Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2019/September

Copyright - personal photo
File:Frederick_Barry_Opert.jpg  I have been given a photo by a family member of the subject to be used in publications. How do I indicate this?Peter.R.Hill (talk) 05:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . The file is currently missing a copyright license, and files lacking a copyright license are eligible for speedy deletion per speedy deletion criterion F4. If you were the original copyright holder of the image, you could simply pick any of the licenses listed in WP:ICT/FL and add it to the file's page; from your post, however, you don't appear to be the copyright holder which means you're going to need the WP:CONSENT of that person to release the file under a free license. As long as that person is the copyright holder, they can release the file under any of the free licenses that Wikipedia accepts. This seems like it should be quite simple, but there is a catch; the family member you received the photo from needs to be the copyright holder of the photo for this to work. Generally, the photographer taking a photo, not the subject of the photo (or their heirs), is considered to be copyright holder of the photo; so, if the family member didn't take this photo themselves, they cannot release it under a free license. In that case, you would need the CONSENT of the actual copyright holder of the photo.Once you've sorted out whose CONSENT you need, the easiest thing to do would to be to have that person email Wikimedia OTRS and verify their copyright ownership of the photo and their intent release the photo under a free license. An OTRS volunteer will review the email and will verify the file's licensing if there are no problems. Since OTRS doesn't accept forwarded emails, the copyright holder will need to send the email themselves. The copyright holder also should realize that Wikipedia only accepts free licenses that are non-revocable and don't place any restrictions on commerical or derivative use; in other words, the copyright holder basically needs to agree to allow anyone anywhere in the world to download the file at any time and use for any purpose. The only real restriction the copyright holder can place on the reuse of their work is to require that they be properly attributed as the original source of the photo anytime its reused by someone. So, if the copyright holder is willing to do that, then have them email OTRS; if not, then Wikipedia is not really going to be able to keep the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Multiple non-free images in the World Builder article infobox
As of this writing, the article for the World Builder software has two non-free images (a software icon and what appears to be a box art image) in the main infobox. For the box art image, a question that comes to mind is whether the image was created by photographing or scanning an original physical World Builder software package. In that case, there is the question as to whether there is an additional copyright that would be held by the party who photographed or scanned the packaging, in addition to the copyright for the packaging cover itself, and whether that copyright would have to be considered for hosting the image on Wikipedia. (To be sure, that may not be an issue; it may be that the only copyright for the image would be that for the packaging cover itself. Looking at the image, the text "For the Macintosh" in the lower left appears to be slanted, as is some of the text line above; that may be a result of a physical package being photographed or scanned.) In the event that the box art image is legitimate for Wikipedia, it may be worth considering as to whether it is necessary for the article infobox to have more than one non-free image. --Elegie (talk) 07:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . A new copyright would likely be generated if the box as a 3D object was being photographed, but this looks like c:Commons:2D copying to me. Taking the box the software came in, flattening it down and then scanning/photographing its cover wouldn't likely be seen as adding any real creative input to the process (at least not enough to establish an additional copyright for the scan/photo); it would likely just be seen the same way as taking a photograph of a painting (sans the frame) hanging on the wall in an art gallery. If, however, I place the 3D box in a particular way and photograph it in a particular way then that might be seen as adding enough creativity to establish a new copyright for the photo itself. I think ideally it would be best to find an official website for the box art, but if that's not available then perhaps this OK as long as WP:NFCC is being met. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the following images
JJMC89 (T•C) 7 September 2019 (UTC) inquired Where on Wikimedia Commons did you find the below files?

File:The Procession of Saint Gregory to the Castel Sant'Angelo (ca. 1470) Louvre.jpg File:The Annunciation with The Expulsion of Adam and Eva from Paradise (1440-45) Tempera & gold on wood (40 x 46 cm.) National Gallery of Art, Washington.jpg File:Scenes from the Life of Saint John the Baptist. (1454) National Gallery, London.jpg File:Sainte Claire Rescuing the Shipwrecked (ca. 1455) Gemäldegalerie Berlin.jpg File:Saint Jérôme appears at Saint Augustin (ca. 1465) Berlin Gemäldegalerie.jpg

When I uploaded the images identified as "download from wiki commons" I used the term somewhat liberally as a blanket statement.

