Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2019/August

Use of Images
Can we use Profile picture of any politician from his facebook page to upload for the use in wikipedia articles?

Trying to upload an image of YouTuber Emma Chamberlain to use for her page.
Hello- I just want to post an image of YouTuber Emma Chamberlain for her Wikipedia page. But in Google images there are none that are labeled as re-use. As many of her social media / celebrity peers have photos from being on-stage at conventions and such, I wanted to use one of these, but can only find Getty Images pics from her appearance at VidCon 2019, though these seem to be the types of images that are generally OK to post on Wikipedia. I don't believe I am allowed to use one of her own Instagram posts, although she herself posts these images and they are constantly used in magazine articles about her. Anyone who can find a decent image of Emma Chamberlain that is legal to post on her Wikipedia page would be much appreciated. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilith Before The Garden (talk • contribs) 02:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . Whether you are able to upload the file is going to depend on how the image you want to use is licensed. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Copyrights and c:Commons:Licensing for more specific details. Basically, if the image you want to use is clearly stated as being released under a free license that Wikimedia Foundation accepts, then the file most likely can be uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons under the same license; if, however, there no information about the copyright status of the image or it says something like "Copyright by ABC 2019 All right reserved", etc. then the file's licensing is too restrictive and the file cannot be uploaded. Please see c:Commons:OTRS for more information on what you need to do in such cases. It's important to understand that "free of charge" or "freely available online" are not the same as "free from copyright protection", and it's the latter which is going to require verification. Unrelated to the above, but still kind of important is remembering to sign you talk page posts. Please refer to Wikipedia:Signatures for more information on how to do this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , please do not ever consider using any image owned by Getty Images. They are a commercial company that makes money by licensing usage of their specific copyrighted images at a rate of about US $500.00 per image. Nothing they own legitimately can ever be used on Wikipedia. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * (There may be a slim chance if the gettys image is the subject of discussion for its own standalone article, but this is a very very exceptional case). --M asem (t) 05:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Getty images are almost always deleted post haste per WP:F7, so I too would advise against using them. Perhaps one way to obtain an image might be Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission; you email Chamberlain or her representatives and ask if she/they would mind releasing an image under a license that Wikimedia Commons accepts per WP:DONATEIMAGE. This doesn't necessarily have to mean that Chamberlain (or the copyright holder) is reliquishing copyright ownership over an image, only that a making a version of an image freely available so that it can be more easily used by anyone who wants to for any purpose. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Picture of Tower Bridge
I uploaded a picture of Tower Bridge that I found at https://pixabay.com/photos/tower-bridge-landmark-london-2695112/, and then I got a message from ImageTaggingBot (talk) saying that should add a copyright tag. https://pixabay.com/photos/tower-bridge-landmark-london-2695112/ says:

