Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2018/October

File:Coldplay speedofsound.png
This file seems to be the same as File:Coldplay - Speed Of Sound (Single).jpg and there's no real reason to keeo them both if it is. So, if the the one licensed as PD is good, then the non-free one would not be needed per WP:NFCC. If the PD one is not really PD, then it should be deleted per WP:F7. Any comments as to whether this can be kept as PD-ineligible-USonly? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Astralmedia.svg
File is licensed as PD-logo and PD-USonly which seem to conflict since the latter is more restrictive than the former. Canada's TOO is quite similar to the US's; so, if this is PD in Canada, then it's going to most likely be PD in the US as well. If, on the other hand, this is not PD in Canada, then PD-ineligible-USonly might be a better license to use than PD-USonly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd say that's PD in both the US and Canada. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Image question
If an image has been tagged for deletion as a copyvio on Commons for over three months without action, and it strongly appears to be non-free, what is the best recourse to ensure the image is not used or reused on Wikipedia? Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 14:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , What file are you discussing? --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * File:Bobby Bones 2017.jpg--John Cline (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Copyrighted photo
It has been a while since I uploaded a photo that I want to use for a biography page. The new rules confuse me completely. The photo is currently copyrighted by the American Water Works Association. I have been told that I can use the photo. All I need is to figure out some way for them to release the photo into the public domain so that I can upload it to the bio. How do I do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drinkingwaterdoc (talk • contribs) 22:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The copyright holder will have to release it under a free licence. Maybe it's on their website, so they could add a clear statement of the licence they are prepared to use on that webpage, such as or . It looks like they have a Flickr photostream at https://www.flickr.com/photos/americanwaterworksassociation, so they could upload it there using a free licence. Non-commercial and non-derivative restrictions are not acceptable to wikipedia, otherwise they will have to follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT but the OTRS system is quite backlogged. ww2censor (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for responding so quickly. AWWA has agreed to publish the photo under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal License. Here is a link to pdfs of the pages from your release generator (at: https://tools.wmflabs.org/relgen/)

https://thisdayinwaterhistory.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/krasner-photo-copyright-release-by-awwa.pdf

Please let me know that this is ok. Please do not delete the picture until the license is recognized by Wikimedia Commons. Drinkingwaterdoc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Osxboxes.png
Apropos to the above section, I found File:Osxboxes.png on macOS and Classic Mac OS. This has two rationales, one for each of the articles it is on. Seems fine, right? Nope. This is a user generated montage (see history), and as such would need a fair use rationale for every non-free image in the montage for every article where it it used. See WP:MONTAGE and WP:NFG. The image needs to be removed from the articles where it exists and deleted. Other opinions? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with this assessment, but a non-free use rationale might not be needed for each and every individual image though based upon something similar I asked about at User talk:Masem. I think it might be acceptable to include source information for each logo (i.e., a source url for each individual element of the montage) in the source of the rationales. Currently, there are just links to Wikipedia articles provided, and only some of these seem to show the actual image used in the montage; so, it would be better to know exactly where each file came from. At the same time, it's not clear why non-free box cover art is needed for each individual software box since per WP:FREER there may be free equivalents which can be used instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

File:AgnesBernelle.jpg
I'm trying to add this photo, File:AgnesBernelle.jpg, to the relevant wikidata item. To do so, I understand that it must be on wikicommons. I would be happy to move it there, but I don't understand this particular image's copyright. Can someone help? thanks. - Trilotat (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Trilotat. Commons does not accept non-free content per c:COM:FAIR, so this shouldn't be moved there as licensed. If you tried to do so, it would most likely be quickly flagged for deletion. I'm not sure about the Wikidata part of your question, so perhaps someone else will answer that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I thought might be the answer. I appreciate the prompt reply. _Trilotat (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Nintendo Direct mini logo.svg
Does this need to be treated as non-free? It's basically the same as File:Nintendo Direct logo.svg with the word "Mini" added onto it. Even if this is possibly above c:COM:TOO, it seems to be OK for PD-ineligible-USonly per c:COM:TOO. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I doubt even this could be considered non-free in Japan. I'd tag it as with . ww2censor (talk) 10:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Range maps
I want to add a range map for an article on a species. Looking at Template:Taxobox it implies one should just grab a blank map and draw some blobs on it. I have found two different maps in journal articles I could use for the basis of the map, but if I make my own map mirroring one of those maps, is that breaching the original copyright? or is range data not copyrightable? --Nessie (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Factual information is not copyrightable. For example, the height of the Empire State Building can not be copyrighted, or the result of a baseball game, or the speed of a cruise ship. The range of a species is a 'fact'. However...however...you may get into some gray area if there are different definitions of what the range is. I would NOT use the journal articles as a basis. I would use OpenStreetMap (https://www.openstreetmap.org/) as a basis, which has a license compatible with our free licensing requirements. From there, add on your own interpretation of the range, sticking to facts of course, and publish the output here under a compatible license. As an example; File:LakeAtnaRelatedGeography.jpg. I made this map using OpenStreetMap as a base, and doctored it up from there, releasing my output under cc-by-sa-3.0. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest looking on Commons for existing blank maps, and then using Inkscape or another vector editor to draw on those. While OpenStreetMap makes good street maps, they aren't usually ideal for things like range maps. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * for 'basis' i meant for the blobs, not for the underlying maps. I know there are plenty of maps on the commons. Thanks for the help though, folks. --Nessie (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

