we should list the publisher of the book -- the third, the only possible issue is whether there is an estate, and whether that matters. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear colleagues, thank you both so much for this advice. I'll make sure to add the publisher's name to the image pages. I'm hoping to take the article to FAC in due course, so you can imagine how important it is to be sure the images are all as OK as I can make them. Your help is greatly appreciated.  Tim riley  talk    00:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Non-free or PD?
There are a number of non-free images being used in List of female Heroes of the Soviet Union (File:Juliana Gromova.jpg, File:Captain Klavdia Fomicheva.jpg, File:Nadezhda Fedutenko.jpg, File:Irina Feodorovna Sebrova.jpg, File:Natalya Meklin in uniform.jpg, File:Rufina Gasheva.jpg, File:Marina Chechneva.jpg, and File:Raisa Aronova in uniform.jpg). It's being asserted at User talk:Hammersoft that many if not all of these images might have recently fallen into the public domain. FWIW, the list article has been flagged by a bot for excessive non-free files. There's no limitation per se placed on how many non-free images can be used in a single article, but generally this type of usage in list articles has not been allowed per WP:NFLISTS. The files also lack the separate specific non-free use rationale for the list article required by WP:NFCC. The files are being used in stand-alone articles about each person and that non-free use appears fine, so removing them from the list article would not mean deletion of the file. If, however, some or all of these files are now within the PD domain, their licensing can be converted according and they would no longer be subject to WP:NFCC, and also could likely be moved to Commons. Perhaps more eyes on this can help sort it out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This deletion template on Commons may be of particular interest to this thread: c:template:PD-Soviet. There are very specific date requirements here that would dictate whether or not the images have lapsed copyright. And even if they did have a lapsed copyright in Russia, the URAA presents further issues with US copyright. I can do some research on these specific images but I'm not making any promises on speed or whether or not the end result is going to please anyone. --Majora (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Would like to point out it was a Standard operating procedure to publish photos of people awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union in the Pravda newspaper in WWII.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's wonderful, but unless we can prove they were in fact published in Pravda, it has no relevance. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In case you weren't aware, Wikipedia non-free content use criterion #10c requires that a seperate specific non-free use rationale be provided for eaach use. Moreover, per WP:NFCCE, this non-free use ratioanle is to be "valid": clearly show how the particular use of the file meets all ten non-free content use criteria. In other words, simply adding a non-free use rationale does not automatically mean the the particular use is NFCCP compliant as explained in WP:JUSTONE. I am posting this becuase edits such as this (and similar edits you made to the other files listed above) are not really the best way to try and resolve this matter. You can't justify non-free use by simply tacking on more article links to an existing non-free use rationale. What you are going to need to do is provide a non-free rationale which clearly shows how all ten non-free content criteria are met for each non-free file you want to use in the list article. There is a pretty strong consensus against this type of use per WP:NFLISTS, but perhaps you can establish a consensus at WP:FFD for these files as exceptions. The other option is to clearly show that the files are actually now PD because of their age. You will need to provide something more substantial that an opinion that they were published in Pravda during WWII. You might want to try also asking at c:COM:VP/C for help since someone at Commons may also be able to help resolve the copyright status of these files; just try to remember that these files are uploaded locally to Wikipedia, so if you discuss them and want to link to them, you will have to either use WP:INTERWIKI to link them or provide the urls to the files' pages. The reason the files are on Wikipedia at the moment is because they were uploaded as non-free and Commons does not accept non-free content. If there's a consensus on Commons that these are PD, then they can be converted to PD and moved there, where they be used by all Wikimedia projects. At the same time, moving them there would be a waste of time if Commons is not going to keep them.  -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So should I not bother doing the research? I'm going into it myself with the preconceived idea that these are not free and would not be able to be used in the list due to fair use restrictions but if they are going to post at VPC then it really isn't worth it to dedicate research to it myself. --Majora (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Any help you can provide would be most appreciated. I just suggested VP/C to the uploader as another possible option since they seem to be a little bit impatient and also insistent that these are PD. I apologize if my post was interpreted to mean that your help or the help of anyone else working on trying to sort this out was no longer needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Troy Trojans logo.svg
Does this need to be licensed as non-free logo? Troy University is located in the US and this looks pretty close to a wordmark-type of a logo, but I'm not sure if the shading/gradiant giving it a 3D effect is just enough to nudge it above c:COM:TOO. If it is non-free, then it will have to be removed from Draft:Troy Trojans women's volleyball per WP:NFCC and also probably removed from Troy Trojans softball per WP:NFCC and WP:NFC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Finnish presidential election, 2018 logos
Was wondering if File:Laura Huhtasaari 2018 logo.png, File:Merja2018.png, File:Sauli Niinistö 2018 logo.svg, File:Nils Torvalds 2018 logo.svg and File:VäyrynenLogo.png need to be licensed as non-free logo. If they do, then they should probably be removed from Finnish presidential election, 2018 per WP:NFTABLES, WP:NFCC and MOS:LOGO. Even if they are not below the c:COM:TOO for PD-logo, then perhaps they can be converted to PD-ineligible-USonly instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Images published in The Illustrated London News in 1955
In 1955, two issues of The Illustrated London News featured images of the Emesa helmet (full citations are in the article). The first included two photographs on the front page, with the line "Photograph Crown Copyright reserved, reproduced by permission of the Trustees of the British Museum." The second also included two photographs (which appear to have been colored by hand), and the line "Reproduced by courtesy of the General Directorate of Antiquities of Syria, world copyright reserved."