Free Download Pixabay License Free for commercial use No attribution required

But there isn't a tag for that at [], so I don't know what to do. Occultations (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Pixabay images are not usable on WP, they woudl fall under WP:NFCC. Namely, while the Pixabay license does allow for free commercial use including modification they do not allow for redistribution, which is an essential part of our image policy. As there are plenty of other free images of the Tower Bridge, this would not be allowed. --M asem (t) 22:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * To be specific, the Pixabay license contains the following restrictions: "Don't redistribute or sell someone else's Pixabay images or videos on other stock or wallpaper platforms." "	Don't sell unaltered copies of an image. e.g. sell an exact copy of a stock photo as a poster, print or on a physical product." "Don't portray identifiable people in a bad light or in a way that is offensive." All of those render the license nonfree; free licenses must permit reuse of the image, modified or unmodified, by anyone, in any way, and for any purpose. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Given that this photograph was released to the public domain in 2017, you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons. That is where free media are usually uploaded. There, you can use the tag Pixabay. If en.wikipedia does not want to use this photograph, it can be used elsewhere. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize Pixabay had once used CC0 licensing. That said: do we know if this specific picture had CC0 licensing before this year? I don't know - were you allowed to select a license or not. If you were forced to use the CC0 license, then by all means that goes to Commons and we can use it. But if its possible it could have been uploaded under a different license than CC0, and we can't figure out how that was uploaded originally, then we have to avoid it, per that Commons template language. --M asem (t) 00:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, for uploading to Pixabay, CC0 was the only possibility. Ref.: the archived terms. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That very much does change things then. The CC0 license terms do include the standard CC provisions that the license is permanent and irrevocable, so I think a good case could be made that this is indeed still CC0. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyright status of a Google Books screenshot
I've noticed that someone has uploaded a screenshot of a Google Books scan of a work to Wikipedia. The "Digitized by Google" watermark was cropped from the uploaded image, but it's clear based that they're the same image when looking at scanning artifacts. They claim the underlying work is in the public domain, and that's probably true, but the scan was created by Google in 2009 and I think they may hold a copyright on the scanned image. Is this copyright infringement? - GretLomborg (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What's the link to the image? It likely is, but there may be odd circumstances. --M asem (t) 03:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * If the book is in the public domain, there is no problem. A book published in 1838 whose author died in 1855 is in the public domain. Even if someone claimed a copyright on a reproduction of a public domain book, it would not be considered applicable on Wikipedia (see PD-scan). I think Google does not claim a copyright on reproductions of public domain books. See also this category.  -- Asclepias (talk) 05:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is absolutely true: a scan is a slavish copy with no new copyright under US law so this would be appropriate. --M asem (t) 05:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The image in question File:Una_spezie_di_pandeismo_spirituale.png all checked out - book is 1838, so a scan - a slavish copy - can't create a new copyright. --M asem (t) 14:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * However, the uploader should always mention the source, which they didn't mention there, and link to it when it is online. Not mentioning or linking to the source can cause the deletion of the file even if the file is free. -- Asclepias (talk) 06:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Asclepias, sourced. Could've done that yourself in the time you wrote of the lack of one. Hyperbolick (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Uh? We don't know your source when you don't provide it. Nobody can do that for you. --  Asclepias (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Bureau of Explosives and Association of the American Railroads logo - Assessment requested
Could I get an assessment on two logos/emblems if they are are 'Too simple'? Both are shown on here:. Logos assessment is wanted on:
 * (Logo/emblem 1: page 1, right side of document, center of page. Looks like: 'Black/white/red diamond with "Safe Transportation" and "Bureau of Explosives" in it'.)
 * (Logo/emblem 2: page 1, right side of document, bottom of page. Looks like 'Circled train track with "Association of the American Railroads" beside it'.)

(Note: The organization is not a US federal agency, despite really sounding like it is.)--The Navigators (talk) 05:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say that if logo #1 would most likely be considered PD-logo per c:COM:TOO United States and should be uploaded to Commons assuming that there are no other issues (i.e. source related, etc.). Logo #2 is a bit more complex; so, it's harder to say. The text is not eligible for copyright and the train track element seems simple enough, but others may feel differently. How are you going to extract the files from the pdf and what in format will you be uploading the files? This might be a better source for logo #2, and you might find a better source for logo #1 somewhere here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Open it in Illustrator, pull it out, place it in a new document, save it as an SVG. I've actually got the files prepared, I'm just determining where I to upload them (Here or Commons). That document was the best source I had for Logo #1. I had to go over archive with a comb to turn it up. More recent documents it's either been poor quality raster images, if it's present at all. As for Logo #2, I'm actually pulling it out of this document (page 76 - Far left). It's the same logo, with an extra tagline/slogan. --The Navigators (talk) 09:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC) --The Navigators (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It might be better to upload the files is some format other than svg if the version you upload is not an official vector version released by the original copyright holder. User-created svgs are a bit questionable when uploaded as non-free content for the reasons given in WP:FREER and also per WP:NFCC (WP:IMAGERES), though there's some disagreement on this. For a PD file, it might not be such a big difference, but even then the svg might have a copyright issue per c:COM:SVG and seen as a c:COM:DW. There would be no such issues with a png version for example, especially if it comes from an official source. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Noted.--The Navigators (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Smithsonian Art Image
I wanted to add an artwork from the Smithsonian American Art Museum to the artist's Wikipedaa page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_Esteban_Chavez

The painting: https://americanart.si.edu/artwork/el-tamalito-del-hoyo-85555

Since the painting is owned by the Smithsonian, can I use the image as representative of the artist's work, as it's available to download on Pinterest, Facebook, etc? What would be the proper copyright tag for artwork by a living artist? Do I need to get permission from both the museum and artist?