File:WaterColor Painting With Sketch.jpg
I am pretty sure that this image is not properly licensed to be used on WP. I found its licence on Flickr here I am unfamiliar with the deletion process related to images or I would remove it myself. Barbara ✐ ✉  20:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There does not appear to be any significant licencing issue with this image, which came from the artist's own Flickr accountx, though the licence is version 4.0 instead of 2.0. I've fixed that. If you have any legitimate reason for its deletion you would use the "Nominate for deletion" button on the left of your screen, but commons images must be nominated there, not here. ww2censor (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much. Licencing is something I grasp in principal but still lack the skill to deal with appropriately. Then the issue is different and appears to be an attempt at self-promotion (since the artist is relatively unknown.) Thank you for your explanation. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉  17:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Barbara, if you go to Commons and go to Preference > Gadgets > AjaxQuickDelete, that will give you opinions in the side bar on the left to nominate images for c:Commons:Deletion requests.  G M G  talk  17:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Despite my relatively high edit count and 'years of service' I still feel like I will never learn all the in and outs of WP and its ever-expanding policies. Thanks for not making me eat humble pie. You are gracious. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉  17:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Fenton Johnson (poet)
I want to have a portrait of the author. The two portraits at are probably out-of-copyright but NFCC would also be appropriate. I am a little unclear though what information I can get/need on these portraits in order to use one -- any help, here? Research experts? Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyone? :) Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Licensing question
I would like to use this image, but the copyright status is uncertain. The image belongs to the City of Liverpool, Sydney. It has a licence that says: "May be reproduced or published. Please acknowledge that the image is from the Heritage collection of Liverpool City Library". If the image were Crown Copyright, then it would be in the public domain, per the 50-year rule; but there is legal uncertainty about whether local government is part of the crown. For my purpose, I could upload as Fair Use. Would this be the best way to proceed? Hawkeye7  (discuss)  20:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Files for discussion/2018 October 4
You are invited to join the discussion at Files for discussion/2018 October 4. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering if anyone might be able to track down the original sources for the files being discussed in the aforementioned discussion. If they can be converted to PD-US-no notice or PD-US-not renewed, then they would no longer be subject to WP:NFCCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Buddy Holly Peggy Sue Coral.jpg
Not sure that this 45 label needs to be Non-free album cover since it basically black text on a solid origin background with no other imagery. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Upload assistance request
Was wondering if someone familiar with non-free files would mind uploading an infobox image for Esther (1986 film) and adding it to the article. The article creator is an IP, so not sure if they can do such a thing; I can, but I’m cuurently computerless and using my phone to edit, and probably will be so for quite awhile. The poster/DVD cover art used on the film’s IMDb page or the director’s official website can probably be uploaded as Non-free poster/Non-free DVD cover for the license using Non-free use rationale poster/Non-free use rationale video cover for the NFUR. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Moon Dream Glenn Miller Navy V Disc 114B.jpg and File:Moonlight Serenade V Disc 160A.jpg
Do these need to be treated as non-free content if it was produced by the US Navy? If not, then there respective non-free uses in Glenn Miller discography most likely fail WP:NFCC, unless they can be licensed as PD for some other reason than PD-USGov-Navy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As long as its only the label/graphic image, then they should PD-USGov (making these records as part of official gov't duties). Clearly doesn't apply to the sound recording itself. --M asem (t) 05:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Possibly wrong tag on diagram
There's an image whose license tag says it's public domain made by the uploader, but it also says somewhere else on the page that it's adapted from another source which doesn't seem to be public domain. Could someone have a look at File:SigComp Architecture.png and see if anything has to be changed. Also, in case it turns out the image can't stay in the article it's used in, would it be okay to copy text about the image into the article? I know if there's no image, the text can't talk about the top and bottom of it, but the last two paragraphs of the description section say something the article currently doesn't say, and they're discussing the meaning and not the visual appearance of it. – Pretended leer (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . My understanding is that if this is truly a WP:Derivative work establishing a new copyright, then the copyright status of the original needs to be taken into account. The derivative can be released as PD-self or some other WP:ICT/FL, but I believe a non-free license sometimes needs to be provided for the original in some cases. In this case, it looks like this file is based upon this image and the uploader basically added some coloring and other effects. I'm not sure if any of that is sufficient enough to establish a new copyright for a derivative, so basically where left with whether the original diagram is considered to be complex enough for copyright protection. If not, then neither is the Wikipedia file; if it is, then maybe the license should be converted to Non-free fair use and Non-free use rationale added for the WP:FUR. The problem with that, however, is that I'm not sure any non-free image of that sort is needed in Signaling Compression per WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC since the same information probably can be expressed in some other way using prose or some other free graphical representation. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