Would someone please give an indication of the copyright status of these photographs? If I'm reading the Crown copyright page correctly, the first images would have entered the public domain in 2005. The status of the second set of images—published in the UK by permission of a Syrian agency with "world copyright" invoked—is less clear. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Non-commercial File
I want to upload an image to Wikipedia and the owner has given me the permission but only for non-commercial use. How should I proceed? Gotitbro (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia accepts files either as non-free, in which case it must comply with our WP:NFCC policy, or as free license. For our purposes, an image that is not allowed to be used for commercial purposes falls under non-free. In most cases, we don't accept non-free images. So, it depends on what the image is and your intended use. Can you tell us the answers to those questions? --Hammersoft (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The image is of Indian 10 rupee coins. There is widespread confusion regarding the appearance of the coins and I wanted to add the image to better illustrate what is written in the article. Gotitbro (talk) 04:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This would be a non-free image. What does the image bring to the article that we don't already have on Indian 10-rupee coin? --Hammersoft (talk) 04:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe it would better help illustrate the text that is written which describes the coins appearance via text. Gotitbro (talk) 04:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There are already three images there. How would an additional image add to it? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

File:ZM2014Logo.png
Does this need to be treated a non-free. If it does, then its non-free use can probably be justified only in the parent article ZM (radio station) and not in any of the individual station articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I changed it to pd-text/trademark. It's just letters. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Can I use image from English (en) Wikipedia to Malayalam (ml) wikipedia
I want to use images in English Wikipedia page to Malayalam Wikipedia pages which has already been created by someone else. How can I use this image. Does copyright allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinoytommanjaly (talk • contribs) 05:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , that depends on the image. There are roughly three possibilities: images used on the English Wikipedia but actually hosted on Wikimedia Commons are good to go; simply use them on Malayalam like you do here, no need to re-upload. Images used and hosted here on English Wikipedia with a free license can also be used, but you need to re-upload them, preferably to Wikimedia Commons so that all different language Wikipedias can use them easily. The third case is generally the only no-no: non-free content images can only be used here. Can you show us the specific image? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ,the file is used in English Wikipedia only.Have a look to the file is --[File:Sakhavu.jpg] --Jin0y (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , it's a non-free file (so case number three as described above). For how this works on ml.wikipedia, see ml:വിക്കിപീഡിയ:സ്വതന്ത്രമല്ലാത്ത ഉള്ളടക്കം. If the file passes those guidelines, you'll need to re-upload it on ml.wikipedia to use it there. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Copyright expiration on photos - Australia and USA
Being new at this I would be grateful for opinion on the copyright of this photo of Maggie Dunne which I've just uploaded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Maggie_Dunne_in_raised_embroidery_bodice_1909.jpg The photo is of a family member of mine and I own the photo. I would like to use it as an example of raised embroidery. It was taken in 1909 in a photographic studio in Toowoomba in the State of Queensland in Australia. Australian copyright on photos expires after 70 years. Does this make the photo Public Domain for use in Wikipedia? Maryodel (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

