Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2019/October

Lady Asgill portrait to be uploaded to the Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet page
The image of Sophia Asgill, wife of Sir Charles, is already on Wikipedia here http://www.wikigallery.org/wiki/painting_199276/John-Hoppner/Portrait-of-HRH-Frederica-Charlotte-Ulrica-Princess-Royal-of-Prussia-and-Duchess-of-York I tracked down the original Hoppner oil on canvass and took a photograph of the bottom right section, which shows Sophia Asgill sitting at the feet of the Duchess. Am I permitted to upload the photo I took to Wikipedia, and, if so, under what permission please? Arbil44 (talk) 09:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , Wikigallery isn't part of Wikimedia (it just uses the software produced by Wikimedia) so it's not correct to say the image of Lady Asgill in already on Wikipedia.  That said Wikigallery is correct in saying that the original image is in the public domain due to the expiration of copyright.  As the original picture is out of copyright Wikipedia policy on your photograph of part or all of the original portrait is that it does not generate a new copyright as your photograph is a slavish reproduction of the original.  This is line with the 1999 US Supreme Court decision in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. and while that decision is only based on US law Wikipedia policy is that as any uploads are hosted in the US the decision applies to photographs of old 2D art regardless of where in the world the photograph was taken (see c:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag for a fuller explanation).  On a practical level the image you have taken should be uploaded at Commons using the license tag c:Template:Licensed-PD-Art-two. Nthep (talk) 12:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your speedy response, thank you Nthep. Arbil44 (talk) 12:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Just to add, Nthep, I should of course have directed you to the page on Frederica, Duchess of York, because the image under discussion is there on Wikipedia. I didn't do so in order for it to be quite clear which image I meant, and there are several on this page:Princess_Frederica_Charlotte_of_Prussia I hope this doesn't change the information you provided in any way? Arbil44 (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No change, all those portraits are out of copyright. Nthep (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The image on Wikimedia is File:Frederica of Prussia duchess of York.jpg. You found the original? Hm. Where would that be? Anyway, Wikimedia accepts copies, for the reason explained by Nthep (there may be some exceptions). Make sure you indicate clearly the source of the image you upload. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The original Hoppner portrait is held by a Saudi prince now (he purchased it from one of the Queen Mother's trainers) and I went to his palace to photograph Sophia, with witnesses and his full permission. The photograph is mine, taken with my camera! Arbil44 (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

By the way Asclepias you have insulted me by your "Hm. Where would that be", indicating that I never found the original and was lying. Some of us do thorough research, so I presume you looked but didn't find? Kindly apologise. Arbil44 (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I did not read 's comment as suggesting that you were lying, . I read it as genuine puzzlement. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I am now so angry at the way I have been treated on Wikipedia I shall give a full account of my acquisition of a photograph of the original Hoppner portrait. 1) Found image of Duchess of York "with her Ladies in Waiting" 2) See there is an option of 3 women, so how to know which is Lady Asgill (who was Lady of the Bedchamber), but find an account of DoY coming from Prussia with two Prussian women, so that is a clue 3) Discover there is a portrait of Sophia Ogle/Asgill as a child and acquire a copy from Firle Place and compare 4) See that it is clear cut and that Sophia has hardly changed and love of setter dogs was evident as a child 5) Eventually discover whereabouts of the original Hoppner portrait in the palace of a Saudi Prince 6) How to gain access to such a location 7) Eventually track down the Agent and request to see portrait 8) Am treated like scum by said Agent who clearly thinks I am planning a heist 9) Explain to vile Agent that my husband was previously, a few years earlier, Ambassador in Riyadh and might this assuage concerns 10) This helps, but only slightly 11) About a year later I am granted permission to go to palace 12) On the day am greeted by a gardener who shows said Ambassador and self to the servants' entrance where we are greeted by Housekeeper 13) Taken to Foyer where we see Hoppner's portrait, which is taking up the whole of one very large wall 14) Take photograph of bottom right in front of Housekeeper 15) Eight years later try to have this uploaded to Wikipedia 16) Am again insulted - by Asclepias this time round, it is usually Biddulph 17) Note to self - why don’t you listen to friends and family who tell you none of this is worth it.Arbil44 (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I beg to disagree Cordless Larry. It comes across, to me, as sarcastic incredulity, and I am offended. An 'explanation' from them would have been better.Arbil44 (talk) 08:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

redirect from Software screenshots talk page. Why
I wanted discuss the inclusion of screenshots for text only programs but was (unexpectedly) redirected here. How can I discuss screenshots appropriateness ? DGerman (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , Wikipedia talk:Software screenshots was redirected here in 2013 because it was felt no one was watching that talk page. Questions there tended to be about copyright. Try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software doesn't seem to be very active either. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