adding picture for arizona us senate candidate
hello, I work for Angela Green. She is running for Arizona US Senate and is officially on the ballot. Can you please add here picture? It is on the website www.yeswewillmakeadifference.com. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Arizona,_2018.

I am not sure which license I should be using. Thank youMeekah78 (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Greetings, are you the photographer? Or the person who paid the photographer for that photo? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . First, if you work for Green, you are certainly going to be considered to have a conflict of interest with respect to anything written about her on Wikipedia; so, please take the time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, particularly the section on "Disclosure". Wikipedia doesn't expressly prohibited COI editing, but it does highly discourage it and strongly recommends such editors follow relevant guidelines to help them avoid problems with others. It also requires anyone being compensated in anyway for their contributions to Wikipedia to comply with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Regarding uploading an image of Green, this is only going to be allowed if Wikipedia can verify that the original copyright holder has given their consent to do so. Since it's the photographer, not the person being photographed, who is typically considered to be the copyright holder of a photo, that's whose permission is needed. This is why has asked whether you took the photo or whether you paid a photographer to take it. If the answer to either of those questions is "Yes", then you can upload the photo to Wikimedia Commons by following the instructions given in c:Commons:Upload Wizard. Just choose one of the licenses given in c:Commons:Creative Commons and follow the instructions of the upload wizard. It would be a big help if you can upload the file with the original Exif data associated with it by downloading the photo from your camera onto your computer and then uploading it to Commons because this often helps verify copyright ownership. If, however, the photo is one which has been previously published online somewhere (like social media or an official website), then you may have to follow c:Commons:OTRS instead. You also need to understand that choosing to release a particular photo under a free-license is not a transfer of copyright ownership to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons (you'll still retain copyright ownership of it), but it does mean that you're pretty much agreeing in advance to allow anyone anywhere in the world to download the version you've uploaded at anytime and use for any purpose, including commercial use and derivative use. Moreover, the license of any file you upload under such a license cannot be revoked or cancelled later on if you change your mind. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

CSPAN files
I uploaded some files (e.g. File:Steven G. Bradbury 2013-07-27.png) some years ago under what I now believe was an incorrect understanding of the CSPAN PD template. Re-reading the CSPAN Copyright & Licensing page, it seems that because some of these hearings took place at the Rayburn House Office Building (as opposed to the capitol building) it is not eligible for Commons licensing because CSPAN doesn't offer blanket permissions for commercial use of committee hearings. Is this correct? Would the material be suitable on a local Wikipedia instead of Commons? Also affected would be File:Virginia A. Seitz 2014.png, File:Dawn Johnsen 2007.png, File:DanielLevin2008.png, File:Robert baer.png, File:Colleen kiko.png, File:Gina Haspel confirmation.png, File:Steven A. Engel 2017-05-10.png, File:Caroline Krass Confirmation.jpg, and File:David J Barron 2013.PNG. As it is, the pictures aren't terribly high-quality, but they often are the only picture in the article. Bradbury, Engel, Kiko, and Haspel all have far better images in their articles, so I'd support removing the CSPAN screenshots regardless of copyright status. Sorry for the trouble; I can only offer a mea culpa.-Ich (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

How to get pictures available to insert after permission is granted
Hello, I was on a page 3 or 4 days ago and found how to ask permission to use copyrighted pictures. I requested as recommended in Wiki and was granted permission by the owner. I have the email. I know the page talked about where I need to send the email so the pictures can be pulled into Wiki images. I just can't find the page that tells me who to send it to.