Thanks for any help! MsMalaprop (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Copyright would be still in force. So you could only use it under fair use. If that was the most famous work, you may be able to justify use for the artist. But there would have to be commentary on the picture. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Hang Seng Index logo.png removed from article
File:Hang Seng Index logo.png was removed from Hang Seng Indexes Company. I am confused, as that logo was the official logo of the company used in their official website. I do not think that there are no valid non-free use rationale for this page, as company logo as generally allowed and encouraged. Revision by JJMC89 bot undid, till end of discussion. –Wefk423 (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The edit comment by JJMC89 bot in the article "Hang Seng Indexes Company" means that there is no rationale for this page, the page of the article "Hang Seng Indexes Company", where the file is displayed. A rationale is provided for the article "Hang Seng Index", where the file is not displayed. The file is displayed in the article "Hang Seng Indexes Company", for which a rationale is not provided. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh... my bad, I typed the wrong article name. Thanks and cheers. –Wefk423 (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

National Society of Genetic Counselors - Image for Infobox on Article Page
I'd like to add an organizational image to the NSGC article page in the infobox, but want to be sure I am following proper policy. I think it would be a PD-logo copyright tag and a need would be to get a statement from the organization with the permission of use. Ideally this image could be uploaded on the Wikimedia Commons- but I noticed that it cannot accept materials such as logos. Any advice/guidance is appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ro.ferrari (talk • contribs) 15:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm looking at their logo and the inclusion of the simplified DNA helix structure is likely well beyond "simple shapes" we'd consider for PD-logo. Given that this is a notable organization, you can still upload their logo as a non-free image/logo, just make sure it is at reduced size. --M asem (t) 16:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your assistance! I have gone ahead with uploading the image and will be updating the infobox on the article page shortly. File:The_National_Society_of_Genetic_Counselors_Official_Logo.jpg --Ro.ferrari (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Are any of these flags of tribal nations under copyright?
Hello Wikipedia Media copyright team,

The page Recognition of same-sex unions in the Americas includes a section on Tribal Nations in the United States. Because of precedent on pages like this, we have listed the country/state/territory and placed an image of the flag to identify it. I wanted to treat tribal nations as equals, so I thought I might add flags of the tribes. I was worried about the copyright implications of adding said images, but I am not very knowledgeable about Wikipedia/Wikimedia and copyright procedures. I noticed that one flag was already removed citing copyright policies and I am sorry for any damages I have caused. And if it does violate copyright policies or if the Sovereign Nations do not want the flag of their Nation depicted on the page, I will certainly understand, particularly on such a contentious topic that some may see as counter or non-essential to their indigenous identity.

I am wondering if any of the other flag images I added also violate copyright policies. I did notice that many of the flag images used were created by one Wikimedia user User:Xasartha and were not added by the tribes themselves. Multiple images created by said editor were not found on the Flags of Native Americans in the United States page on Wikimedia. I am also concerned that some of said flag images look like they were edited on Microsoft Paint or something of the sort in which text "curves" aren't always precise. I am concerned that said flag images may have been placed on Wikimedia without the tribes' consent. Granted I only chose ones that looked nearly identical to the flag if I noticed a difference. I don't know how to navigate copyright issues on this and would like you to audit the use (and existence on Wikip/media) of the 14 images of the flags of Sovereign Nations I added to the page. I sense to a certain extent I don't know what I'm doing. Can you help?

Thank you,

-TenorTwelve (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , the wishes of the people the flag represents would be irrelevant. However, that particular flag icon is nonfree, so using it simply to put on an entry where the entity it represents is mentioned is decorative (fails NFCC #8), and replaceable by simply mentioning the entity in text (fails NFCC #1). Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Are any of the other tribal flags I added on Recognition of same-sex unions in the Americas also non-free? -TenorTwelve (talk) 07:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it looks like the rest are free licensed. Most flags are, or at least can have a freely drawn version from the flag's description. That particular one seems to be an outlier for some reason. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyright date question - Russian photographs
Hello,

I'm hoping that someone might be able to clarify something for me so that I don't upload anything which would be against Wikipedia's copyright policies.

The specific scenario relates to photographs of a Russian composer who died in August 1946, so each photograph itself would have been taken at least more than 73 years ago. When I check the copyright by country information page, it lists Russia as designating a 70 year copyright on works, would this be from the date the work (in this case, photograph of the composer) was created? Or from the date of the photographer's death?

Specifically: I do not know who the photographer for any of the photographs would be, I obtained the works by paying for scans from the Russian State Archives of Literature and Art, of the direct photographs in their possession. Each photograph would date from earlier than 1946, and would only be of the composer himself. Would these be considered to have fallen out of copyright?

