Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2018/September

Is File:Dickmulc.jpg PD in the US?
Would this now be considered to be PD in the US as well as in Ireland? If it is, then maybe the license should be changed accordingly; however, if it isn't, it fails to meet WP:NFCC for all of its uses because of File:Richard (Risteárd) Mulcahy and his wife Josephine.jpg could be used instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * : As we don't know the photographer it may well be PD in Ireland but we don't know if the image was ever published so, for the United States it would have to be 120 years from creation. Besides which the other image you mention as an alternate may not be freely licenced because W.D.Hogan was still alive in 1947 and this page states he died in 1956, so any of his work on the NLI website listed as "no known copyright restrictions" may still be in copyright. Some of Hogan's work has already been deleted, such as this Michael Collins image from the same period. I doubt either can be used freely here so non-free may the only option and as such requires corrections to be made. ww2censor (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look at this . File:Richard (Risteárd) Mulcahy and his wife Josephine.jpg is a Commons file, so it might be a good idea to ask about it at c:COM:VPC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks but as a reasonably active commons user I don't really need to ask and I do know this is a commons file. I also linked to a commons discussion above, which I was involved in but have not devoted any time to start a deletion nomination for all of Hogan's images. However one point that that you probably alrady know such images is that even though the Flickr licence states "No known copyright restrictions," that template also specifically states that: "… YOU ARE REMINDED TO CONDUCT AN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS OF APPLICABLE LAW BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH A PARTICULAR NEW USE", so we need to verify no other possible copyright exists. Yeah, that's a pain but when we find them we need to do something about it which may well be years after upload. ww2censor (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . If my last post gave the impression that I was questioning your judgement about the Commons file, then I apologize because that wasn't my intent. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not at all I though you might not have realised I spend quite some time on the commons dealing with copyright issues and reviewing new problematic uploads. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Mongo Santamaria - !Arriba! La Pachanga album cover.jpg
This has been tagged and I am not sure what else I need to do to ensure it's legality&#32;- speednat (talk)
 * You're all set, . But if you can, provide a more accurate source than just "Discogs.com". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the source for you. In future please add a full url for the image the page is on. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * and Thank you &#32;- speednat (talk)