File:AMAs2011logo.jpg
This file seems to simple per c:COM:TOO United States to be eligible for copyright protection and should be licensed as PD-logo instead. The source given for the file, however, is another wiki site which is almost certainly not the original copyright holder, and which appears to just be hosting the most recent version of the logo. I've been trying to find an archived version of the logo on the AMA's website and found this, but it a slightly different logo. The logo can be seen in the background of photos like this, but again it's slight different. Any suggestions on what to use as the source for this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Kitemark certification symbols
The UK has a pretty low TOO per c:COM:TOO United Kingdom, so File:BSI Group Kitemark certification symbol.png and File:BSI Kitemark.svg probably are not PD-logo. They do, however, seem like they might be PD-ineligible-USonly per c:COM:TOO United States. However, I'm not sure two separate files, particularly if they need to be non-free, are needed since the only real difference appears to be that one has a trademark symbol added to it. "File:BSI Kitemark.svg" is currently technically failing WP:NFCC, but this can be fairly easily fixed by tweaking the article parameter in the file's non-free use rationale since the non-free use seems WP:NFCC compliant; "File:BSI Group Kitemark certification symbol.png", on the other hand, does haven't have any NFCC#10c problems, but the way it's being used might be a problem per item 6 of WP:NFC. Which file should be kept if these cannot be converted to "PD-ineligible-USonly"? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

File:E-470.svg
I'm not sure about the licensing of this file. The source is give as this, but that's a dead link and an an archived version can be seen here; so, this file appears to be a re-creation of that. The first question then is whether the original sign itself is considered to be something protected by copyright. According to c:COM:CB, there's a good chance that it might be unless it's considered to be PD for some reason. The nest question then is whether this "re-creation" would be considered a WP:Derivative work; if it is then there would seem to be two copyrights in play. If the original sign is PD, then I don't think we can keep a non-free derivative version of it per WP:FREER. If the original sign is not PD, then Wikipedia probably shouldn't be using any derivative version at all, but rather something from the official E-470 website instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I would call the SVG of that logo PD. Simple shapes and type-face. So a recreation in SVG is fine. --M asem (t) 05:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Would that also apply to the original sign itself? Should the entire file be PD-simple or PD-logo? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybish.. it's not a straight on shot of 2D so the question of if the photographer has any rights to that arrangement may be there. It's probably just easier to use the SVG instead. --M asem (t) 05:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think my last post might have been confusing. I'm asking about copyright status of the original sign imagery itself, not the photo of the sign. If the SVG is PD, then that would mean the the sign imagery itself is also PD, right? If that's the case, then the question is whether it's OK to change the license of the SVG to PD; the uploader seems to have stopped editing in March 2008; so, there's almost certainly no point in asking them to do it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Legal Services Corporation Logo.svg
This is another file which seems to be too simple for non-free logo per c:COM:TOO United States and appears to be just a user-created SVG version of File:Legalservicescorp.jpg. The question then is whether Wikipedia needs to of the same file, and if not which one should be kept. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

File:NIC Bank Logo.png
This file seems like it might be a candidate for at least PD-ineligible-USonly per c:COM:TOO United States since it's basically just text; I think that even the stylized "nic" in the left part of the logo is probably not eligible for copyright protection in the US. I'm not, however, sure about the TOO of the country of origin Kenya though since there's nothing mentioned about it in c:COM:Kenya and it might follow the UK's TOO. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

File:HMS_ALISMA,_BRITISH_FLOWER_CLASS_CORVETTE._22_APRIL_1942.jpg
A previous editor has uploaded an image of HMS Alisma to accompany a page about the Royal Australian Naval Volunteer Reserve. This image is File:HMS ALISMA, BRITISH FLOWER CLASS CORVETTE. 22 APRIL 1942, LIVERPOOL. A8492.jpg.