File:TV5 (ABC5) Logo.png
File has been updated recently and I'm not sure if the latest version is still non-free logo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Education media
Hello! I was given explicit permission from the owners of a copyrighted photograph that the picture can be used for educational and editorial purposes. However I have been having a difficult time trying to actually publish the picture as the media rules on copyright are frankly confusing and unclear. How do I publish this correctly? UnknownM1 (talk) 03:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's likely that you don't. We do not accept media on Wikipedia under a 'permission to use' here. We accept two broad categories of images here; those licensed under a free license that allows commercial uses, and those that are non-free, and are used under our non-free content criteria. Your image falls between those two, and as licensed wouldn't be acceptable. We would have to treat it as non-free, and use it in accordance with the WP:NFCC policy. So, that said, what sort of image, precisely are we talking about and where do you intend on using it on the project? --Hammersoft (talk) 03:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Honestly it is a picture of a rocket launching. Its just for an article about the rocket. Its amazing to me Wikipedia cannot allow for permission from copyright holders to not count as permission, because they do not allow for commercial use. UnknownM1 (talk) 03:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I'm sorry, but that's how it is. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Others may want to review this. The image in question is File:Electron Rocket on Liftoff.jpg, which the uploader here claims is not replaceable by free license content. It's been added to Electron (rocket). To my eyes, it's blatantly obvious that it is replaceable, as the presence of so many images of the launch facility and the rocket itself show that images can be taken of it. If someone sees something different, I'm all ears. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is replaceable fair use. While it might look nice, a non-free image of a rocket taking off is not essential from primary identification purposes; so, if there are freely licensed equivalents (neven not of this exact image) which can be used or possibly be created, NFCC#1 would not be met. Morevoer, although they can't be forced release the photo under a free licnese, it seems a bit unusual (suspicious) that the copyrightholder would not chose the release this one as such since it's does not (at least to me) seem to have much commerical potential. Perhaps this launch facility is different, but unless it's a totally top-secret type of military installation with tons of high-level security that nobody can get within miles of (all of which seems unlikely given the number of images online and the fact that the copyright holder wants to release a picture or Wikipedia use only), then it seems reasonable that someone with a decent camera and skills can get close enough to take a free image, even of a launch. Don't rocket launches (other than those of the top-secret variety) typically attract lots of people? This pdf even seems to be directed towards those wanting to come see this company's rockets launch. So, if they are giving people information on precautions, etc. to take when viewing one of their launches, then it's seems like someone can create a free equivalent. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Relevant discussion has been moved to File talk:Electron Rocket on Liftoff.jpg for those interested. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC) ‎

We do not understand please clarify
Can you please clarify which copyring are you claiming about? Are you claiming the portrait photo? Can you please let us know who you think has it’s copyright?

We have not claimed anything as belonging to us — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.20.182.88 (talk) 03:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi IP 96.20.182.88. You have only one edit credited to this account, so it's hard to know exactly what content you're referring to above. Can you provide a link to the file's page or at least a link to the article where it is/was used? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

How do I get the source's copy right permission?
I put the logo for the Western Institute of Technology and Higher Education on the Info box but it's telling me that the file will be deleted unless I find the copyright or permission from the source. I don't know how. Can someone help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brigando (talk • contribs) 02:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like you're talking about File:150 -ixels.png. The problem is that you've provided a source for the file, but you did not provide a copyright tag. All uploaded files are required to have a copyright tag or they will be speedily deleted per WP:F4. There are basically two possibilities here: a free license or a non-free license.


 * A free license means that the original copyright holder has given their explicit consent for the file to be uploaded under the terms of a free license of their choosing. If you are the original copyright holder, then you can pick any of the free licenses accepted by Wikipedia and add that to the file. If you are not the original copyright holder, you need to get them to email Wikimedia OTRS as explained in Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. They need to understand that a "free license" means that it cannot be taken back if they change their minds, and they cannot place any restrictions on commercial or derivative use. (In other words, they cannot say for "Wikipedia use only" or something similar) So, unless it can be verified that original copyright holder agrees to release the file under such a free license, it is going to be deleted. If you go this route, add the required copyright license and then add Template:Information to provide as much information about the image as possible.