I assume the pictures and permission are reviewed and then added so I can use them. If you can tell me the Teahouse pages I need to read, please let me know, I'd like to get the page I've been working on updated.

Thanks, Wkraft33 (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The copyright holder is normally the photographer and it is their permission that is required. Ownership of an image gives no right over the copyright unless it was transferred in a contract, such as "work for hire". Nowadays forwarded email are not generally acceptable, they need direct contact with the copyright holder. These image will be freely licensed so they should be uploaded to the commons. Ask the copyright holder to use the "Interactive Release Generator" found on this page: c:COM:OTRS but warn them there is quite a delay, up to 150 days, so they should be patient. That page gives you all the info you need to verify permission for an image. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The email I have is from the photographer, the pictures have his name on them. The request I sent was copied directly from one that was recommeneded on Wiki.  Can you tell me where I need to forward the granted permission email to and then where to send the pictures to get uploaded to Commons? Wkraft33 (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * All the info you need is on the page I linked to above; email address, how to tag an image once you/they receive a ticket number, etc. Maybe you need to review the whole page Commons OTRS page not just the section I linked to. ww2censor (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Deleted photo reinstatement
I had uploaded File:Harry Hudson Photo.jpg for the Harry Hudson (musician) page and the photographer turned in his permission. That info was Photog’s name: Justin Wilczynski Ticket#: 2018071010007875. I received a bot saying that the permission was never sent in. After 7 days of the notification the photo was deleted. I never knew this but just noticed yesterday. What do I need to do to reinstate the photo? I'm still very new at all this and always seem to have issues with photos I put up on the pages I create or edit. Thank you in advance for the guidance. EllenZoe (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not the page to ask about OTRS tickets. In future please use OTRS noticeboard. You should be aware OTRS agents are all volunteers and the system is quite backlogged up to 33 days according to that page. I can tell you that a reply was sent but to date no one has responded to the questions asked. If they get a good permission, the image will be restored at that time. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Uploading images of my artwork
Hello, I am the designer of several album covers for the following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cities_97_Sampler

When I upload my artwork, the covers are deleted for copyright reasons. Is there any way I can overcome this and publish my work? Should I publish to my flickr account with the appropriate license and link from there? What is the correct way to go about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaonadara (talk • contribs) 15:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . If you are the creator/copyright holder of these album covers and are willing to release them (i.e., upload them) under the terms of c:Commons:Licensing, then please follow the instructions given in c:Commons:OTRS. If these album covers have been published anywhere else (in this context published means WP:PUBLISHED), then you may have to verify your copyright ownership and your WP:CONSENT by sending a permissions email to Wikimedia OTRS. Now, if by chance you share the copyright on these album covers (perhaps you were hired by a record label or band to create them), you'll need permission of all copyright holders to upload the file under a free license to Commons.The requirement of original copyright holder permission is why most album covers are uploaded to Wikipedia as non-free content instead under item 1 of WP:NFCI. Non-free content use must be in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy though, and this policy is quite restrictive. For example, album cover art is generally allowed to be upload and used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox or at the top of a Wikipedia article about the album in question, but it tends to be much harder to justify non-free use in other articles or other parts of an article. Cities 97 Sampler looks like a long list of albums which are part of a series and while the series itself might be considered to be Wikipedia notable enough to support a stand-alone article, it's not clear whether each individual album is itself Wikipedia notable in it's own right per WP:NALBUM. So, while it might be possible to add a single album cover as a representative image for the entire series to the top of the article (perhaps there's a boxed set or something which can be used), it seems unlikely that an album cover for individual albums would be deemed to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Linking to Russian site
Can a copyright expert kindly give guidance in terms of Copyrights on whether we should link to a Russian fan site that offers extensive texts of works by P. G. Wodehouse and others that are in copyright in the UK? This is an article on the site that seems dubious in terms of copyright, as its author, George Orwell, died in 1950: George Orwell "In Defence of P.G. Wodehouse". A steer would be most welcome.  Tim riley  talk   20:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I can see no justification for linking to sites which we know are violative of copyright. One need not have an internet link to an article such as Orwell's in order to use it as a reference; just cite the print publication properly. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  21:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . If you've read the source and it's been WP:PUBLISHED, then you can cite it per WP:SAYWHERE. Just make sure you don't use a citation template like cite web which needs the url parameter to be filled in to work properly; for example, you can use cite book without adding a url. In some cases, it might be OK to use a convenience link; however, you shouldn't do so if you suspect the source of being a copyright violation. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you both very much for this clear and helpful guidance.  Tim riley  talk   12:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:THQ
You are invited to join the discussion at. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've posted the above link to this Teahouse question because I figure MCQ is probably the best place to ask whether anything can be done to help this person. File:Les Girls.jpg is sourced to http://eu.movieposter.com/posters/archive/main/6/b70-3437, but I can't find any mention of the artist who created the poster. I'm also not sure if attribution is required for a non-free poster license, but there is a Graphic artist parameter which could possibly be added to the Non-free use rationale poster for the file. That might be the best that can be done, unless a reliable source an be found to support the adding relevant content about the poster and it's creator to Les Girls or maybe as a caption to the infobox image. I don't think something like Attribution can be used for a non-free file. The other stuff about the OP wanting someone to write an article about his father can be pretty much explained by giving the standard reply about WP:N, but the question about attribution might require a more detailed response. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