Similarly, could the same be said of scans of the autograph manuscript copies of musical scores written out by the composer? Again, they would all date from 1946 or earlier, none are in active publication by any known copyright holder, and the creator died in 1946. Would excerpts from these scans no longer be under copyright, and suitable for upload? Thank you for any advice you can offer!

ChrisMansi (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , you've certainly found an awfully complex case here, but some of them are indeed! For the photographs, do you know if they were ever published? It looks like that's going to make a substantial difference in this instance. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thank you for your response! At least some of the photographs were personal, family photos donated to the State Archives along with his other documents and affairs in 1995 by the composer's widow. I've also never seen them reproduced anywhere (it's notoriously difficult to find photographs of the composer in general), so I think the personal ones would be safe to say are not published. There are a few other photographs I have which I believe I've seen included in booklets for his operas and whatnot from the mid-30's, but I think I'd need to double-check the more commonly seen ones to ensure they are not in any more recent publications.


 * Would the personal photographs then qualify as "public domain" when uploading? Thank you! ChrisMansi (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I'm afraid that makes things more complicated, not less. According to the Russian copyright regulations, if any of the images had been published anonymously, and the name of the author had not subsequently become known, they might be PD. If they're unpublished, however, that means the regular term of 70 years from date of the author's death, and if the author is unknown, that in practice means we have to wait until 70 years after the author could not possibly have lived that long. Since a photographer who took photos in the 1940s could easily have lived until fairly recently, we cannot yet definitively say they're PD. If you could find out who the photographer was and when their actual date of death was, that might be quite helpful. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That being said, if some photos were used in opera booklets that were distributed to the public, that would almost certainly qualify as publication. If they were published without credit to the photographer, that may well fall under the "published anonymously" rules. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Upload of picture under fair-use
Hello, I want to upload this picture to en.wikipedia.org. I think that the terms of the General rationale are met: @1: According to cdn.climatechangenews.com it was part of the original draft of the IPCC assessment for policymakers. Presumed that this is true it is thereby of scientific interest: What do the scientists at the IPCC think about the topics? @2: As the picture bears no hint of the IPCC (let alone a proof) it has to be attributed to cdn.climatechangenews.com as publisher. But in either case, it was basically intended as an information for public use. @3 and @4: It is (or would be) only a very small part of the original IPCC report and would have no effect upon the potential market for or value of the original work.