Whilst it is an adequate generic image of a Flower-class corvette and adequate for this article, I ideally wanted a better image to illustrate my new page on HMS Alisma (K185). There were 4 images taken on the same day by the RN official photographer. The subject image above I have selected is equally on the webpage of the Imperial War Museum with the catalogue number A 8491. I have downloaded this from their website. The licence details state: Use this image under non-commercial licence. ''The media for this item are free to reuse for non-commercial purposes under the IWM Non Commercial Licence. Video, sound and images can be embedded with the code we offer here, and images can also be downloaded. By downloading any images or embedding any media, you agree to the terms and conditions of the IWM Non Commercial Licence, including your use of the attribution statement specified by IWM. For this item, that is: © IWM (A 8491)''

I was unable to find the relevant licence choices on the set-up page for uploading. Since it is virtually identical as item A8492 I do not see why this item A8491 cannot be accepted on the same licence basis. I therefore request the support of an experienced editor to clarify the matter and, if approved, set up the correct licence panels. Richard Tennant (talk) 09:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Crown copyright only lasts for 50 years, so this image's copyright tag is PD-UKGov as it was taken by a government employee in the course of his duty more than 50 years ago. IWM's copyright claims are considered "copyfraud". ww2censor (talk) 10:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Carleton_Ravens_logo.svg
An editor of the Carleton University Wikipedia page continues to remove the Carleton Ravens logo from the Athletics section of the page. I feel as though the user is applying the rules surrounding non-free images heavy-handedly and is failing to consider that it is also used on the main article, Carleton Ravens.

I would like some clarification as to whether or not this logo can continue to be used. I feel as though the user in question acted with scant justification for removing the image from the Carleton University page in the first place, despite the image itself containing a Fair use classification.

Bronwood315 (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * (pinging you so you are aware of this conversation) Begoon is correct. Every time a non-free image is used on Wikipedia, there must be a non-free rationale indicating why the image is being used for that purpose. There is no rationale on the image description page for this use on the Carleton University page, only for the football page and the main athletics page. Per WP:NFCC #10c, the image can not be used in the way you want without providing a rationale. Now, providing a rationale doesn't automatically mean it gets to be used as you want. Our WP:NFCC policy works to reduce the use of non-free images because we are a free content encyclopedia. We use non-free imagery as sparingly as possible...even if the same image is used elsewhere on the project. In this case, it isn't appropriate to include it on the institution's main page, but is appropriate on its athletics page. I cast about looking at other universities in Canada and the United States, looking a a few dozen articles. Not one of them is using a non-free athletics logo in the way you want to use it. Begoon isn't being heavy handed. S/He's following policy, and not acting with scant justification. It doesn't matter that the image is already in use on the main sports article for Carleton; that has no influence on this, so Begoon doesn't need to consider this. More abstractly; the use of non-free content on this project can be difficult to understand. It's very understandable that you've bumped into this as an issue. It takes time to understand the nuances of how WP:NFCC and WP:NFC are applied. If you have future questions, feel free to post a query at WT:NFC. We'll be happy to help. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, our non-free policies can be a bit of a steep learning curve if you're not familiar with them. I actually came across this image because somebody uploaded a duplicate png for the football article, and in the process of changing that use to the svg and fixing up the rationales I noticed the usage in the university article. I actually spend quite a lot of time fixing images and usage/rationales so that we can retain image usage, but in some cases, such as this, it just isn't possible. If I'd thought there was a way to retain the usage I'd certainly have done so. -- Begoon 15:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . I agree with what and  posted a above but also feel that the non-free use of the file in the individual team's article is not compliant. The non-free use of university team logos has been discussed previously quite a few times at WP:FFD, and the consenus has almost always has been fine for article about the athletic team in general, but not for individuals teams per item 17 of WP:NFC. In addition, I just want to add that you might possibly fine cases where mascot logos are found being used in individual team articles or in sections of main university articles, but you need to be aware of WP:OTHERIMAGE when considering non-free use. It's quite possible that the circumstances of the file's use appear to be the same, but is actually not: not all files used on Wikipedia are licensed the same way and those which are freely licensed or in the public domain are not subject to exactly the same policies and non-free files. It's also just as possible, that the "other use" is not appropriate at all and the other file shouldn't be being used in that particular way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Which cpoyright tag to use for university ownership
I would like to determine the correct cpyright tag to use for a photo owned by a museum or university which is most likely no longer copyrighted because it was taken in 1926 and there is no indication of a copyright on the back of the photo, that was taken by a news service. Because the university asked me to credit them in the photo description, I cannot figure out what wikipedia tag to use. Thank you