File:Not Half A Human 2018.webm
Is the licensing of this file correct? The non-free use rationale provided for its use in Alex Fridman states that it has been OTRS verified, which means it shouldn't be treated as non-free; however, the file was deleted from Commons per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Not Half A Human 2018.webm. If does need to be treated as non-free, then I'm not sure how uploading a 5-minute long short film in its entirety can be justified per WP:NFCC, WP:NFCC or even WP:NFCC. Sourced textual commentary about the film can be added to the article, and maybe even an external link provided to an official website or External media could be used as well, but not sure the entire film can be kept as non-free. A screenshot perhaps, but not the entire film. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on the DR, the OTRS permission (in Hebrew) was not sufficient to freely license the file. As such, we would have to treat it as non-free, and as you stated, it is not compliant with NFCC to keep the entire work. I don't think any part, clip or screenshot, should be kept, especially without writing a new explanation for WP:NFCC. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The film shows the history and the activity of Alex Fridman. The non-free item is a screenshot of one second from the Ynet website. A screenshot of one second does not void two OTRSes which were signed by May Moran and Alex Fridman. Moran signed an OTRS on the film itself, and Fridman signed an OTRS on his pictures and posters and all the other media which appeared in the film. Dgw (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m not an OTRS volunteer so I cannot see the relevant OTRS ticket; however, if it was determined to be insufficient by OTRS, then the file needs to be treated as non-free content. I do believe that is an OTRS volunteer though, so perhaps he can clarify the problems with the ticket. Unless the ticket can be verified, there's no real justification for the entire film to be uploaded under a non-free license, so it cannot be kept as such. There may be other options available for linking to the film which should be explored instead. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The OTRS ticket include permission from the video clip director which is fine to us. But the clip contains two derivative parts: the Israeli Channel 1 video clip and a article from an Ynet Israeli news website. I suggested to the uploader to remove these parts but he refused. So the file can't stay in Commons. Regarding to fair use, it's your decision. --geageaTalk 10:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Channel 1 is not exist any longer.
 * Geagea could remove himself the article of Ynet, but he didn't.
 * A try to remove with Movie Maker makes two things:
 * The Hebrew subtitles become unclear, with broken sentences.
 * The whole movie is changed from 16:9 to 4:3, and the face becomes narrow. Dgw (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Geagea is not obligated to cleanup your file uploads to ensure they comply with relevant policies and guidelines; that's something that you as the uploader need to do. If you don't have the technical expertise to do so, then maybe ask the person(s) who originally created the movie (i.e., the person(s) who sent the emails to OTRS) to re-edit it to remove the problem parts. In addition, you can also try asking on a page like Help talk:Media to see if anyone there has any suggestions or can help out. In my opinion, the best chance to keep the entire file uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons would be to follow Gaegea's suggestion; otherwise, it is unlikely to be deemed compliant with WP:NFCC if broough up for discussion at WP:FFD. Other options to uploading the enitre movie to Wikipedia might be to use External media to add a direct link to the movie on another website or to add an external link to the official website for the movie to the "External links" section. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The title of Ynet is a fair use, because it said: "An agreement was reached between the Disabled people and the government". Yesterday I saw another film about this agreement. Amir Alon from Ynet was there the whole night with Alex Fridman, the government and other disabled people. Alon wrote it, and it was showed in the film about Fridman which was made by a scholar in a high school as her matric work, as I have written a lot of times in the discussion in Commons. The Israeli law definately exempts matric works and other exams of this kind from the copyright law. It is written also in the description of the file in the English Wikipedia, and I did not find the specific section in WP. It had to be added. Dgw (talk) 05:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The concept of fair use and Wikipedia's non-free content use policy do have quite a bit in common, but they are not the same thing; in fact, the Wikipedia's policy is much more restrictive than fair use as explained in WP:NFC and WP:ITSFAIRUSE. If you're going to upload non-free content to Wikipedia, you need to do so in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policy; if you're going to upload content to Commons, you need to do so in accordance with relevant Commons policy. Files uploaded to either Wikipedia or Commons which do not comply with their respective policies will be deleted. Again, I think the best possible solution here is probably to add content related to the film to the article and support that content with a citation to a reliable source. A link to the film itself could then be either added as an simple external link to the "External links" section at the bottom of the article or possibly to the article body using Template:External media. There's no reason, in my opinion, for the entire film to be uploaded as non-free content to Wikipedia and no way to justify such a thing per relevant Wikipedia policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

As the film was made in Israel and was uploaded from Israel, the Israeli law overcomes WP Non-free content criteria. The film is free from its beginning to end, as it was signed by Moran who made the film, and by Fridman who released his pictures and posters which were shown in the film. The dispute is about Ynet headline, which told the watcher that there was an agreement. It was an external source which was accepted by the Israeli law, because the film was a matric work. Without Ynet title, the film is meaningless, because nobody could know if Fridman succeeded. Fridman did not have his own newspaper, and Moran relied upon Ynet headline. The Israeli law determines the scope of the source, and the headline was single and proportional, because it took one second, had 57 words, a date (29 September 2017 – the evening of the Day of Atonement), an hour (2:48 am!), the name of Amir Alon and a cut photo of Fridman, while the whole article in Ynet had 1,125 words and 12 photos. Making an external link is not a good idea, because it has the same issue. Ynet published the film about Fridman, and I wrote it in Commons, but it did not clarify the issue. An external link to the film in Ynet still may "violate" the copyright of Ynet, because it still showed the "unauthorized" article from Ynet, in spite of it was published in Ynet website. Only the Israeli law gives a solution because it voids the copyrights due to a matric work. An external link does not solve it, but the Israeli law. If you insist, a third opinion is needed here, preferably of an Israeli lawyer. I do not mind to add several words in English, which describe the film. It would help non-Hebrew speakers to understand the film. In any case, it does not come instead of the film itself. Dgw (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that As the film was made in Israel and was uploaded from Israel, the Israeli law overcomes WP Non-free content criteria is incorrect; Wikipedia is not owned and operated by the Israeli Government and its servers are not located within Israel. Wikipedia is operated by the Wikimedia Foundation and it has set its own meta:Terms of use, with each project being governed/maintained by policies and guidelines established by it's respective WP:COMMUNITY. So, what matters are these policies and guidelines, which in this particular case is WP:NFCC. Anyone who is an Israeli lawyer or knowlegeable of Israeli law is welcome to comment here, but they would still have to do so in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and they would not have the ability to overide/change these policies and guidelines without a consensus of the Wikipedia community. Since this discussion has started to be about legal matters, I am just going to point out Wikipedia:No legal threats and Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer. You need to be careful how you discuss things such as this on Wikipedia and it's probably better for you to contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly with your questions or concerns. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I've started a discussion about the file's non-free use at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 September 6 since it's probably a better page to try and establish a community consensus on this type of thing. A link to this discussion has been added to the FFD one for reference, but it would probably be best to add any new comments there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Inserting photo into the infobox with Formal license from the author
Hello all, I am editing my first wikipedia article in a decade (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Judit_S%C3%A1ndor), and I want to insert a photo of the person into the infobox on the right (https://vegeldaniel.com/judit-sandor). The author of the photo (https://vegeldaniel.com/) has sent his formal permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org in an email following the template that User Marchjuly had suggested. Mr Dániel Végel agreed to give his license under CC-BY-SA 4.0.