 * The alternative is to license the file as non-free content. You don't need the copyright holder's persmission to do this, but you do need to make sure that the each use of the file satisfies Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. This can sometimes be tricky, but in this case you should be able to add the copyright license Template:Non-free logo and use Template:Non-free use rationale logo for the non-free use rationale required by relevant policy.


 * Finally, regardless of how you license the file, you should probably request a change in the file name per WP:FNC. Strings of numbers are not typically a good choice for a file name per WP:FNC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Why was my screenshot deleted?
File:Dell_XPS_730x_Software_AlienFX.jpg

For some reason, the page these photos are listed on are being attacked and deleted.

I took all of these screenshots and camera photos.

Please restore immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduncan911 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The image was deleted under WP:CSD, meaning it is an invalid fair use claim. Based on the title of the image, and your recent edits, it appears this was a non-free image of a Dell XPS 730x? Please understand; taking a screenshot of something you find on the Internet does not transfer rights to the image from the copyright holder to you. Further, if it was used under a claim of fair use, we can readily get free license images of a Dell computer, as there are literally millions of them in the world today, and of this model in particular likely many thousands if not tens or hundreds of thousands still out there. We would never accept a non-free image of this type of computer for identification purposes or just to have an image of it on the article. If you have one of these computers or know somebody that does, you can photograph it and upload it here under a free license, such as cc-by-sa-3.0. If you need further help, let us know. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * My screenshot was from the actual running software on my local machine in the past, not from an "online source." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduncan911 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Eduncan911, screenshots of copyrighted software are covered by the same copyright as the software itself.  G M G  talk   19:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Eduncan. While having a file you've uploaded might be frustrating, please assume good faith and not that the files or you are being attacked. Like article content, files can be challenged by other editors, even ears after the fact, if they feel their use is inappropriate. With non-free files simply adding a non-free use rationale does not automatically means a particular use complies with WP:NFCC. There are lots of non-free images being used on the Wikipedia and sometimes it takes awhile for a particular file to be reviewed and assessed. A deleted file is not really gone forever, but rather only hidden from view. So, if you think a mistake has been made, you should discuss things with the administrator who deleted the file. In some cases, though I'm not sure if that applies here, it might even be possible to request the file be restored via WP:REFUND. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Fixing "This file does not have information on its copyright and licensing status." ??
Hi,

Can you help me find out where I'm going wrong with this, one of my first attempt to upload an image? I have tried a few different ways to provide "copyright and licensing status", but continue to get the error message you will see on the page.

This is the image: File:Sundial on wall of Garvald and Bara Parish Church.JPG

Perhaps it's just that I am inexperienced here, but the instructions for this are not easy to understand. Maybe it is just complex!

Thanks for taking the time to help.

Davidgilmour3 (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, the message template "Di-no license" was inserted at the top of the page by a bot before you added a license tag. Now that you have added the license, you can just remove that template and that will remove the message. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Images published in The Illustrated London News in 1955
Posted this last week, but trying again as it got archived with no responses. Happy to provide copies of the issues in question if that would help.

In 1955, two issues of The Illustrated London News featured images of the Emesa helmet (full citations are in the article). The first included two photographs on the front page, with the line "Photograph Crown Copyright reserved, reproduced by permission of the Trustees of the British Museum." The second also included two photographs (which appear to have been colored by hand), and the line "Reproduced by courtesy of the General Directorate of Antiquities of Syria, world copyright reserved."

Would someone please give an indication of the copyright status of these photographs? If I'm reading the Crown copyright page correctly, the first images would have entered the public domain in 2005. The status of the second set of images—published in the UK by permission of a Syrian agency with "world copyright" invoked—is less clear.

Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The two photos in this first issue of TILN, are they the same two photos that were published in the 1956 book and discussed at Media copyright questions/Archive/2017/December? Some UK institutions have various types of statuses. According to British Museum, the BM is a non-departmental public body, i.e. apparently non-Crown as explained by User:January in this deletion request. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, they appear to be different. Was the BM a non-departmental public body in 1955? If yes: Would claiming crown copyright on the photos nonetheless replace the 70 year term with a 50 year term? If no: When did it become a non-departmental public body, and were copyright claims left as is when that happened? A more thorough search might turn up the answer to the latter question, but I did not find anything when I looked. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * All good questions. Indeed, if the Crown copyright mention came from the Museum, we should probably accept it. The opinion of users versed in British law would be useful. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure if it helps and I dont have a reliable source but I have books printed in the late 1940s by the HMSO for the Science Museum that are all Crown Copyright. MilborneOne (talk) 10:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Penelope Plummer
This lady was the first Australian to win the Miss World title. At Commons we have File:Miss World 1968 (Penny Plumer) retouched.jpg which is currently used in our article, and is derived from File:Miss World 1968 (Penny Plumer).jpg. These files are likely to be deleted at Commons because the image is almost certainly copyrighted. Penelope Plummer is still alive. I have searched for free images to no avail and, whilst she is still alive, so theoretically a free image could be obtained, she is 68 years old. Would this image be acceptable here as non-free content, on the basis that her appearance at the time of winning the title is the most relevant and informative illustration for the article, adds to reader understanding and identification, and no free images of her appear to exist? I'm looking particularly at the clause from WP:NFC which says: "For some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable." -- Begoon 22:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Only one other language wiki has a photo and that looks like it's non-free. I agree with your analysis and would suggest you move it here as a no free with a well detailed fair-use ratioanle before it get deleted as seems inevitable on the commons. ww2censor (talk) 10:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank . I was initially going to just do that, but it's always reassuring to have someone independent confirm one's logic, so I decided to post here first. I'll probably upload it here tomorrow, but that's not actually as time critical as such things usually are when deletions are involved because I did the restoration work so have copies of both versions in my photoshop master file here, along with offline copies of file description pages/upload diffs etc. Appreciate the reply. Cheers. -- Begoon 10:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Miss World 1968 (Penny Plumer).jpg, simply calling someone a "tall blonde" is probably an insuffcient justification for non-free use and it would be much better if more sourced content about her appearance could be added to the article; moreover, she's still alive and the article is about her entire life so to speak. So, if she's been active in other areas/fields since winning the title there may be suitable free images of her which could be used in the main infobox instead of a non-free one. Finally, the article says she appeared on a 1969 Bob Hope Special in Korea. There's a possiblilty that was a USO type of thing since Hope did lots of those which may mean there were US military photographers taking pictures of it. Those should be PD-USGov, so if anything like that could be found, then this non-free would most likely not be needed. While beauty contest winners are most likely chosen based upon their physical appears, those shows do (or at least claim to) evaluate contestants with respect to other criteria as well. Is she Wikipedia notable for winning the contest, or is she Wikipedia notable for her appearance? They might be related, but they are not necessarily the same thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've uploaded it here, and I'm happy with my rationale and justification. Perhaps ironically, I had just removed the words "tall" and "blonde" from the lead of the article before reading this, as I don't think they were appropriate there. I'd say that her notability certainly rests in large part on her earlier visual appearance, and that a new picture would not serve the same purpose as this one, and so I do feel it meets the criteria. As always, if you disagree, you may feel free to challenge its use and determine consensus - I have no objection to such a discussion, although I don't believe I would have much more to say than I have said here. Obviously if you can find any of the putative free alternatives you suggest may exist then this file might not be needed, as you say. My searches did not discover them, but you may have better luck. Cheers. -- Begoon 03:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to add that I think that part of the justification for an exception to this type of non-free use per NFCC#1 is that the non-free image in question could still be justifiably used in the article even if a free equivalent could be found for primary identification purposes. In that case, this would mean that the non-free of Plummer would still be acceptable if moved to somewhere within the article body even if replaced by a free equivalent in the main infobox. I don't think the best way to argue this is that we use a non-free as default until a free alternative is found, but rather that this particular image is itself essential to the reader's understanding of Plummer per NFCC#1 and NFCC#8 even if a non-free equivalent is found. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC); [Post edited by Marchjuly to remove reference to "exception". -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)]