I got most of the images on the Giovanni di Paolo page as follows - I did a Google search "Where to find copyright free images" and followed a link to "Find free-to-use images" https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/29508?hl=en I followed that link to "Advanced image search" https://www.google.com/advanced_image_search I did a search for "Find images with / all if these words" - "Giovanni di Paolo" - filtered by "usage rights" and "free to use or share" I picked out most of the images to create the Gallery on the Giovanni di Paolo page from these search results and downloaded them to my computer and did some minor formatting to them for consistency in sizes and captions.

In the course of looking for images I found many of the museums that hold these works post images from their collections on their respective websites explicitly identified as "public domain" and free to download. Form the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York -

"Materials Identified as Open Access. By waiving any rights to Materials identified as Open Access, the Museum makes those Materials available for any purpose, including commercial and noncommercial use, free of charge and without requiring permission from the Museum. Open Access works are made available under a Creative Commons Zero (CC0) license."

Other museums with CC0 download images of their collections include (but not limited to): National Gallery of Art, Washington; Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; National Gallery, London; Museum of Fine Arts, Houston.

I believe all of these images, over 500 years old, are in the public domain. If you believe they violate copyrights feel free to remove them. I posted them with the intention of disseminating information, education, and celebrating the works of the these artist. Although not my intention, I imagine having these paintings freely available on Wikipedia would only add to some level of prestige, value, and tourist interest for the museums that own them. Neither I, nor Wikipedia profit form posting these images. Thanks, --WiLaFa 18:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilafa (talk • contribs)

Update on images from the Louvre
Although I did not get this image directly from wiki commons, I have found it just now on the Louvre's website offering it and thousands of others for free downloads from their collection for non-commercial use https://art.rmngp.fr/en/library/artworks/di-paolo-giovanni_la-procession-de-saint-gregoire-au-chateau-saint-ange_huile-sur-bois — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilafa (talk • contribs) 21:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , so, firstly, yes CC-0 is a license compatible with Wikimedia projects. So, those which the museum has explicitly released as such may be used here (provided that the actual artwork itself is also PD, but their assessments of that look to be correct; many of those are far too old to still be copyrightable, and one hopes a well-regarded art museum knows how copyright works). You still will need to go through the normal process of saying how the media is licensed and where you found it, as files without that information are subject to deletion. However, we do not accept media with "no commercial use" or "educational use only" restrictions. Even though it would be legal for Wikipedia to use them under those restrictions, we want our readers to have the same ability to freely reuse content they find here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Question about two already-in-use images that were disallowed on other pages.
I have a question about why JJMC89 bot removed images from two pages, that were already in use on similar pages.

1. There is currently an image (File:WANG_103.5ThePossum_logo.png) included in the infobox for radio station WANG in Biloxi, Mississippi, which relates to its programming slogan as "103.5 the Possum". Recently a second station, WTNI, began carrying the identical programming ("simulcasting"), so I added the same logo image to its infobox. However, JJMC89 bot removed it. (Both WANG and WTNI have the same owner).