I still do not know how the image is going to be seen in the infobox. Could you give further guidance please? Thanks a lot! Miksa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miksa.v (talk • contribs) 08:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * For reference, previous thread archived at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2018/August. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, that was when I had only INformal approval. And I used your suggestions in getting the formal approval and having sent it to Wikimedia. What is next now? Thanks, in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miksa.v (talk • contribs) 09:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You're having problems like this because you're trying to add a file found on external website to the infobox. Only files uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons can be used on Wikipedia; so, you or the original copyright holder are going to need to upload the photo to Wikimedia Commons. You can find out how to do that at c:COM:UPLOAD. Once you upload the file, you can add OTRS pending to the file's page. Whoever uploads the photo make sure that the license they choose is the same as the one the referred to in the email sent to OTRS. After the file has been uploaded to Commons, it will have a file name (i.e., page name). All you need to do then is to add that namee to the infobox's image parameter. Bascially the process is that an OTRS volunteer will review the email to determine whether it is sufficient to verify copyright ownership. If it is, the OTRS volunteer will add OTRS permission to the file's page and then will probably add the file to the infobox. If the email is not sufficient for any reason, the OTRS volunteer will most likely make contact by email and explain why. OTRS emails can only be seen by OTRS volunteers, and OTRS volunteers will not discuss things in too much detail on public pages like this. OTRS volunteers will also not discuss things in detail with anyone other than the person sent in the permission email. When that person who sent in that email, they should've received a reply containing an OTRS ticket number; they can use this ticket number to ask questions at WP:OTRSN or c:COM:OTRSN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

MT-Educare.png Logo used for Article MT Educare
Dear Sir,

I have taken the logo mentioned above in the subject for an article MT Educare from their website with a permission from the owner of the article. I assume I have provide all the information required to be furnished with the logo. If anything I have missed please let me know. I will furnish that as well, please don't delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prateekbtbl (talk • contribs) 05:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is for Draft:MT Educare. Let's see if that draft passes first and worry about images only later, okay? If the draft is accepted, we can use that image with or without permission. If the draft will not be accepted, we won't have use for the image either way. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Hackernews logo.png
This logo listed as nonfree is obviously public domain because of threshold of originality. Am I missing something? —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 19:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Below TOO in USA, which is relevant if the file originates from USA where Y Combinator is based in. If the file originates from the UK, where the founder of Hacker News is from, it's a different story. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:00, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * PD-ineligible-USonly is often used when a logo originating in the UK is deemed to be below c:COM:TOO; file's tagged with this license, however, are still local files and cannot be moved to Commons. Just for reference, the file is currently only be used in Hacker news with the "Y" element found at File:Y Combinator logo.svg. Changing the license to "PD" or "PD-ineligible-USonly" would make it easier to use, but the current non-free version appears to be fine per WP:NFCCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go ahead and change it to PD-ineligible-USonly because Wikipedia prefers free content (see nutshell of WP:NFCC). Thanks! —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 14:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Parallel boilered Scot from Night Mail.jpg
Surely this and any other image from Night Mail were covered by crown copyright because the GPO Film Unit was part of General Post Office, so being from 1936 fell into the public domain in 1987? They should use the template, so unless there is other evidence to the contrary, I'll re-licence as above and tag for moving to the commons. ww2censor (talk) 09:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , : Some commons images by the GPO Film Unit are tagged as and as I've found a better quality version of this image along with a few others, I will upload them to the commons to c:Category:Night Mail soon. When that is done I'll tag this for deletion as an orphan after replacing the image in the article. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Page deletion
Hi,,