As I've never uploaded non-free content before, I want to inquire if it would be proper use of fair-use.--Moreevo (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I am presuming the interesting factor is the weight assessments by category? In this case, you can freely recreate this table based on the cited data from cdn.climatechangenews.com (data cannot be copyrighted, only presentation format. Keep in mind IPCC publishes under a copyright). See Graphs and charts for potential guides for creating your own graphs. Just make sure that if you make this an image, you include the reference to the data source, while definitely cite that when used in mainspace. --M asem  (t) 16:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The recreated table would have the benefit to be free content but the drawback is that it would be the recreation of a part of the original draft that hasn't been published by the IPCC but spoiled/leaked/published by www.climatechangenews.com (*)
 * Led by Brazil, a group including the US, Canada, Sweden and the United Kingdom pushed back against a diagram in the draft that flagged several trade-offs in red. The final version separated out the contested elements, highlighting areas of scientific uncertainty and how best practice can bring dual benefits.
 * Therefore I wanted to upload it with fair-use and attribute the image only to www.climatechangenews.com: Only the link to this webpage would be stored with the image. (*) This website is referenced by many other websites and is even referenced in books and the IPCC draft was given to other news media, too. --Moreevo (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Update: The picture and its webpage could be included in the article with a reference to this article from the same website. And this statement from the IPCC --Moreevo (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The IPCC takes the leak quite seriously. I didn't know up to now that it actually includes this strong discouragement: (emphasis added)
 * ... Draft reports are provided as working documents for the approval session. They are not intended for public distribution, and must not be quoted or cited, because the text can change between the drafts and the final version once the IPCC has carefully considered every line. ... The latest draft of the report was circulated to governments for comment on the Summary for Policymakers between 29 April and 24 June 2019. ...
 * --Moreevo (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I am afraid you cannot use nonfree content just because you find it to be preferable. Since there is any way of replacing the content with free material, that would fail NFCC #1. If there is a free option, we must use it instead. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * But is the redraw really free material? Coloring something blue (and light blue) for positive and red (and light red) for negative gives information about how the scientists see the impact of the actions and how the scientists wanted to present it to the world audience. A recreation of this information would require the reproduction of the important parts of form i.e. the colors. Wouldn't it be basically a copy then? --Moreevo (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you used the exact colors, fonts, and other elements, then you would be running into problems. You can use different colors sets, different fonts, different ways of arrangement of the presentation to get a free image. There are only so many ways this data can be presented with creativity. --M asem  (t) 22:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Now I've reproduced it with Word.exe and created a png image file via screen copy and paint.exe, look at the text in User talk:Moreevo/image (the vertical lines in Word are indicated here with |). Would that recreation be ok for upload in Commons with reference to the webpage and the web-resource  for comparison? I'm not a native speaker of English: How could I formulate the origin of the data with reference to (a)  climatechangenews only  or  (b) climatechangenews and IPCC original draft? What would be better? (My opinion is (a)) --Moreevo (talk) 09:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it ok? --Moreevo (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've uploaded it now. --Moreevo (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And for comparison with data from the final draft from the IPCC --Moreevo (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)--Moreevo) with links --Moreevo (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Replacing a non-free-seal with a free image of lower quality
Is it desirable to replace File:Augusta Seal.png with File:Annals of Augusta County (page 9 crop).jpg? Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . WP:FREER advises us to use free images whenever possible, and that non-free images are more for exceptional cases where a free image can neither be found or created to serve the same essential encylopedic purpose. This doesn't mean that the free image has to be identical to the non-free one; it's just means it has to be sufficient enough to provide the same basic information as the non-free one. Non-free files are, per WP:NFCC, already required to be low-resolution, etc. so non-free files are pretty much never considered acceptable just because they are of a higher quality than a free equivalent. The two files you've provided look to be pretty much the same except that one is colorized. I'm not quite sure whether the licensing of the Commons file is correct; however, if it is, then I don't see the colorized non-free version being much different in terms of the information it provides to the reader, unless there's something particularly about the coloring of the logo which was discussed for some reason in reliable sources. At the same time, coloring seems in many cases not to be something considered in and of itself to be eligible for copyright protection (at least in the US); so if the original seal imagery is considered to be in the public domain, then the colorized version would also seem to be within the public domain; this means the the non-free file might not really need to be non-free. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I can vouch for the licensing on the Commons file. I'll leave the existing one alone since I do not know whether the coloration makes it subject to copyright. Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Use of Images
Can we use the profile picture from Facebook page for the use of Wikipedia articles? User:Manakpreet Singh
 * Basically no, not unless it is clearly noted that the copyright holder has released the image under a free license. You should get a permission statement verified by the OTRS team. Follow the instructions found here: c:COM:OTRS, especially the section "If you are NOT the copyright holder". ww2censor (talk) 10:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

ww2censor Thank you so much for clearing the thing.

How should I upload this image?
Hi there! I'm trying to add the official school crest for La Cañada High School to its page, but I'm new to Wikipedia and can't figure out how to upload the image. I tried to use the upload wizard, but I ran into an issue—the image isn't hosted anywhere, it's just a local file I have on my computer. The crest is used on official school documents, but isn't directly found on the school's website anywhere. I do believe that even though I am not the copyright holder, the image can be upload under the  license's terms as it was created by a local agency of the State of California for official business. How should I proceed? Do I just upload the image directly to Wikipedia somehow, or do I need to have it on some image hosting site? Thanks.

