Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2019/May

Adding TV Show Logo
How do I upload a TV show logo? JATheEditor (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * follow the instructions here: File Upload Wizard. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks! JATheEditor (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Is Public Domain a tag for my upload?
Is Public Domain a tag for my upload? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karuna Devi Dasi (talk • contribs) 06:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If we are talking about File:Zebulon Pike.png and Frederic Remington the painter in question, PD-old-100 should be the correct copyright tag. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:TM
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:TM. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Italian lira banknotes.JPG
I think images of Italian currency might possibly be public domain per c:COM:CUR Italy which means this file cannot be kept per WP:FREER if the only reason it's non-free is because the image is a user-created created or because it's a photo from some website, etc. At the same time, if the images of the money itself are PD and copyright over the photo is being claimed by the file's creator (perhaps due to the way the notes were arranged for the photo), then the file probably cannot be converted to PD if the photo is considered to be a WP:Derivative work. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We expect users that are creating their own works to license them in a free manner, barring obvious copyright issues (eg a user-taken picture of a building in a country without FOP would have the copyright of the building, but the user should identify they are still licensing their photo in a free manner). Yes, it is potentially possible to copyright the layout of a set of free images, but we'd still expect the user to make that a free license on that copyright. Here, the arrangement is probably too simple to pass the threshold of originality, so there's no additional copyright here. Should be deleted per FREER --M asem  (t) 13:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback . has tagged the file for speedy deletion per WP:F7. The uploader of the file is listed as the source of the file, but the account hasn't edited at all since 2010. It seems likely that they will show up to change the licensing from non-free to free for the photo or clarify that they are indeed the original source of the image; so, I agree that it cannot be kept unless it's OK for another person to convert the licensing to PD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * are we talking about the photo itself? Surely there is no originality in that and PD-art applies. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * With this simply of a layout, yes, that itself is not unique to be copyright. An extreme version, if I made a art-sy mosaic out of the banknotes, then while all the individual elements are PD, the overall composition could qualify for copyright. --M asem (t) 20:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've reverted 's CSD of the image since we all seem to agree the image is PD through and through. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Spanish Wikipedia image use
For the English-language "Tito Canepa" article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tito_Canepa - I successively uploaded four images to Wikimedia Commons, which have since then been displayed in the "Tito Canepa" article. There is now a Spanish-language "Tito Canepa" article. These are fair-use images that I would like to have displayed in the Spanish-language article as well. How can this be done? Thank you. Ercan1 (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can. The Spanish Wikipedia no longer allows the use of non-free images (see es:Wikipedia:Sobre el uso legítimo) so there won't be any valid way of uploading the images there. Nthep (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

YouTube
Would a screen grab of the following YouTube video be free from copyrights? It was produced by the candidates political organization in a run for the House of Representatives in 2006.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xec6gn3dBFo

17:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC) User:G._Moore Talk


 * Nope, most YT videos are copyrighted, and images out of them would be copyrighted. Some YT videos can be licensed under Creative Commons and thus could be a potential source for images, but this would be explicitly listed in the video's description. --M asem (t) 17:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

NT Newspaper Clipping
I've recieved a newspaper clipping from the Northern Territory News in regards to the 1995 Arnhem by-election from the Northern Territory Library. It is from 1995. Would it be classified as free work? --AnswerMeNow1 (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * . Are you asking whether you could citing the clipping as a reliable source for an article or are you asking whether you could upload the clipping as an image file? If you're asking about the former, then perhaps as long as the people itself is considered to be a reliable source per Wikipedia's standards. If, on the other hand, you're asking about the latter, then my question to you would be "Why?". You don't need to upload a newspaper clipping in order to cite it as a source for an article; as long as the source is published, reliable, can be accessed by someone else for verification purposes and you've read it, then it doesn't need to be available anywhere online per WP:SAYWHERE. You can even briefly quote the clipping as long as you do so per MOS:QUOTE. As for being a "free work" (i.e. not under copyright protection), it's possible depending upon whether the publisher has clearly released it as such; however, most likely a newspaper clipping from 1995 is going to be considered copyright protected unless it can be clearly shown not to be, which means Wikipedia would treat it as non-free content. Uploading pages from newspapers as non-free content is sometimes done (see Category:Fair use newspaper covers), but this is usually only done when there's something about the page itself (it's layout, it's headline, etc.) which can be used for primary identification purposes of the paper itself (e.g. in the main infobox of a Wikipedia article about the paper) or was something discussed other reliable sources so that the context for non-free use is provided. The content in the clipping might be something worth mentioning in an article, but seeing the actual clipping itself might not be something which significantly improves the reader's understanding enough to justify it's non-free use and which may just as easily be achieved through text. Wikipedia generally doesn't prefer images of textual content for the reasons given in WP:TEXTASIMAGES, even if the image is a "free work"; it's generally better to summarize the source in your own words, add that summary to the article in question, and then simply cite it in support of what you added. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * . I was talking about the latter- I thought that it may be suitable to upload it because it is not directly available, I had to enquire about it through the library to recieve the clipping. --AnswerMeNow1 (talk) 03:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You don’t really need to upload an image of a newspaper clipping as “proof” that either the article actually appeared in a newspaper or was about a certain subject. All that is needed is that the article actually was published in a reliable source and is not something someone just made up. If the article can be accessed (even for a fee, and even if it takes a bit of time and effort) by anyone who feels the need to do so for verification purposes, then it should be OK to cite as a source without uploading a file of the clipping. In other words, if someone can go to that library and request the same clipping that you requested, then that’s pretty much going to be considered a published and accessible source. Uploading the image itself to Wikipedia or to some external website and then providing a convenience link won’t necessarily make the clipping “more” reliable or verifiable because there may be questions raised about the accuracy of the upload image itself, etc. — Marchjuly (talk) 05:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Replaceable fair use File:Count Alexander Mohl.jpg
I had públished this photo on the Wikipedia file and one of the Wikipedia police deleted it claiming...