I've created my user page but when I tried to log in few minutes ago I found that my user page had gone, thou I can browse it! could not understand this puzzle! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibtisam Al.Hadidi (talk • contribs) 15:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey Ibtisam Al.Hadidi. It appears this is the only edit you have ever made to the English Wikipedia using this account. Are you maybe looking for your userpage on the Arabic Wikipedia?  G M G  talk  15:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Yah, thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibtisam Al.Hadidi (talk • contribs) 15:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Another question:that won't affect my contributions ,right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibtisam Al.Hadidi (talk • contribs) 15:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:NFC
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:NFC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

1892 railroad survey
I own an original design drawing produced in 1892 for the Everett & Monte Cristo Railway. I'd like to include a scan of it in an article I'm writing on the railroad, but I'm not sure if I own the copyright. I presume the railroad owned the copyright when it paid the draftsman to do it, and when they sold the document to me, the copyright came with it. Is this right? Thanks Jordanroderick (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Many people think that owning a photo, painting, illustration or print means they own the copyright but that is not true. By way of some explanation, in most countries the original artist or photographer owns the copyright, unless it was sold in a work for hire contract, for a term which usually extends until 70 years after their death. The country of creation is also important as other countries have different terms. I believe the Everett & Monte Cristo Railway was in the US, so if this was a published drawing and being 1892, it was before 1923, then it is in the public domain and any slavish copy is also in the public domain. You would use the copyright tag PD-1923, however, if this was never published, as seems the case, then the copyright term is 120 from creation, so an image of this drawing is also in the public domain as 1892 is a longer period. You will find it useful to check out the Commons Hirtle chart and upload your image to the commons so other language wikis can also use it. ww2censor (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Super. Thanks so much for the clear answer. Jordanroderick (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