Cnkaufmann (talk) 13:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * This sound like PD-US-no notice. --M asem (t) 13:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Who owns this image on Telugu Wikipedia? Is it even allowed?
I want to add this image from Telugu Wikipedia to the article about Karwan. The problem is, it is copyrighted. Using Google Translate (as I don't speak Telugu), I tried to identify a rationale and the names of the original creators, and here is what I found: ''"Nonetheless, reliable reasons for using this work:
 * For illustration in an article about the subject of this work
 * Unable to make / produce "free work" that offers the same kind of description or filming
 * The United States, the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, to run the server in the Telugu language Wikipedia on the usage asamra Copyright Act, according to the Public , as it had been. Any other use of Wikipedia, or elsewhere, may be a copyright infringement . See Wikipedia: Non-free content and Wikipedia: Copyrights ."''

I was trying to use the Upload Wizard on Wikipedia to transfer the image to English Wikipedia. However, the wizard would not allow me to upload a copyrighted image if the article was about the subject of the image; it allowed copyrighted images only if the article was about the image itself, not the subject of the image. Not only that, the file page on Telugu Wikipedia lacks proper attribution information; from that page alone, it is impossible for me to tell who the original taker of the photograph was.

I doubt that this is a case of Indian and American copyright laws being different, because the rationale on Telugu Wikipedia mentions American law, and the link reading "asmara Copyright Act" links to Fair use, on English Wikipedia. Therefore, I believe there is a chance that this image might have been uploaded illegally. What should I do? Speedy delete it? PROD it? Do those processes even exist on Telugu Wikipedia? Are there alternative images of Karwan available, or do we just have to go without an image?

Thanks in advance, for helping resolve any possible confusion. Please ping me when you reply. 𝕎𝕚𝕜𝕚𝕎𝕒𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕠𝕣𝟡𝟡𝟙𝟡 (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * (P.S. I have no personal connection to the article topic. I've never been to India. I found this article while fixing typos in one click. You should try using that tool, it's really useful. 𝕎𝕚𝕜𝕚𝕎𝕒𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕠𝕣𝟡𝟡𝟙𝟡 (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a non-free image (I can find it on Facebook from 2015) and to upload it to the English Wikipedia you would have to accompany the upload with a non-free rationale explaining how the image meets all 10 criteria of non-free content criteria. It's very likely that this image would fail criterion #1  as there doesn't appear to be anything stopping anyone going and taking a picture of this structure and uploading it under an appropriate "free" licence. Nthep (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright. Unfortunately, I'm unsure how to nominate anything for deletion on Telugu Wikipedia, so I'll need the assistance of another user who speaks that language. In the meantime, I'll just delete the image from the Telugu article. Thanks. 𝕎𝕚𝕜𝕚𝕎𝕒𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕠𝕣𝟡𝟡𝟙𝟡 (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Billy Hathorn's uploads
Over the last few months, me and 2 other users have been slowly whittling down WP:CCI/20110727, which is filled to the brim with text vios from Billy. Now that the first section is drawing to an end, his files are now going to be reviewed (Located at Contributor copyright investigations/20110727 10 and Contributor copyright investigations/20110727 11) As a question, are and, memorials , and statues  copyvios? Thanks, 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk💸Help out at CCI! 15:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's complicated. A photo of a sign/statue/etc. should be treated the same way as the the content of the sign/statue/etc. itself. Buildings are OK in the US. MER-C 19:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