Thanks for uploading File:Count Alexander Mohl.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable. Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I dont understand the repleacable part....repleaceable by what or whom? Just because he THINKS it has another free equivalant?? Not really..and it is freely licensed...Gzegosh (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . File:Count Alexander Mohl.jpg was nominated for speedy deletion by, but the file was actually deleted by an administrator named . Both are pretty experienced editors when it comes to files, particularly non-free files, which means that it's unlikely that both made a mistake; not impossible, just a little unlikely. Explicit, in particular, is unlikely to have deleted a file per WP:F7 if it had been uploaded under a free license. So, Explicit probably wouldn't have ended up deleting the file if he didn't agree with Finnusertop that this was a case of "replaceable non-free use".As for the replaceable part, this basically means that it seems reasonable to either find or create a free equivalent image which can serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free one. The free equivalent image doesn't have to currently exist, it doesn't have to be a freely licensed version of the same exact image (it can be a different image as long as it's sufficient to serve the same encyclopedic purpose), and it doesn't have to be found or created before the non-free one ends up being deleted. As long as it's deemed reasonable that a free equivalent may be found or created by someone someday, then that's usually enough for the non-free image to be deleted per WP:FREER. In this particular case though, there are already two freely licensed images being used in Aleksander Piotr Mohl which means that a non-free one is pretty much not going to be accepted unless there's a really good contextual reason for doing so per WP:NFCC and all of the other non-free content use criteria are also satisfied.The licensing of the two files you uploaded for use in the article (File:Count Alexander Mohl Second Lieutenant 13th Regiment of Wilno Uhlans.jpeg and File:Count Alexander Mohl in Polish Diplomatic uniform 1936.jpeg) seems a bit questionable. You've licensed the files as "self|cc-zero", yet you state that the photo belongs to someone named Gregory Dayton. Unless you are Gregory Dayton, you cannot license these files as your own work (i.e. self); moreover, unless you are actually the person who took the photos, you cannot claim copyright ownership over them even if you are Gregory Dayton. Generally, it's the person who takes a photo, not the subject of the photo or someone who may have the photo in their possession, who is considered to own the copyright over the photo. So, if you can clarify why you think these are "self|cc-zero", then perhaps someone can help sort their licensing out. Maybe there's another more suitable license which can be used instead.Now, if it turns out that these files cannot be kept because they've been incorrectly licensed or the permission of the original copyright holder cannot be verified as explained in c:Commons:OTRS or WP:CONSENT, then it might actually possible to re-license one of these two files or even have the deleted non-free one restored for use in the article. So, if after reading this, you think that you might've actually mistakenly licensed those two files as "self|cc-zero" when they aren't, then discuss this with Explicit and he will help you figure out what best to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Is The Unz Review masthead credible as to their copyright licensing?
Regarding the disagreement here, does Unz Review masthead FAQ assertion that, "The articles and columns that appear here are under legal copyright and the authors or their representatives have merely granted The Unz Review the right to publish them," allow us to link to this article from The Reporter'' from 1966 as the source of an early use of the term "white genocide"? EllenCT (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . I think your question might be more suitable for WP:ELN since you appear to be asking whether it's OK per WP:ELNEVER or WP:COPYLINK to adds links to an external website to a Wikipedia article. Generally, such links would be allowed for original content created by the website you want to link to, but it might not be allowed for content created by others being hosted by the website. Lots of websites might be able to host content created by others under the premise of fair use, even if they don't have the explicit permission of the other copyright holders to do so, but this doesn't necessarily mean links to these websites should be added to Wikipedia. It might be possible as a WP:Convenience link or it might simply be possible to cite the original publication per WP:SAYWHERE without linking to any website at all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's what we do now, along with quoting half a paragraph for context, but I really feel strongly that being able to read the whole article gives a sense of the political climate and conflict history necessary for understanding the use of the term. I'll ask over at WP:ELN. Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 04:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Dan_Crenshaw
If someone wants to take a look. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:NFCC
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Art Tatum Celebration Column; localwiki
I'm looking for a photo of the Art Tatum Celebration Column, to include in the Art Tatum article. The only one with an appropriate CC license (BY 4.0) that I've found is here. I don't see any attribution/source for the image at that page and know that there is also some lack of certainty about reproducing public art (the sculpture is from 2009). Can this image be used on the Art Tatum Wikipedia page? EddieHugh (talk) 10:30, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . Since the general licensing for that website is one that Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons both accept, the text would be OK to use. The image, however, is a bit trickier since there is no freedom of panorama for publicly displayed 3D works of art in the United States per c:COM:FOP United States. So, even if the photo itself is freely licensed (which isn’t so clear per https://localwiki.org/main/Copyrights since it might be a case of c:COM:LL), I think the copyright of the statue would still need to be considered. While a free image might not be possible, a non-free image might if one can be found or created which satisfies Wikipedia’s non-free content use policy. Another possibility might be to find a freely licensed photo where the work of art is not so much the focus, but rather a more incidental element of a larger scene. It may be possible to argue de minimis for the statue in such a case. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. The 'freedom of panorama' problem was what I was thinking of, but I couldn't remember what it was. The sole purpose would be to show the sculpture, so de minimis is out, and I don't think an image of it is necessary to develop a full understanding of Tatum, so a non-free image is also out. That's a shame, because the photos of it look good, and it would probably get more attention through being on the Tatum article page than is possible from any other means, but that's the law. EddieHugh (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Hily Logo.png
I recently uploaded File:Hily Logo.png to be included in an AfC draft. Per the corresponding WP:F5 notification on my talk page, I've noted that non-free images with claims of fair use should only be uploaded for published articles. However, would this file be an exception to the seven days criteria for speedy deletion since the draft is pending review and "reasonable exceptions may be made for images uploaded for an upcoming article"? Thanks. E-Stylus (talk) 07:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If the draft is accepted then the file can be undeleted or reuploaded. Most drafts don't actually go anywhere. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . Just to elaborate a bit on what Graeme posted above, files which are deleted aren't gone forever, but rather are just hidden from public view. F5 deletions are almost always non-controversial and usually such files can be fairly quickly restored at a later date either by (1) directing asking the deleting adiministrator (just click on the deleted file's red link and you should see who that is) or (2) posting a request at WP:REFUND. So, once the draft you're working on has been approved, simply request that the file be restored. There's no need to re-upload the file. FWIW, one of the reasons exceptions to F5 are seemingly rare (I can't think of a single one) is probably because many drafts (as Graeme points out) end up never moving beyond the draft stage or at least don't often get accepted on the first try. A draft which goes unedited for six months or more will eventually be deleted per WP:G13, but it's possible to keep a draft "active" pretty much forever as long as it appears to keep being approved. An administrator will typically wait seven days (sometimes a bit longer) before deleting a file per F5; so, in a sense that is considered a sufficient grace period to either de-orphan an image or to have a draft approved. I believe there have been prior discussions on perhaps making a general exception to F5 per drafts, but that a consensus could never be established to do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info and . E-Stylus (talk) 08:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Adding a Free-use Logo Tag to an image
I am trying to respond to a a request to add an appropriate tag to File:IEEE Education Society logo.jpg. I tried, but I do not think that I did it correctly (I am new to this). Steveewatkins (talk) 03:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , ✅, you meant non-free, and the file is File:IEEE Education Society logo.jpeg. I also reduced the size, to comply with WP:NFC. Cheers. -- Begoon 03:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:FOOTY
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:FOOTY. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Creating a derivative work and uploading it properly
Hi, I have just made a derivative work (I guess it's called this), from which was liscenced with Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported.