File:SuperMarioCake.jpg
I'm not sure if a cake itself can be considered eligible for copyright protection, but I think when it uses imagery such as a character like Mario, then photos of the cake might be considered a WP:DERIVATIVE in the same way that photos of toys/dolls are often considered derivatives, which means the photo cannot be kept without the permission of the copyright holder of the character's imagery. The licensing of the other images being used in Huen Su Yin might also need to be examined as well since all except one are without EXIF data and the two cupcake photos might have the same problem as the cake one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The copyriht of films characters.
Hi! PK3 Pinocchio 3000: MT_The Character designer is Marcos Testamarck (France). Thanks.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.39.182.247 (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello anon. That may well be the case, but it's not entirely clear what you would like for us to do with that information or how it's relevant to Wikipedia.  G M G  talk  17:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Preferred file format for uploading audio
Hello, I have recorded some audio files about Indian Classical Music, I want to upload them. It's my own, no copyright issue. Is there any referred file format? Or any format that I should not use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjaypgodbole (talk • contribs) 12:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * See Help:Files for formats. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * But who is the composer? They are likely the actual copyright holder of the works and that affect the copyright term even if you recorded the music. ww2censor (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Are works by the FDIC public domain?
I'd like to use the portrait from https://www.fdic.gov/about/learn/board/mcwilliams/ on the article Jelena McWilliams but I'm not certain if works by the FDIC are necessarily in the public domain. The article on State-owned enterprises of the United States needs improvement and Copyright status of work by the U.S. government doesn't touch on whether works by a government-owned corporation are exempt from copyright, although FDIC.gov describes the FDIC as an "independent agency created by the Congress". My gut feeling is that -- since the director is appointed by the president -- it should be considered a government agency, but I don't think that a lawyer will suggest using a duck test for copyright questions vis-a-vis "what is part of the federal government", and there's no template "PD-USGov-FDIC", either.-Ich (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Works of another such company, the Post Office, are copyright so we cannot make a blanket claim of exemption. Rmhermen (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Work by Federal employees, working for the US Post Office, in performance of their duties, is not public domain? Hmmm. , any chance you could explain how that happens?  Was it privatized, no longer a Federal Agency?  Geo Swan (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Only stamps by the USPS since 1976 can be copyrighted. Other materials produced by the USPS have PD-USgov status. --M asem (t) 14:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * , how is the absence of template:PD-USGov-FDIC relevant? Aren't there hundreds of US Federal agencies that don't have their own template?  In general, any US Federal agency could contract out to "Logos for U incorporated", to design their agency's logo.  A logo developed in-house, by an employee, is public domain, even if we never made a specific template for that agency.  If they paid a private corporation to make the logo, it is protected by copyright.  A lot of spokesmen for US Federal agencies are clueless about copyright and public domain.  Hundreds of US Federal agencies, embassies, military commands, have their own flickr-ID.  Half or more of them illegally assert all-rights-reserved on images we know are public domain.  In 2011, there was a very widely circulated official photo of President Obama, key Cabinet Secretaries and Pentagon big-wigs, listening to the radio reports of the assassination of Osama bin Laden.  One of the newspapers that republished it had a readership of very conservative Orthodox Jewish readers.  This newspaper's readership was so conservative they felt it was necessary to photoshop Hilary Clinton out of the picture.  Their readers weren't allowed to look at any representation of a woman.  They did a good job.  It looked like her seat was empty.  The White House bullied them.  They claimed that newspaper had violated an agreement.  They threatened that newspaper.  BS of course.  Photos by official White House photographers are public domain, and anyone can do anything to them.
 * I think it would be an overstretch of the precautionary principle to assume all logos of US Federal agencies were developed by third party contractors, unless we explicitly knew otherwise. Realistically, is any US Federal agency going to insist their logo is copyright?  Geo Swan (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I only mentioned the missing template because if something like Template:PD-USGov-DOJ existed, I wouldn't have asked the question. As far as the official White House photographer goes, yes, that's part of the executive branch, but I can't find a good source on how an "independent agency" should be treated. The FDIC's benefits package offers a bunch of Federal Employees Health/Vision/Pension etc. benefits, but again, I wouldn't want to risk misinterpreting the copyright status of FDIC works without running this past a lawyer first or finding some other dispositive evidence. The article Independent agencies of the United States government doesn't mention the FDIC, even though their website describes them as such.-Ich (talk) 08:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * WRT templates... if an agency doesn't seem to have a template of its own, I try ot figure out which cabinet secretary the photographer ultimately answers to, and use the template for their department.
 * seemed to be asserting that work by employees of the United States Postal Service is not in the public domain. I asked for an explanation of this assertion, none, so far, from Rmhermen.  The USPS doesn't answer to a Cabinet Secretary, because it is overseen by the Postal Regulatory Commission.  It is not obvious to me why this would mean images taken by USPS employees, or PRC employees, for that matter, would not be in the public domain.  Why shouldn't the same hold true for the FDIC? I looked more closely at the article, which quoted https://copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-authorship.pdf, which says Congress passed a specific law, H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, at 59 (1976), which added an exemption for works of USPS employees.  It lists three other exemption, none of which seems to apply specifically to the FDIC...
 * I suggest ignoring the narrow possibility that the FDIC paid a third party to design their logo. Logos, by their nature, are used without explicit credit.  Once we start considering this possibility we would have to stop using all similar logos.  Geo Swan (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Well this is an interesting one. Per c:COM:CRT This [PD-US-GOV] does not include government-funded corporations like Amtrak or the USPS. From what I can tell, the FDIC is in the same legal predicament as the USPS. We do however, have c:Category:Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which has quite a few works labeled PD-US-Gov. But that's not saying Commons is wrong and they should all be deleted if we had a competent copyright lawyer. There's also sites like this where the FDIC specifically states that certain content they've produced is free of copyright. Now that can mean that maybe the rest of their material isn't, or it could mean that the rest of their material is and they're stating this as an exception with full knowledge of that. Not sure what we can really say in the big-picture there.  G M G  talk  14:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Both FDIC and USPS are independent agencies of the federal government; they are part of the executive branch but do not fall under any of the cabinet positions. The USPS aspect (stamps not being in the PD) is a specific exemption made in 1976 for the USPS (as well as NPR and PBS), but it doesn't mean other materials of the USPS like notices, etc. are still uncopyrightable.  FDIC seems to be fully a federal agency, following all federal agency requirements (its chairpersons are appointed by President with Senate confirmation) so it can be assumed that its employees are federal employees too and the PD-USGov extends to them. Telling is that the only place they mention copyright on their site is when linking to third party websites. --M asem  (t) 14:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Re: third party websites, yes, I had noticed that too. Unfortunately, as most of us probably know, you can't trust what government agencies say about the copyright of their own work half the time. I'm not sure the appointment is really here nor there. The Postmaster General is appointed within the advise and consent role of the Senate. But having read the original text of the bill (I missed the link originally), it seems like this exception was indeed made proactively and individually, and not to a class of entities as it were. That would seem to indicate that the wording at COM:CRT may need to be changed, although it's not clear where that's exactly coming from.  G M G  talk  17:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There is definitely a misconception around about the nature of the USPS. It is an "independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States,” 39 U. S. C. §201, and confirmed that it is part of the Government by the Supreme Court . And postal workers are federal employees eligible for federal benefits. . But as noted in the 1976, it is written to explicitly exempt USPS employees from their works being PD and gives the USPS the authority to chase copyright violations. FDIC is a similarly independent agency so part of the federal government, but there appears to be no similar exemption made for copyright allowances in any code. That is, the way that USPS is handled is a very specific exemption and not a rule that applies to other independent agencies. To take another example, the EPA is another independent agency of the federal government, and it clearly has this page:  that says all its work is in the PD unless stated. FTC also has it . Yes, it would be great if the FDIC had an equivalent page, but I think by implication and without any obvious exception in law, the FDIC can be treated the same way. --M asem  (t) 17:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW I edited commons page to be clear that USPS is not a "corporation" but that still USPD-Gov does not apply to USPS works for the exemption made in law. --M asem (t) 19:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