PD-US-not renewed
Was wondering if someone might be able to track down the original source of File:1943-First Four AAGPBL.gif and File:AAGPBL Victory Song.jpg? They're licensed as non-free content and sourced to the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League website, but that seems unlikely to be the actual source of the photos.The "First Four" photo can be seen here and here (which looks like it's watermarked), but there's no information provided about it other than "from Northern Indiana Center for History Collection". The AAGPBL website's "Bibliography" page gives www.centerforhistory.org as the center's website which redirects to this. FWIW, I couldn't find anything about the other photo on the AAGRBL's website, but perhaps it also originally comes from the same center as the other.It's possible that these files might not need to be licensed as non-free and perhaps they were once copyrighted but that copyright wasn't renewed. The dates given on the photos mean that they would be PD-US-not renewed in that case. The AAGPBL website would probably be OK if these were acceptable as non-free content, but they way they are currently being used doesn't really meet WP:NFCC (WP:NFC), particularly the "Victory Song" file, and I don't think they would survive an WP:FFD on their respective uses. So, the best chance at keeping them seems to be figuring out where they originally came from. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Tineye on the first photo got me to an article that claims the photo was property of the National Baseball Hall of Fame. which gets me to . I'm not having luck on the second one via image-searching on Google, TinEye, or flipping through the Baseball HOF photo collection. --M asem  (t) 14:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for digging up that info on the first photo . Do you think it should stay licensed as non-free content? If that's the case, then I'm not sure it can be kept per NFCC#8, but others might feel differently. The non-free use of the second photo seems to be even more of a problem per NFCC#8 and that one definitely shouldn't be kept unless it were perhaps can be used in an Wikipedia article about either of the two women pictured (if they have Wikipedia articles written about them and are deceased). -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And with that source information tracked down, I think the balance is tipped against use. The source is a physical copy of the photograph, donated to the HOF without any information as to when or even if it had been previously published. It's quite plausible that this is a print from the photographer's archive, not published until placed online by the HOF or published only in connection with the contemporary AAGPBL movie. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.  Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 11:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Many extra album covers on one page
Many Japanese idol groups simultaneously release 4-5 versions of a single at once, typically containing different songs (examples here, here, and here). I've uploaded every version and added it to the infobox since there isn't a main version. However, I was told that doing so probably violates the non-free content criteria, specifically NFCCP#3a. Should all album cover versions be within the infobox, or just one? If only one, which one? ◢ ''   Ganbaruby!     (talk to me) 05:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally we only allow one main cover image, and an alternate one that is different in a major region of release. All versions in a case like this are inappropriate, so you'd have to consider the "regular" one, like on Glass wo Ware! as the only image. Other covers would only be allowed on a case-by-case basis if they were the subject of discussion within the body of the article talking specifically about the album art. --M asem (t) 17:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

IEEE Education Society Logo
I added this image, IEEE Education Society logo 2019, as the organization logo in the first image on the page for the IEEE Education Society page. I am not sure if it is tagged correctly. I tried using the wizard, but it shows up in the Wiki Commons with a not to load it locally. It is the official (new) logo for the society and is copyrighted by the society. The use should be fair use as the official branding page for the organization. Sorry for the confusion.

Steveewatkins

--Steveewatkins (talk) 01:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . It's not clear which file you're referring to in your post because the name you gave is malformed. Are you possibly referring to c:File:IEEE Education Society logo 2019.jpg? That was a file deleted from Commons per c:Commons:Fair use by a Commons administrator named c:User:Túrelio. Commons and Wikipedia are technically separate Wikimedia Foundation project; although there's some similarities between the two, they each have their own policies when it comes to image licensing. So, if you want more details as to why the file was deleted, you can ask at c:User talk:Túrelio. In general, Commons won't accepted anything that doesn't meet c:Commons:Licensing; in other words, doesn't accept any fair use type of images. Wikipedia, on the other hand, does allow certain types of copyrighted content (e.g. company logos) to be uploaded and used as non-free content, but each use has to satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. When it comes to company logos, non-free files are generally considered policy-compliant when they are used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the company in question, but others types of non-free use and uses in other articles are generally not going to be allowed per WP:NFCC unless the logo itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Link to Youtube copyvio - should it be revdelled?
At drag crisis, revisions Special:Permalink/880974061 to Special:Permalink/921177037 (inclusive) contain a Youtube link whose description page indicates the content was taken from a post on VK (service). I was going to slap a, but is it warranted for a link to a copyvio rather than a copyvio? Tigraan Click here to contact me 11:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In a case like this, I would say yes, since deep linking has not been "cleared" fully of being liable for copyright infringement. This would be for clear copyright violations (uploaded of entire movies on YouTube that are not property of the uploader, etc.) --M asem (t) 17:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe I wasn't clear: my question is not whether the link should be kept on the page (it should not) but whether it should be purged from the page history under WP:CRD #1. The copyvio is then not on Wikipedia itself (if Youtube ever removes the video, it's OK to leave a deadlink in the page history). Tigraan Click here to contact me 12:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's what I mean: revdel should be used on links to material that are 100% blatant copyright violations like whole movie uploads. If there is some degree of question that the material is assuredly a copyright violation (eg: fair use may be involved), then one should just delete the link from the page but not worry about revdel. --M asem (t) 13:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