File:IRI.SNDU.svg
This was originally uploaded as a non-free logo (see here) but then converted to WP:PD by this edit. Since the non-free use rationale was not replaced with Information when the licensing was changed to PD, the file keeps getting flagged for a WP:NFCC violation when the uploader adds it to his userpage. I've asked the uploader about this at User talk:MrInfo2012, but haven't gotten a response. If the file is really PD, then the cleanup is no big deal and the file should be moved to Commons; however, I'm not sure whether it is or whether the licensing was just changed so that the file could be used on the uploader's user page. The source (http://sndu.ac.ir/) is dead, and the archived version I found here isn't in English. Any one have any opinions on whether this is PD? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The license on the image says it is PD because the author either died more than 50 years ago or 30 years before 2010 (1980). Given that the university was founded in 1991, I think it's highly unlikely this image was created many, many years before the university was founded and therefore the image qualifies for this licensing. I'd return it to non-free until it can be proven to be freely licensed or PD. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the input . I am a bit concerned (based upon this response) that the file was just converted to so that it could be added to all of the other images displayed on the uploader's user page, but also as you point out it doesn't seem to meet the conditions of PD-Iran and I don't think PD-ineligible-USonly is an option; so, maybe it does need to be non-free. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Stupid question about tables
I feel like I should already know the answer to this, but just to idiot check myself: can the information in tables be copyrightable if there is no original arrangement (items are listed alphabetically) and the entire table consists of basically un-embellished information? In this case, the name of a body of water, a year, and the name of a species of fish? G M G talk  19:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Under the conditions you give: Depends on the inclusion criteria of the table. Are they creative in some way? For example, a list of all volcanoes whose scenery you like? Creative, hence copyrightable. A list of all volcanoes that erupted in 2017? Not creative, hence not copyrightable. That's for the US which is all what Wikipedia cares about, different countries have different laws. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's developed by the State of Alaska and consists of 10 lake names, most recent year stocked, and the species of fish it was stocked with. My intuition was that it was not sufficiently creative to be copyrightable, but I figured I'd get a second opinion just in case. It's not complex, but it is ~80 works of text and the exact arrangement copied verbatim.  G M G  talk  19:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , generally speaking, the dividing line is whether the work is a pure statement of facts or derivation of facts (e.g., baseball statistics are derived by defined mathematical formulas from facts about players' performance), or in any way contain opinion or commentary (e.g., a tourist guidebook that lists a table of attractions in a given area but also describes what's nice about them, the best places to stay and eat there, etc.). It sounds like what you're describing is squarely in the pure facts column. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to make sure. My mind wondered into copyright of typesets and arrangements. Thanks for the sanity check.  G M G  talk  19:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Yootha Joyce image?
The biography of the late Yootha Joyce is illustrated with a from a record album cover uploaded as "Fair Use". Does this breach WP:NFC, Section 9, which says "Fair Use" does not apply to "A magazine or book cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover"? --Plinuckment (talk) 08:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , the nonfree rationale is not based upon it being an album cover used in the album article, but in this specific case, is used as an image of a deceased individual for whom no free photos are available. Generally speaking, one nonfree image is allowed in an article about someone who is deceased when there are no known available free images and the likelihood of finding or getting a free image is very low. Of course if a free image is found, an old image falls into the public domain, or the copyright holder of an existing image agrees to release one under a free license, then a free image does exist and the nonfree image must be replaced with the free one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