why do you remove the logo of Al Ahly ????
why do you remove the logo of Al Ahly in this page Al Ahly Women's Volleyball

i added it hundreds of times and you remove it, can i know why ?

the page must have the logo of the club — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehab refaat fawzy (talk • contribs) 07:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . File:ِِASC.ALAHLYSC.png was removed from Al Ahly Women's Volleyball by because it's use in the article doesn't comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. Articles about sports teams are not required to have logos added to their infoboxes; many such articles do for sure, but many such articles don't as well. Not every file you see on Wikipedia is licensed the same way, and how a file is licensed determines how it may be used, and each use of a non-free file must comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. JJMC89 did leave an edit sum (1, 2,  3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10) each time the file was removed, but you kept re-adding the file without providing the non-free use rationale for the file's use in the article required by non-free content use criterion #10c. Perhaps you didn't notice the edit sums, which is why it's a good reason to check the page history when you you find the same content you're adding being removed again and again. Perhaps you saw the edit sums, but just didn't understand them; if that's the case it's better to ask the other editor for clarification, then to simply keep repeating the same edit over and over again. I've pinged JJMC89 to this discussion, so perhaps he will comment further. Finally, please try and sign your talk page posts. If you're not sure how to do that, please refer to Wikipedia:Signatures. Signing your posts will make it easier for others to know who posted what and when, and make it easier for them to respond and try to help you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And by "edit sum" we mean "edit summary". -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  15:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Best way to upload files
I want to know how to upload pieces of information found on Facebook. How sourcing is made. MrOrhin (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * When you say "upload pieces of information," do you mean text or images? In general Facebook cannot be considered a reliable source so cannot be used to support statements in articles. Images would need to have a verifiable free copyright statement. You really need to look elsewhere, such as newspapers or books, that can be online or not. ww2censor (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Uploading movie poster using non-free media
Hi. I was wondering how you could add a movie poster to a article. I read up on Non-free media but do not fully understand how to upload without getting a copyright notice. For example File:The clockwork girl - poster.jpg or File:Frozen Kingdom Blue-ray Cover.jpg Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lildrewzy (talk • contribs) 22:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Such non-free images require both a (click on the link to see the fields and how to use them or open one of the examples you gave in edit mode) plus a copyright template such as  or  depending on what the image actually is. There are more non-free copyright templates here. Having uploaded your non-free images they must be used in an article not in a draft or user sandbox page, but for films you usually add them to the infobox by just placing the file name in the "image" field. Help:Pictures shows you several different ways to add them. BTW,  you don't need to give the full url for images hosted here or on the commons, just enclose the filename between two square brackets at either end and add a colon in front of the word "File" as I did above. It is most important that you sign all your non-article page posts by adding four tildes, like this ~, at the end, so we know who made the post and where to find you. ww2censor (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lildrewzy (talk • contribs) 00:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Copyrights error
How do I add copyright on the profile photo, I am not getting for profile photo why it is being asked to add copyrights rule. Deepak Digamber Pathak (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems obvious you did not take this photo of yourself because it does not appear to be a selfie, so it is unlikely you are the copyright holder. That is usually the photographer unless the copyright was transferred as part of a paid contract agreement. You must get the copyright holder to verify their permission, under a free licence, by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. ww2censor (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Image ownership
I've been asked to update the file of an image I uploaded 12 years ago File:Grand Cafe Orient Prague.JPG, but can see no instructions how to do this. The image is a photo I took myself, can anyone assist please? Yorkist (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Normally when wanting to replace an image with a new one in an article, you just upload a new image, preferably to the commons, and insert the new image in the article instead of the old one, and the old one remains here and might get used by another editor. We don't generally overwrite images unless cropping a small portion or making some small changes but anything major requires an entirely new uploaded image. BTW, place a colon before the file name to just link to it instead of displaying it at its highest resolution. Hopefully that helps. ww2censor (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