book cover image
I want to use a book cover for article about Julie Umerle. Her book is self published so she owns the copyright. I believe it should be a non-free use rational template. Is this correct? GoldAggar (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldAggar (talk • contribs) 16:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , use of a non-free book cover is limited to an article about the book, and is not acceptable in a biography of the author. Please read WP:NFCI #1. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  16:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Depending on the design of the book cover, the copyright may be held by a photographer, a graphic artist, or if the copyright was transferred to the author or if she produced it herself, then the author. That person or persons can release the image under a free license and confirm it by the OTRS system using the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. ww2censor (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Legal Services Corporation Logo.svg
This file is a svg version of File:Legalservicescorp.jpg. The jpg is licensed as PD-textlogo which might be OK per c:COM:TOO United States, and if it is there's no way to keep a non-free svg version per WP:NFCC. On the other hand, if the jpg is too complex to be PD, then a user-created non-free svg version is likely going to fail NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC as also explained in WP:FREER. So, either both files are "PD-textlogo" and should be moved to Commons or the non-free svg probably needs to be deleted and jpg re-licensed as non-free logo. Pinging the uploaders, and  of both files as courtesy. The svg version currently has a non-free use rationale, but no copyright license; so, it's been tagged for deletion per WP:F4. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * hi, i forgot to license this file
 * general question: is there a problem to use  with mentioning athors from source (raster-files)?
 * --Mrmw (talk) 07:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you create this logo yourself or did you just create an svg version of it? Is the svg version something officially provided by LSC or did you just take the png file uploaded to Wikipedia and make an svg? If you aren't the original creator of the logo, then I'm not sure how appropriate it is for you to try and claim it as your "own work". In general, just basically reproducing someone else's work doesn't establish a new new copyright as explained in c:COM:2D copying. So, if the logo is really too simple to be eligible for copyright protection, the file probably should be licensed as PD-logo. The uploader of the raster file simply downloaded the file and uploaded it to Wikipedia; so, they don't have any claim of copyright and I don't think you need to even mention them as long as you mention the original source of the file.Things are, however, less clear when it comes to svgs because whether an svg file (i.e. the code of the file) is eligible for its own copyright separate of the logo is one of things which is unclear as explained in c:COM:SVG; this, by the way, seems to be one of the reasons why WP:FREER advises that only official svg versions provided by the original copyright holder be used for non-free files to avoid having to try and sort out whether there are multiple copyright holders involved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Being US logos, these are both easily PD-textlogo and should be licensed as such and move to the commons. Also see c:COM:TOO where you will much more complicated logos illustrated as PD. ww2censor (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. Also, thanks Mrmw for the svg.  Per ww2censor's rationale above, I thought this actually would qualify to go to commons after being SVG'd.  Thanks for keeping an eye out.  --Policy Reformer(c) 05:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Saw you were watching the deletion tags on this file, so just wanted to alert you to this discussion. Per above, I've re-tagged the file with PD-logo and Trademark.  Thanks for your work!  --Policy Reformer(c) 00:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

File:BSHM President medal crop comp.jpg
The photo is probably OK as licensed, but the medal being photographed may not be as explained in c:COM:CB. If the medal imagery is protected by copyright, this would be a WP:Derivative work which means the copyright of the medal would also have to be taken into account. Moreover, since the country of origin seems to be the UK, there's also c:COM:TOO United Kingdom to consider since this would most likely be too complex to be PD in the UK simply based upon its design. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The photo is of a 3D work, so is derivative. According to British Society for the History of Medicine the first two affiliated societies, whose logos are included in the medal, joined in 1971, while the other two joined later, means the medal is certainly still in copyright. Therefore it was created at an unknown date post-1971. ww2censor (talk) 09:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Georgia State Signal Logo.jpg used in Georgia State University
Can another editor more familiar with our copyright and fair use policies please take a look at how File:Georgia State Signal Logo.jpg is being used in Georgia State University (specifically in the Student media section? It's a copyrighted image and I'm concerned that it's not being used in accordance with our policies but other editors disagree.  Thanks!  ElKevbo (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Use in that article sounds excessive. Also the claim about not tarnishing the image is violated as it is over-compressed with .jpg artifacts. Given there is a later logo File:Logo of The Signal college newspaper, 2018.png that looks good, the File:Georgia State Signal Logo.jpg should be deleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