How should I upload it? (After I upload it I will implement it in the WP article LST relation.)

Like should I use the File Upload Wizard? And then somehow show the proper attribution? Or should I click "Upload a new version of this file" on the section? or?

Thanks, Blue.painting (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . Per WP:Derivative work and c:COM:DW, I think the new file you created would only be considered a "derivative work" if it would be considered eligible for copyright protection on it's own merit and be significantly different from the original work in some way. So, if all you did was to tweak the file in some way that didn't really change any of its essential elements, then I don't think that would be enough to be considered a derivative work. As for the licensing, I believe that you can re-license the file using any license that is not more restrictive than the one used for the original file, but I'm not so sure about this.As for whether you should upload your file as an update or a new file, again I think that depends on your file. If all that you did was some tweaking of the original image, like straightening or re-sizing, then perhaps it would be OK just to update the original file. On the other hand, if your file is significantly different (like a crop), in a different format, or actually a derivative work, then I think you'd probably be better off uploading it as a new file. This will allow someone to still continue to use the other file, perhaps on a different page or in a different article, if they wanted to and it wouldn't automatically replace the old file with your file on any pages where the original file was being used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for the reponse. I have uploaded the file as a different file, on Wikimedia Commons. It is here: File:Labeled LO and TO phonon energies at gamma for GaAs.png. I guess it was appropriate to do so, based on your description. I did a crop and also labeled two of the points which were relevant for the article that the image was for. -- Blue.painting (talk) 13:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if what you did would be a derivative per se per c:Template:Derived from, but maybe adding a template like c:Template:Extracted from to your file would help to better establish the connection between the two files. You can also always ask for feedback at c:COM:VPC since both files are on Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok sounds good, I added a tag like this:.
 * And, thanks again for the input!! -- Blue.painting (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)