JustAnotherHappyWikipedian (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , yes, you can use the file upload tool to upload the image to Wikipedia. However, you will need to be autoconfirmed before you are able to do so, meaning that you've had your account at least four days and have made a minimum of ten edits. Once you reach that threshold, you will be able to upload the file. If it's public domain, another option is to upload the image directly to Wikimedia Commons, which is a repository of freely licensed images for use on Wikimedia projects. (If you upload it here and it's freely licensed, it will probably get moved to Commons at some point anyway.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Are these Canadian photos public domain, and is it ok to use watermarked pictures?
I'd like to use some images from here to illustrate Draft:Wellington County House of Industry and Refuge, but I'm not sure if they're considered public domain or not. I understand that to be considered free use on Wikipedia, the images have to meet the US criteria for public domain images, which I don't fully understand. There's also the issue that most of these photos are dated as "ca. [year]" - is that sufficient to establish the age of these photos for public domain purposes, or is an exact date needed? Also, the images are watermarked - does that automatically mean they are not public domain? And even if they are public domain, can they still be used with the watermark? This stuff is complicated. Would appreciate your help. :) SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In the US any image published before 1924 is automatically assumed to be out of copyright, so for example, the first image listed there (ph1211) should be public domain since it was taken around 1890, and had publication information from that time. Canada's pd for works of unknown authors is 50 yr from publication or 75 years from when taken, whichever is shorter, and it is implied that was published around 1890 so that is also PD. Its unfortunate about the watermark but we will reasonable accept that for historical photos (make sure in the file info page to include the source and link, and probably the same blurb they use in their listing) - the watermark is just text so it does not change the PD-ness.
 * A couple issues are there with other images that list the "found" date (most being found 1976") None of this identify the photographer or if they were published so we'd need to assume it was not published and anonymous, meaning that we'd have to assume for US copyright, 120 years from date of creation (the "ca." dates you see). Nearly all of those do not qualify for this. There's a few, like ph 1249 that have a <1899 taken date, which are definitely PD because 120 years have passed.
 * There are a few that have identified authors, like ph 1246, and there you might have to do some research to figure out when the author died. Unpublished works by known authors get life + 70 years.
 * Basically, for your draft, that first photo on that image page definitely appears to be PD and you are good to go to use that. The others would take a bit more work to see if they can be used. --M asem (t) 23:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the fast and detailed reply. The first photo was the one I was most interested in using, so that's great. :) SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

New guideline on image age?
I've been uploading images for years now, and recently I've noticed a new section on the upload form concerning copyrights. Has there been a recent change in copyright policy? Thanks for informing me, or telling me where to find the answer. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , could you please be clear about exactly what you're seeing, and which upload form you're seeing it on? Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The place is: Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. And the wording is It was first published in the USA before 1989, and its copyright expired because it was published without a copyright notice and/or without the necessary copyright registration. Please look up the exact rules at [2]. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you intended that [2] to be a link, it doesn't seem it was successfully made as one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The 1989 date comes from the date the US joined the Berne Convention, which no longer requires active registration of copyright. However, this did not retroactively apply to works created before the US joined.  G M G  talk  17:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Non-free images with the same name
We seem to have a number of identical files related to Thomas Cook that each have a different non-free statement for different pages: They are also a number of identical Thomas Cook "Hearts" at File:Sunny Heart TCG.jpg and File:Thomas Cook Group Sunny Heart Logo.png, do we have any guidance on this sort of duplication and if this causes an overuse of non-free logos is it allowed? Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * File:Condor Flugdienst Logo.jpg
 * File:Thomas Cook Group Airline Logo.jpg
 * File:Thomas Cook Group Airlines Logo.jpg
 * File:Thomas Cook Airlines Scandinavia.jpg
 * From an NFC standpoint, absolutely should reduce to only one version that meets NFC policy and have the rest deleted as WP:CSD.
 * If they are free, its not as critical an issue but it would still be a good idea to condense to one version. --M asem (t) 17:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅  G M G  talk  17:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Great coat of arms of Count of Ýñigo-Genio
Hello Goodnight. I have problems with the authorship and the license of that image: Could you help me? My English is basic, so it is very difficult I am the author of the image. And I want it to appear as a free image. Make the design based on the oral description of the shield, it does not exist anywhere on the web.

Regards.

--ElSeñorDeLaNoche (talk) 03:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Since you drew the picture, then you own copyright, and it appears you have granted a suitable license now. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Can I upload this picture under fair-use?
It's the image with filename deforestation-Artboard_1_copy_2.jpg from from the article What Satellite Imagery Tells Us About the Amazon Rain Forest Fires. In the article the image is attributed "By The New York Times ·Sources: Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research; NASA", it depicts deforestation and fires in the Amazon rain forest. It contains more information than this (uploaded from NASA) that only depicts the location of the fires, not their relation to the ongoing deforestation of the Amazon. --Moreevo (talk) 09:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately no, but only because it it should be possible to recreate the data from the data (non-copyrightable) from the original sources with appropriate programs as to create a free version. You may need to get help from the WP:Graphics Lab to do that though. --M asem (t) 13:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Another option would be to use the NY Times article as a reference, and provide the information in text form. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