File:JayandSilentBobReboot.jpg
https://fesapusewebsite.blob.core.windows.net/fathom/jay-silent-bob-2-0e0c1c3e4fb7a73aaaa230688644d54a.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joker157 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * So what is your question? We already have this poster File:JayandSilentBobReboot.jpg. For non-free pictures we need to have a proper source, such as an official one, so we know it is genuine. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Eugen_Pick.jpeg
The image source is from a published copyrighted work, but credited NARA. Is this public domain or do I need a fair use rationale? I have a some similar images that i'd like to use but doubt fair use would allow all of them.&mdash;eric 13:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks like it would fall into PD-USgov. The paper has several NARA links to what would be assumed to be reported by an agency of the US Government (RG226 = Office of Strategic Services), and it does not seem likely that they would include a copyrighted photo from a non-USgov person in them at the time the reports would have been made (1940s). So it is a fair enough assumption that this would be a USGov work and thus PD. --M asem (t) 15:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, i added File:Eugene Pick mugshot.jpg and File:Eugene pick actor1.jpg with Template:PD-China, likely published Shanghai circa 1930, but Non-U.S._copyrights implies there is a U.S. copyright even if they are PD in China.&mdash;eric 16:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Image of Bloxham Hall, ancestral seat of the late General Robert Manners (grandson of the Duke of Rutland)
Good morning. For a long time I have had an image of Bloxham Hall, but now there is an appropriate article for it to be uploaded to (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ann_Mansel) I would like to upload it. I have received the following email from the copyright holders, so I imagine there will be no difficulty in putting it on Wikipedia? However, the whole process terrifies me - I lack IT skills - and I don't even understand the questions, never mind knowing the answers. Is there any way this could be made easy for me? The email follows:

To:arbil44 28 Oct at 10:20 Hello You have the permission of SLHA to publish the image or images of Bloxholm Hall mentioned in your previous correspondence with our Society (through ). Please acknowledge the source. No fee is charged but donations to SLHA, a charitable organisation, are welcomed. Regards

Publications Committee Society for Lincolnshire History and Archaeology Arbil44 (talk) 12:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Without more details it's difficult to answer fully. Is this an old photo which may be out of copyright and the above is all about attribution of source? Or, is it a newish photo (e.g. under 100 years old) that may well be still be in copyright and the email was about consent from the copyright holder.  If it's an old photo and there are some more details e.g. when the photo was taken, the name of the photographer (or that the photographer is unknown) then there may be enough to go on.  If it is more recent then no, the email doesn't suffice as we need a more specific consent from the person who took the photo or their representatives if they are dead. Nthep (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I will ask the questions you pose. On looking closer at both your questions and the image itself perhaps I don't need to trouble the Society for Lincolnshire History and Archaeology again because their printed image was from a sales brochure dated simply "1917". Does this make things simpler and, if it does, can you help me deal with the upload because it really does scare me! Arbil44 (talk) 13:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * discussion continued at talk:Mary Ann Mansel. Nthep (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Main Street Connect logo.png
Would the calligraphic/scripted "M" used in this logo be considered simple text? If so, then this could probably be converted to PD-logo; if not, it likely fails WP:NFC as a non-free former logo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Photo of Canadian soldiers with a dog in World War Two
I wanted to add this picture to a Wiki article about the dog. The photo is from Library and Archives Canada, and its copyright is listed as expired. Since its claim is expired, can I upload it to Wikipedia even though I didn't get explicit permission from LAC? CplKlinger (talk) 07:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * : the Crown copyright has expired so upload to the commons with their template See: c:template:PD-Canada. ww2censor (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * As the source page says the photographer is unknown and that the source is the Canadian government but it is dated at October 1941 then this work is definitely PD in Canada as either it is a Crown Copyright work and can be uploaded to Commons using the licence template  or it an anonymous work and   is the appropriate licence. Due to the source being given as government I think the first is more likely. Note there is a template commons:template:LAC to help correct sourcing of files from Library and Archives Canada. Nthep (talk)

The 19 family letters written to Herbert Mansel by members of his family
Evening Nthep. I'm not sure if you saw my other query on the Mary Ann Mansel talk page? You may be deliberating your reply, of course, but just thought I'd put it here in case you haven't seen it? Arbil44 (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)