2. KSD (FM)'s infobox includes an image, File:93.7 The Bull.jpg, referring to its station slogan as "93.7 The Bull". I added this image to the Call signs in the United States page, as an example of a station that promotes a slogan instead of its assigned call letters. but again this was removed by JJMC89. Thanks.Thomas H. White (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Per WP:NFCC, each use of a non-free image (which both are) requires a new, separate non-free rationale for each page it is used on. The bot removed those images because there is no rationale for those new uses. --M asem (t) 17:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . As explained why the bot removed the files, I just want to add that simply adding the missing non-free use rationales doesn't automatically mean the files are OK to be used. There are ten non-free content use criteria that need to be satisfied each time a non-free file is used on Wikipedia, and WP:NFCC#10c is actually only just one (more specifically one part of one) criterion; so, simply providing a non-free use rationale doesn't mean (as explained in WP:JUSTONE) that a particular non-free use complies with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy.Generally, a non-free company logo like a radio station's logo is OK to be used when it's for primary identification purposes either at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the station in question; so, if WTNI is now actually using File:WANG 103.5ThePossum logo.png as part of its official branding, then it might be OK for that file to be used there. However, the calls letters and the possum imagery really need to be used by the station not just added because they're being used by a sister station and there should probably be some sort of reliably sourced critical commentary which discusses the brand change somewhere in the article for verification purposes.As for File:93.7 The Bull.jpg use in Call signs in the United States, this is going to be much more harder to justify. Non-free logos are generally not allowed to be used in genre, list or more general types of articles without specific sourced critical commentary actually discussing the logo itself per WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC. This because a free equivalent image (even a if it's a completely different logo for a different station) or even just text with a link to the Wikipedia article about the station itself (per item 6 of WP:NFC) is generally considered to serve the same encyclopedic purpose as a non-free one, unless there is a really good reason why the reader needs to see the non-free logo in order to understand the relevant article content in a way that they wouldn't be able to understand without seeing the logo (see WP:NFC). There's no reason (in my opinion) to use the "Bull logo file" in Call signs in the United States if it's only going to be used a representative example of all such logos; so, adding a non-free use rationale for that particular use wouldn't resolve anything other than the NFCC#10c issue. It would stop the bot from removing it, but the file would almost certainly be removed through consensus if it was discussed at WP:FFD.Finally, once again it's each use which needs to satisfy the ten non-free content use crtieria; so, per WP:OTHERIMAGE, it's entirely possible that the same file might be acceptable to be used in an article for primary identification purposes, but not in another different article or even again within the same article (just in a different way). Former logos can be particularly hard to justify for the reasons given in WP:NFC. The logos non-free use is OK when it's being used for primary identification purposes at the top of an article about a radio station, but almost always not OK in a gallery of non-free former logos or even in the body of the article itself unless the logo itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Probable copyright violation
The image File:Native_American_Map_of_Conemaugh_Valley_and_Surrounding_Hills.jpg appears to be a photograph of a page in a book. As such it would be a "slavish copy" under Image_use_policy. Regards, altjira (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That image is hosted on the commons c:File:Native_American_Map_of_Conemaugh_Valley_and_Surrounding_Hills.jpg, so you should take it up over there. ww2censor (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Copyright issues perhaps?
Hi

File has hard to read black text.

Zoom in to read text, find "www.euratlas.com" watermark in ALL the water areas.

File:ScythianGroups.png

Chaosdruid (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've nominated it for speedy deletion. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up on the World Builder article and multiple non-free images
At the current time, the World Builder software article has two non-free images in the main infobox-an application icon and a box art image. Assuming that the box art image is legitimate on copyright grounds (see this archived discussion), there is the question as to whether the article infobox requires two non-free images. (From what I understand, if there are two non-free images together even though only one of the two would suffice, then only one of the two images should be kept.) --Elegie (talk) 06:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * While I personally think the icon image is not really needed, articles about software products do seem to often include both a box cover image and icon image in the main infobox for primary identification purposes. I think this might be because more people probably do identify with the icon more than the box cover since the icon is what people see when using the software. Perhaps can help clarify this since he seems to have quite a bit of experience with this type of image use. Outside of the infobox, generally one non-free screenshot to show the software's interface is usually considered OK for use in the article body, but more than that tends to have problems satisfying WP:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The combo I have seen most for practical software (not video games) is the icon of the program and the *screenshot* of the program at work in the infobox. I've never seen icon + cover, and based on NFCI#1, one of those is unnecessary here for identification of the branding of the product. Given that this a product aimed at video games, the cover art is likely more apt than the icon, but that's only my opinion. --M asem (t) 13:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that we don't know which image (icon or cover) is more useful and are just guessing randomly. I also wonder whether WP:NFCC would actually mandate that only the icon be used if it turned out that 51% find the icon more identifying and 49% find the cover art more identifying. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