File:GentlemanJohnJackson by Percy Roberts.jpeg
If this file's description is accurate, it doesn't seem like it would really need to be licensed as non-free content. The file was being used in Daniel Mendoza, but had WP:NFCC issues; so, it was removed by a bot. File is currently orphaned and it seems that it will highly unlikely to find another valid non-free use per WP:NFCC, WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC because of File:GentlemanJohnJacksonPainting.jpg; so, it will end up deleted per WP:F5 is the licensing can't be converted to PD. Can the license be converted to PD? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look at this . -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Eco Fighters and possible cover art
For the Eco Fighters video game article, would it be possible to use this image (at considerably lower resolution) from this page in the article's main infobox (along with a proper non-free license tag and rationale)?

Two concerns come to mind:

Firstly, as a repository of arcade game flyers, there is no indication that The Arcade Flyer Archive has been officially authorized or licensed by the copyright holders of the flyers that are hosted. (The site footer has a note claiming that Gottlieb Development LLC has licensed "All copyrighted and trademarked Gottlieb&reg; material" on the site; however, that would likely not cover the Eco Fighters game material.)

Secondly, for a flyer image on The Arcade Flyer Archive, is there a need to consider a possible additional copyright that would be held by a party who scanned or photographed a physical flyer in order to covert it into digital form, in addition to any copyright on the flyer itself? (With this image, there appears to be some shading in the lighter strip along the top where the Capcom logo is, with the center area being lighter than the area at each end. Is that effect a part of the flyer design or was it was caused by digitizing a physical flyer? In addition, when looking at the image at high resolution, it appears that there may be a vertical crease that is slightly to the right of the Capcom logo with the crease going all the way down the image from top to bottom.)

--Elegie (talk) 06:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , yes, it is generally permitted to use one nonfree low-resolution image of a video game cover in the article about the game. I suspect that the copyright would still be retained by Capcom as per the notice on the image itself, and that the site's copyright notice only applies to content actually made for the site. I strongly doubt they've actually been assigned the rights to images like that one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. --Elegie (talk) 08:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Images of the surface of Venus
The surface on Venus was only explored for a brief period in history: the first successful landing (Venera 7) was in 1970 and the last (Venera 14) in 1981. During this time, 6 images were successfully returned from the surface of Venus: one grayscale panorama each from Venera 9 and Venera 10 and two panoramas each with varying degrees of color information from Venera 13 and Venera 14. All of these images were produced by the Soviet space program and are non-free, with copyright presumably belonging to some successor of a Soviet scientific agency (perhaps Roscosmos), while one Don Mitchell also makes an unclear copyright claim on his webpage that hosts all the images, which he processed to varying extents.

Given that there are currently no plans to return to the surface of Venus, these 6 images will be the only photographic record of the Venusian surface for decades to come. Since this has been a controversial topic addressed piecemeal in the past, I want to seek advice and assess consensus on the extent to which Wikipedia can and should use these unique images. The relevant policies are NFCC#3 and NFCC#8; all the other fair use criteria are easily fulfilled (only the images that there is consensus to use will be uploaded).

I would argue that:
 * In any article discussing as a significant topic the appearance or nature of the Venusian surface, an image of the surface "significantly increases readers' understanding of the article topic" (NFCC#8).
 * In any article about a mission that returned an image from the Venusian surface, an image returned from that mission "significantly increases readers' understanding of the article topic" (NFCC#8).
 * Images with color information are more valuable to readers' understanding than those without; the grayscale images do not "convey equivalent significant information" about the Venusian surface (NFCC#3).
 * In any article discussing as a significant topic the return of images from exploration of the the Venusian surface, an example of one of the images returned ""significantly increases readers' understanding of the article topic" (NFCC#8).
 * Since the four landers that returned images all explored different sites and encountered different conditions, images from one mission do not "convey equivalent significant information" about the images returned by another mission (NFCC#3).

Given these principles, I envision using these images as follows:
 * At Venus: Venera 9 (top panel only) in #Exploration (current usage), and either Venera 13 image 2 or Venera 14 image 2 at #Surface geology with modified text from Geology of Venus added.
 * At Geology of Venus: Venera 13 image 2 or Venera 14 image 2 (the same one used at Venus).
 * At Observations and explorations of Venus: Venera 9 (top panel only)
 * At Venera 9: Venera 9 (top panel only).
 * At Venera 10: Venera 10 (top panel only).
 * At Venera 13: Venera 13 image 2.
 * At Venera 14: Venera 14 image 1.