File:True Sport Logo.png
Does this need to be licensed as non-free content? It seems simple enough to be at least PD-ineligible-USonly even if it's too complex to be PD in Thailand. If this is PD, then File:True Sport HD Logo.png, File:True Sport HD 2 Logo.png, File:True Sport HD 3 Logo.png, File:True Sport HD4 Logo.png and File:True-Tennis-HD-0.png probably can be converted to PD as well. The only reason these might need to be non-free is the color gradient or 3D effects being used, but I'm not sure that's enough to make what is essentially a simple text logo eligible for copyright protection. However, if these do need to be non-free, then I don't think the non-free use of any of the files used outside of the main infobox can be justified per WP:NFCCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , at least under US law, color gradients aren't sufficiently creative to make text-only logos copyrightable (nor are other simple effects like in the well known IBM logo). Definitely looks PD-textlogo to me. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Could an admin please revert this resize?
This is a bit of an unusual request and I don't really know where to put it. I just updated File:FNL2GARAP1.PNG to be PD-ineligible. I looked in the history and it has previously been resized because it was incorrectly tagged as fair use. Could an admin please revert to the full-size version of this image? Thanks —  python coder  (talk &#124; contribs) 21:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Pick your old version. Next time you can ask at WP:REFUND. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Bismarck Bucks Helmet Logo 2018.png
Does this need to be licensed as non-free logo? Typically, it's the logo appearing on a team's helmet which is subject to copyright protection, not the particular shape or coloring of the helmet. A number is not something typically considered eligible for copyright protection, and the football helmet shape seems pretty ultilitarian to me; so, if the only reason this needs to be licensed as non-free is that it is sourced to http://www.indoorfootballencyclopedia.com/, then it seems that this file's use would fail WP:NFCC since it's likely possible to create a free equivalent black helmet and add the number 19 to it. Maybe using something like File:FootballHelmet.svg but just changing the coloring. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't find this image anywhere on indoorfootballencyclopedia.com. What's the deal here, ? Did you make this image or is it from the website? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Is on their Facebook page. NostalgiaBuff97501 (talk) 07:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Winans-LordLiftUsUp.jpg
I included this file on the page for the song "Up Where We Belong" to indicate how the lyrics of the original song were altered to appeal to a Christian audience, but it was removed by a bot with the description "No valid non-free use rationale for this page". Is it possible to add in a rationale so that it can be used for this song page in addition to the album page that the cover comes from? Thanks! Danaphile (talk) 03:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably not per our strict non-free policy WP:NFCC and because the facts are already well stated in prose it fails WP:NFCC without even considering the other 9 guidelines. ww2censor (talk) 11:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Players.pdf
I'm wondering what to do with File:Players.pdf. It's clearly PD-USGov, but it lacks verifiable attribution and isn't being used in an enwiki article. Should it be moved to Commons? Deleted? Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 09:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