File:PrePex-Logo.jpg
Any suggestions on what to do with this? It's licensed as non-free, but currently fails WP:NFCC; this is because the original article it was used in was merged into another one and nobody bothered ton update the non-free use rationale accordingly. It's non-free use in the new article seems clearly to fail WP:NFCC, but there's a good chance this can be converted to PD-logo or at least PD-ineligible-USonly. The problem is that it really doesn't seem to be appropriate in the article where it's currently being used, even as PD, since its use seem purely promotional. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If it needs to be non-free, it fails #8. I've removed it regardless since I don't think it is necessary or useful in that article. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually there is no need for a fair use rationale for this one. The company that owns the Prepex brand is based in Israel where the threshold of originality has become quite high similar to the US. So this would be PD. I'm going to move the file to Commons. De728631 (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:KennedyBonnieJeanPoem.jpg
I don't know how to do the copyright thing! It was published in 1899 so is in public domain!JMKgreatgrand (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC). In fact I have a lot of trouble figuring out how to upload files and I think I've done it 3 different ways and can never figure out how I did it before.

File:SideSS2.JPG - a photo of software displayed on a monitor
File:SideSS2.JPG appears to be a photo showing the Spybot – Search & Destroy software (or at least part of it) displayed on a monitor. More details are available in this talk page entry. Because the Spybot – Search & Destroy software is proprietary, there is the question as to whether the photo poses copyright issues. --Elegie (talk) 07:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a 9 year old post but besides being a crappy image, not used in any article, the logo is certainly not de minimis and most likely copyright to the software company, so it cannot be freely released by the uploader who claims it as their own work. That claim is probably just because of a lack of copyright knowledge that taking a derivative work photo only makes them the author of the derivative work and not the original image which requires the permission of the copyright holder. I'll start a deletion nomination. ww2censor (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Call It What IT Is Album Cover.jpg
This file consists only of simple text. Could you transfer it on Commons? It does not meet the threshold of originality.--Tenebroso (talk) 07:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree, change the details to a regular template, then ask an admin to undelete the hidden higher resolution version before tagging it . Best ww2censor (talk) 10:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

File:MacOS Mojave Desktop.jpg
Isn't it by convention that we show the desktop of the most recent version of OS X/macOS? Because I don't understand why JJMC89 bot would revert it if so... –Piranha249 15:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Precisely for the reason it states: "No valid non-free use rationale for this page". You must write a separate rationale for every article the image is used in. Right now its file page has one for MacOS Mojave but not MacOS. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)