Too much use? Too little? Are the listed principles reasonable? What principles would you argue for? Discuss!


 * Files for discussion/2016 January 8 - Keep at Venus, delete from Venera 9 in favor of now-deleted image
 * Files for discussion/2018 December 31 - Delete
 * Deletion review/Log/2019 August 20 - Overturn and relist
 * Files for discussion/2019 August 27 - ongoing, please comment!

A2soup (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * This seems a no-brainer that they are fine under NFCC (NFCC#1 ain't going to happen soon) and you are respecting NFCC#3 with minimum use of the images on the most appropriate pages. --M asem  (t) 16:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support – If anything ever produced by humanity merits a fair use rationale, those unique pictures should be on top of the list. — JFG talk 23:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Boeing Crewed Flight Test.png
Can this file and File:Boeing Orbital Flight Test.png be converted to PD-USGov-NASA? Boeing Crewed Flight Test and Boeing Orbital Flight Test look like commercial ventures possibly involving NASA so maybe that means they needs to stay non-free; that, however, means that the "Crewed Flight Test" badge cannot really be used in the infoboxes of each of the individuals involved in the project, and that the "Orbital Flight Test" badge cannot be used in Commercial Crew Development. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * File:Crew Dragon Demo-1.png has the same issue(s) as the two mentioned above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

A bot removed useful image
A bot just removed a picture (File:Schlock Mercenary book 1 - Under New Management.jpeg) I added to List of Schlock Mercenary characters, claiming that it's a WP:NFCC violation. However, the same picture already appears in the page Schlock Mercenary, which apparently is not a WP:NFCC violation. Why the picture can appear in the main Schlock Mercenary page, but not in the "Characters" page? I think the picture illustrates the topic of the "Characters" page very well, as it shows many of the important characters of the comic. 85.76.20.174 (talk) 06:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi IP 85.76.20.174. If you look at the edit summary left by the bot when it removed the image, you'll see a blue link to WP:NFC. A non-free file is required to have two things: a copyright license and a non-free use rationale. Most non-free files will only need one copyright license, but a separate, specific non-free use rationale is needed each time a non-free use is being used per WP:NFCC. The main reason why the bot removed the file from the list article is that there was no non-free use rationale provided for that particular use. Providing a rationale for that particular use should stop the bot from removing, but just providing a rationale doesn't make a non-free use automatically policy compliant as explained in WP:JUSTONE and the file's non-free use could still be challenged by another editor.With respect to why the non-free use file might be OK in the article about the book and not the list article, please look at WP:OTHERIMAGE. There are ten non-free content use criteria which need to be satisfied each time a non-free file is used and not all non-free uses are identical. Generally, non-free cover art is allowed for primary indentification purposes when it's used at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the work in questions, but trying to use the same file in other ways or in other articles can be much harder to justify per WP:NFC. Non-free content use in list articles, in particular, can be tricky per WP:NFLISTS and generally is something hard to justify. Perhaps a non-free representative photo showing all of the characters (or at least all of the main characters) might be a bit easier to justify, then the cover art from one of the comics. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Dean Witter logos
I would like some opinions on whether File:Dean Wiiter Logo.png, File:Dean Wiiter 1976 Logo.png and File:Dean Witter Sears Logo.png need to be licensed as non-free logo per c:COM:TOO United States. All of the logos are fairly simple text logos with one additional possibly copyrightable element. The first file is being used in the main infobox; so, if it needs to stay non-free, then it should be fine to continue to be used as such. The other two files, however, are former logos and their non-free use doesn't really meet WP:NFCC and WP:NFC. There were other files in the same article (File:Morgan Stanley Dean Witter.png and File:Dean Witter logo 1993.png) which were also licensed as non-free; these, however, seem pretty straightforward text logos so I changed their licensing to PD-logo. I think the two Dean Witter non-free logos are probably PD as well since the image element in them looks like a simple shape, but the image element in the Sears logo is supposed to represent the Sears Tower (even though it's hard to know that if you're not familiar with the building). Finally, the "Witter" in two of the files is misspelled; so, if kept or converted, the file names of those files probably should be changed per WP:FNC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * all of them look comfortably PD-logo to me. Even the Sears Tower one is just a few stylized vertical bars. No opinion about file names. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)