50 Cent
For the second time User:JJMC89 bot has dubiously deleted File:50_Cent_-_Just_A_Lil_Bit_-_CD_cover.jpg from squatting position but not deleted it from Just a Lil Bit.--Penbat (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The file was removed by JJMC89 from Squatting position per WP:NFCC. All non-free files are required to have a separate specific non-free use rationale for each use; otherwise, they can be removed per WP:NFCCE. The reason the not didn't remove the file from Just a Lil Bit was because it has the required non-free use rationale for that use. Now, a non-free album cover is typically allowed to be used for primary identification purposes in a stand-alone article about the album in question, but their non-free use in other articles is much harder to justify as explained in WP:NFC. From looking at the way the album cover was being used in Squatting position, I cannot see how the non-free use of the album cover can satisfy WP:NFCC or WP:NFCC. There's no particular reason to use this particular album cover per WP:FREER when another freely licensed image showing basically the same squatting posistion can be used instead; moreover, there is no sourced critical commentary of this particular album cover in the section, which means the context for non-free use required by NFCC#8 is not being provided. If you believe you can fix these problems to justify the album cover's non-free use, then please provide the corresponding article content and the required non-free use rationale, and then re-add the file to the article. Be advised, however, that just providing the missing non-free use rationale does not mean relevant policy is satisfied, and the file's non-free use may need to be further discussed at WP:FFD.Now, if you're confused about an edit sum left when a non-free file is removed or you don't agree with an edit sum which was left, then it's OK to ask for clarification like you did here. However, you probably should wait for clarification before readding the disputed file like you did here. Sometimes edit sums can be brief and just contain links to other relevant pages, but that doesn't mean the removal of the file was not in accordance with relevant policy. In addition, if a file has been removed multiple times before, then there's probably a good policy-based reason for it being removed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

NFCC at Multiple Pages
Sorry if this is described in detail somewhere nearby and I failed to find it. Please advise on the proper procedure to add an extra NFCC rationale to a file that already has one. As one example, I have attempted to use this: File:Yol Aularong - Yuvajon Kouge Jet - Cambodian Rocks (sample).ogg at a newly-created article where it is relevant, but was told that the file has no NFCC rationale for use at that new article. So I'd like to add one. Thanks. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 15:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:FURG for details including template requirments. ww2censor (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . In addition to what Ww2censor posted, I also think you might want to look at WP:JUSTONE for reference. Adding a non-free use rationale may help resolve a WP:F6 or WP:NFCC issue, but that doesn't mean the rationale is a valid one and the non-free use complies with the rest of the WP:NFCCP. Even if a file has a non-free use rationale, it can still be removed, tagged for speedy deletion with di-disputed fair use rationale, prodded for deletion or nominated for discussion. So, if you add a rationale for a file whose use is subsequently disputed and the file is removed, it would probably be best to follow WP:BRD and discuss things before re-adding the file since is the burden of the person wanting to use a non-free file in a particular way to provide a valid rationale for its use per WP:NFCCP. FWIW, even an orphaned non-free file will not be deleted for seven days per WP:F5, so that should be sufficient time to at least start a discussion about the file's non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Tom Thomson photos
I am working on a FAC for Tom Thomson and in the process someone has raised the question of whether or not the images of him are in the public domain in the U.S. The entries for the images on the Library and Archives Canada website indicates that their copyrights are expired, but it's not clear if this is only referring to Canada. Could someone help me out in showing that these images are PD in America?


 * File:TomThomson23.jpg, LAC indicates copyright expired, unknown photographer
 * File:Young Tom Thomson.jpg, LAC indicates copyright expired, no photographer noted
 * File:Profile of the painter Tom Thomson wearing a hat.jpg, LAC indicates copyright expired, no photographers noted
 * File:Tom Thomson.jpg, LAC indicates copyright expired, photographer Franklin Carmichael who died in 1945. Not sure of date of first publication.
 * File:Tom Thomson with fish.jpg, LAC indicates copyright expired, photographer Blair Laing and does not provide the date of death.
 * File:Tom Thomson, standing on a rock fishing in moving water.jpg, LAC indicates copyright expired, no photographer noted

Thanks.  Tkbrett  (✉) 01:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I found instances of the photos being published early enough to qualify for C:Template:PD-old-auto-1996. They meet the criteria of (1) they were first published outside of the U.S., (2) they were published before 1 March 1989 without a copyright notice and (3) they were public domain on the URAA date. I updated the copyright info on the Commons. Here are the publications:
 * File:TomThomson23.jpg, LAC, published in Silcox & Town (1977)
 * File:Young Tom Thomson.jpg, LAC, published in Murray (1986)
 * File:Profile of the painter Tom Thomson wearing a hat.jpg, LAC, published in Murray (1986)
 * File:Tom Thomson.jpg, LAC, published in Little (1970), Murray (1986)
 * File:Tom Thomson with fish.jpg, LAC, published in Little (1970), Murray (1986)
 * File:Tom Thomson, standing on a rock fishing in moving water.jpg, LAC, published in Reid (1975)  Tkbrett  (✉) 19:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)