PD-logo?
File:KRZY JoseRadio logo.png and File:KDVA La Suavecita 106.9 & 107.1 logo.jpg are basically text logos with a bit of a 3D effect added. Is this really enough to push them above c:COM:TOO United States? Seems like a font which can be fairly easily be recreated these days.File:KVVF 105.7 Latino Mix Bay Area.png is a little more complex, but it too seems like it might not be complex enough to need to be licensed as non-free. The bar graph imagery (I don't know the specific term) seems pretty common to stereos, etc. and also unlikely to be eligible for copyright protection. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Helgi Thordersen.jpg
If this is really a photo of Helgi G. Thordersen, it would be more than 150 years old. Is the only reason it's being licensed as non-free is because the date of publication is being given as the date it appeared on this webpage? I can't say for sure, but it seems unlikely that was the first date of publication and that the website was even the original source of the photo. Can this be considered PD-US-expired, PD-old-100 or c:Template:PD-Iceland per c:COM:ICELAND? File:Hallgrímur Sveinsson.jpg and File:Þórhallur Bjarnarson.jpg are not as old but they are both at least more than 100 years old, and are also licensed as non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It sounds like a question for the uploader: NickGeorge1993. -- Asclepias (talk) 11:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Ware Group with Ware’s photo
If Wikipedia is fine with keeping a photo of Harold Ware on his own entry, then why is some bot continually taking down his photo for a group that has his name, the “Ware Group”?

I keep putting the photo back and asking for a clear a rationale, but the mindless bought just comes and ripped it out again and again without using the talk page as I keep requesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aboudaqn (talk • contribs) 12:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . File:Ware-harold-c1935.jpg is licensed as a non-free file and each use of a non-free file is required to satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. More specifically, there are ten non-free content use criteria which each use needs to meet, and the bot keeps removing the file each time you re-add because there is no separate, specific non-free content use rationale (as required by WP:NFCC) being provided for the file's use in Ware Group. This is why the bot is adding a link to WP:NFC to its edit summaries like this. Generally, Wikipedia's non-free content use policy does all non-free files of deceased persons to be uploaded and used for primary identification in the main infobox or at the tops of stand-alone articles about the individual in question; so, that is why the file is most likely OK to be used in Harold Ware. Using such files in other articles or in other ways tends to be much harder to justify; it's not impossible, just pretty hard and usually requires that the photo itself be the subject of sourced critical commentary. If you feel that the non-free use of this file is justifiable in the article about the "Ware Group", then please add the required non-free content use rationale to the file's page and then re-add the file to the article. However, just adding a rationale only satisfies WP:NFCC#10c and doesn't automatically mean the other nine criteria are automatically satisfied as explained in WP:JUSTONE; moreover, just because one particular use of the file is considered policy compliant, doesn't mean that all other uses are also automatically compliant as explained in WP:OTHERIMAGE. In this case, I don't think per WP:FREER and item 6 of WP:NFC that the use of this file in the main infobox of the "Ware Group" article can be justified, but others may disagree. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , thank you – I can explain as you recommend, but where/how specifically and in simple steps, please. Gratefully - Aboudaqn (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You need to add a non-free content use rationale explaining how the file meets all ten non-free content use criteria to the file's page. That gives other editors something to assess and it will stop the bot from removing the file. Once you add the rationale to the file's page, re-add the file to the article. However, someone may disagree with you and feel that the file's non-free use doesn't comply with relevant policy. In that case, they can challenge the rationale's validity by tagging the file with di-disputed fair use rationale or they can nominate the file for discussion at WP:FFD. As I posted above, I think the file's use in the article about Ware is fine; the use in the group article, however, seems problematic to me. At the same time, perhaps the rationale you provide will clarify things. The burden is upon you to provide a valid non-free use rationale per WP:NFCCE, and there's nothing to really discuss until you provide the rationale. The bot that removed the file is run by ; so, perhaps he can further clarify things if you're still finding it confusing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The New York Times