 * Well, to be a little pedantic, I'm not sure why you are describing that clause from WP:NFC#UUI as an "exception" to NFCC#1? It seems to me to be an explanation, or clarification of how particular images may meet the actual requirement: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." rather than an "exception" as such. -- Begoon 04:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm probably refering it to as such because I've seen it referred to as such in various discussions including some way back in the WT:NFC archives (such as Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 67); however, clarification is as you point out probably a more accurate description. So, I have tweaked my previous post. Still whether item 1 of NFC#UUI is better referred to as a clarification or explanation doesn't change the fact that non-free files need to not be replaceable fair use. Would this image's non-free use still be justifiable if it wasn't being used in the main infobox for primary identification purposes? I think that's an important part of determining whether an image such as thig might be replaceable fair use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I think we're arguing in circles a bit. I don't believe it is replaceable fair use, because, as far as I have been able to determine, "no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". As an aside, if an alternative image was, or could be, discovered that was free and sufficient for identification purposes, even bearing in mind that her notability does, in my opinion, "rest in large part on her earlier visual appearance", then I would obviously be incorrect in my assessment. Our main point of disagreement appears to be whether a Miss World winner's notability does so rest, in the absence of any other, independent, evidenced notability. I believe it is fair to say that, for the purposes of identification, it does "in large part". Others may differ. -- Begoon 05:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As long as you have clear sourced discussion about her looks at that younger age that clearly cannot be obtained again, we would allow a non-free of a living person in that case. (Textbook example is "Weird Al" Yankovic's original look that he was well-known for, but since he has significantly altered his outward appearance, so a single non-free of his original look is just fine.) --M asem (t) 05:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this is similar to what I wrote in my very first post in this thread. Currently, there is no sourced discussion of Plummer's appearance anywhere in the article. There was content describing her as a "tall blonde beauty queen" which was revised earlier today, but my opinion is that simply describing someone as tall and blonde is not really a sufficient justification for non-free use per NFCC#1. So, I think any justification based upon previous appearance (even for beauty queens, models, etc.) per item #1 of NFC#UUI is going to need some more specific sourced content about said appearance for non-free use to be justified. Moreover, if sourced commentary can be found and added to the article, then it might also be bbest to move the image from the main infobox to the section where the content is located. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, we're going to have to differ on this one, I'm afraid. I still don't feel it is replaceable fair-use, even without commentary. The purpose is identification and it satisfies NFC#1. You brought up #8, contextual significance - well, it's a picture of the person at the time of them winning the beauty contest that made them notable - I really don't see how much more contextually significant it could be. That's the main "context" referred to by the article. There are a couple of things that could possibly be "shoehorned" in as commentary, but they are not things I'd ordinarily include in an article like this without this as a "motive", so it wouldn't feel right to me to do so. If a picture of a beauty contest winner, notable for that reason, and who is now 68 years old, taken at the precise time of winning the contest doesn't satify "individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance" then I'm astonished. I completely concur with 's response to you at the Commons discussion you referenced above: "if any image fits NFC#UUI, this is it. ." -- Begoon 09:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm glad a free image was found. I still disagree with you though about the NFCC#1 thing, but that's a moot point now. I actually saw a number of images of her online including some found by below and some others which actually looked like they might be from that particular tour, so I figured finding a free one might not be such an astonishing accomplishment. I was also actually looking for contact info for Plummer to ask if she had any images she might wouldn't donating or releasing under a free license. Anyway, it appears all's well that ends well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A free picture is here http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Negative-Bob-Hope-USO-Show-Miss-World-Penelope-Plummer-Anderson-AFB-t946111-/121841413282 taken by US air force photographer, but unfortunately watermarked. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well that would appear to solve any "problems". Thank you, - your google-fu is obviously stronger than mine, I searched for images related to the Bob Hope tour but only found an unusable video clip. I can upload that and create a crop with watermark removed. Many thanks. -- Begoon 12:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Begoon, if you click on the image in the eBay listing and then again you get a large version without the watermark. .     Jim  .  .   (Jameslwoodward)   (talk to me) 12:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * - the only large version I can get to is watermarked "ERIC DATZ" - can you give me a url, or upload the unwatermarked version you can access over: File:Penelope Plummer.jpg please? -- Begoon 12:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry, you're right. I was happy to see that the eBay banner in the lower right corner was gone from the larger image and didn't notice the light gray "Eric Katz" across the center. .     Jim  .  .   (Jameslwoodward)   (talk to me) 22:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I would upload that eBay image to the commons and ask the c:Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop to remove the watermark, which they have done previously with good success as you well know having made several requests there. Quibik has made several watermark templates and might even be able to make one for tis image. The same eBay seller has at least three more images of her all watermarked but they are candidates for and retouching. You original image appears, from this very similar ebay image to be an AP photo without a copyright notice, so that may also be good as might this one though both have complex watermarks that are likely rather difficult to remove. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The first one, linked by Graeme seems the best. The watermark doesn't even infringe on the area relevant for an infobox portrait. I may still fix it on the full size version if I can do it close to perfectly though, or, as you say, Quibik may be able to do it with a template - he is a bit of a guru with that type of thing, even to those of us who can do a fair amount ourselves. One of the 3 "others from same seller" you linked was almost better, but one side of the face was just far too dark to be usable, with no data in the image, however enhanced, which is a shame, as it was a nice pic otherwise. Incidentally, I don't think I've ever made a request at the Graphics Labs on Commons or here - if recognise my username from there, that's probably because I've fulfilled hundreds of requests there which other editors have made over the years. Cheers. -- Begoon 16:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Another one here from same seller: http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Negative-Bob-Hope-USO-Show-Miss-World-Penelope-Plummer-Guam-1968-t946102-/121841413346 but not good for infobox. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Are photos from imgur okay?
For example, I want to upload this beautiful photo to Apomorphine, since it shows apomorphine's effects. The Imgur TOS says:

Also, of course, anything you post to a public portion of our site may be used by the public pursuant to the following paragraph even after you delete it.

USE OF IMGUR CONTENT

By downloading an image or copying other user-generated content (UGC) from Imgur, you agree that you do not claim any rights to it. The following conditions apply:

You may use UGC for personal, non-commercial purposes. You may use UGC for anything that qualifies as fair use under copyright law, for example journalism (news, comment, criticism, etc.), but please include an attribute ("Imgur" or "courtesy of Imgur") next to where it is displayed. You may not use UGC for non-journalistic commercial purposes. Your use of UGC is at your own risk. IMGUR MAKES NO WARRANTIES OF NON-INFRINGEMENT, and you will indemnify and hold Imgur harmless from any copyright infringement claims arising out of your use of the UGC. (See our general disclaimers below.)
 * That is a noncommercial license and as such it would only be permitted as non-free use, but it would fail WP:NFCC in such a case. Now after reading that TOS I think that if you have permission from the photographer it may be OK - it seems like Imgur doesn't demand copyright transfer and thus the photographer may be able to freely license the photo. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Cool. I'll message them and if they say yes, I'll upload the image and add a screenshot of their consent to the image's description page. — Prof. Squirrel (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * But please remember the permission must be for a free license without any commercial or derivative restrictions, otherwise it will be deleted. Permission for Wikipedia alone is not sufficient. ww2censor (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks! Prof. Squirrel (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Editing a wikimedia commons image
I have cropped an image from Wikimedia Commons. How do I attribute it when I upload it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SDC (talk • contribs) 19:13, 28 February 2018
 * On the commons, instead of downloading the image to your computer and then uploading it again, it is far easier, and better to use the CropTool which does all the work for you. It can be activated in your commons Preferences, under Gadgets. The CropTool will then appears in the left side of your screen. It saves everyone a lot of time because it transfers all the correct and appropriate information into the cropped image, such as source, license, author, etc. It even leaves a backlink to the original and visa versa so long as the original file has been positively reviewed. That way all the proper information is there and does not need to be manually reviewed by volunteers. If you are just cropping a small bit of the image like a frame you can decide to overwrite the original image but for more major crops you should upload the cropped version as a separate new image, but you have a choice. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! That is extremely helpful. I was unaware of that tool. The image is a large panorama composite. I need only a small part of it to illustrate my article. SDC (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)