 * File:NewYorkTimesFrontPage-15Nov2012.jpg

I'm not quite sure I understand why we're using a 2012 image for the lead of this article, when the Times has been around plenty long enough to have editions that are in the public domain. Am I missing something here? G M G talk  19:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Adding images to an article
Hi, I'm completely new to Wikipedia, but I've just updated the entry on the ELFE cyclecar, a subject which I have been researching for a couple of years. Please feel free to correct any formatting errors I may have made, but at least the content is correct!

There are some excellent images in the public domain to illustrate the update, at BNF Gallica. I can't work out whether I can link to these?

I also have scans from defunct journals published in 1921 or 1922. Can I upload these, as I assume they are now out of copyright?

Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insultant (talk • contribs) 19:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm completely new to Wikipedia, but I've just updated the entry on the ELFE cyclecar, a subject which I have been researching for a couple of years. Please feel free to correct any formatting errors I may have made, but at least the content is correct!

There are some excellent images in the public domain to illustrate the update, at BNF Gallica. I can't work out whether I can link to these?

I also have scans from defunct journals published in 1921 or 1922. Can I upload these, as I assume they are now out of copyright?

Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insultant (talk • contribs) 19:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Inherited pictures
I've recently digitized about a thousand pictures taken by my (deceased) father, some of which might have encyclopedic value -- for example there's a picture of Kyrenia Gate in the late 1950s showing it has had some repair work done since then. I assume I can upload these with his name as author, but exactly how should I indicate permission? I now own the pictures but I am not the author. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Permission is normally verified by an OTRS permission statement. If your father was in fact the photographer, then, as his heir you can release the images freely. The commons has this heirs template c:Template:PD-heirs you might consider using. However you may still be asked to send an email to OTRS. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 11:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The first step is to determine who inherited the ownership of the copyright. If the copyright was not specifically attributed to anyone in particular (there is probably no mention of it except if your father was a professional photographer or artist), then it would be included with all the other unspecified rights and belongings and attributed the heir or heirs who inherited them according to the will or to the legal rules of distribution in the relevant jurisdiction. If you are the only heir, it simplifies things about what you can do. If you are not the only heir of the copyright, the next step is to request the consent of the (other) heir(s). They can publish the photos themselves, or they can transfer or license the copyright to you or they can mandate you to act on their behalf. If you publish the photos on Wikimedia Commons, yes you mention the name of the author, your father, as author. You, or the heir, do not need to release the photos to the public domain as suggested above. You may use any free license. On Commons, a few licenses already have template versions for heirs, but you can also choose any free license and use the ordinary version of the license template. In that last case, the fact that the license is granted by the heir can be mentioned somewhere in the decription page or on you user page. (But if you want to release the photos to the public domain, please prefer the template "Cc-zero-heirs" instead of the template "PD-heirs" suggested above.) If the permission of someone other than yourself is involved, they should confirm it to Wikimedia through email. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My sister and I are the only heirs; we split my father's material possessions by mutual agreement after his death, and I got the slides. I can certainly get her to agree to releases if necessary, but I'd rather not bother her for that if it's unnecessary.  I'm quite sure that she'd agree that after 34 years in possession there's no question I'm the heir for those items.  On that basis I'll go ahead with releases as you outline above, for whatever looks interesting.  One slide has a c. 1958 shot of Taksim graffiti on a wall in Nicosia, which would be nice to have, though unfortunately part of the T is chopped off. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . Just want to add that uploading the files under an acceptable license is no guarantee that they will be used on Wikipedia as explained in WP:IUP. Just as editors sometimes disagree over text, they sometimes disagree over image use; so, in that sense it becomes sort of a content dispute that needs to be resolved through discussion. Moreover, images uploaded locally to English Wikipedia can only be used on English Wikipedia, and those which go unused are often deleted per WP:NOTWEBHOST. For those reasons, you may be better off uploading the files to Wikimedia Commons instead. Files uploaded to Commons can be used by all Wikimedia Foundation projects (not just English Wikipedia) and Commons has no problem hosting files as long as they fall within its scope. Before you do so, however, you should read c:COM:L and c:COM:LRV. Commons only accepts licenses which don't place any restrictions on commercial or derivative use. So, you basically are giving advance permission to anyone anywhere in the world to download the file (more specifically the version you've decided release) at anytime and use for any purpose; the best you can really do is require them to attribute you as the source of the file. In addition, such licenses are considered to apply in perpetuity and you revoke them after-the-fact if you change your mind. These things might not matter to you either way, but some people mistakenly assume that the files they upload to Commons will be for "Wikipedia use only"; however, such a restrictive license is not accepted by either Commons or Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification; I do usually upload at Commons, and I'm fine with the license terms -- and of course the images may not be used and that's fine too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Image From a JSTOR scan of an out-of-print French journal (1922)
I'm working on Noel Peri and found a picture of the subject in a journal article archived on JSTOR (Link). This seems to be the only image I can find, and it is also used on his official bio page. The article was published in 1922, and the author of the article died in 1925 according to French Wikipedia and was published in a French journal. I think France follows the EU 'author's death + 75 years' standard.

However, there is no specific attribution of the photo that I've found and JSTOR lists the copyright owner for the whole article as a division of the French government (presumably on behalf of the University that published the journal) Copyright.com Copyright Status. The journal this appears in is out of print according to its archives.

I think this ought to be public domain, assuming copyright for the photo is the same as the article and the author died in 1925... however I don't know if there is a wrinkle in French copyright law, or if the fact that JSTOR is charging for reproductions means that it might need a fair use rationale. Any advice? --Spasemunki (talk)
 * If it was published in 1922, it's public domain in the US per Template:PD-US-expired. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There's been one German court that has ruled that scans of documents create a new copyright. It seems the jury is still out on whether there were any lobotomies involved in that decision. For the rest of the world that attempts to makes sense of their laws, no, scans are legally slavish reproductions introducing no creative elements that would be protected under copyright.  G M G  talk  21:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The life dates of the author of the text can't be used unless you know that he was the photographer. Do you have access to read the pages of this issue? If so, did you look if there was authorship information in the table of illustrations on pages 465-466? If you can't find any information about the photographer anywhere after a serious and diligent research, Commons might accept that you tag the photograph as published anonymously with "PD-anon-70-EU". -- Asclepias (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I went through the front matter, back matter, administrative docs, and table of illustrations, but there are no separate photo/illustration credits that I can find for any of the pieces in the journal. The entire piece is credited to Maitre with no separate photo credit. --Spasemunki (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In 1922, the EFIO was located in Hanoi. Depending if this photo was first published in Vietnam or in France, the tagging of the photo on Commons would probably be either "PD-US-expired"+"PD-Vietnam" or "PD-US-expired"+"PD-anon-70-EU". -- Asclepias (talk) 22:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

File:MilanPirocanac.png
Milan Piroćanac died in 1897 which means this photo is more than 100 years old. It seems unlikely to have been first published in 2004 per the source given for the file or that said sources is even the original source of the photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * While it may have been published previously but you might want to research that more, it might also not have been published, in which case 120 years is the term which was passed in 2017, so it appears to be in the public domain no matter what. ww2censor (talk) 10:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look at this . Any suggestions on where to check to see if it was published prior to 2004? Does the 120-year term still apply if it turns out that it wasn't published until that website did in 2004? It seems almost certain that the website is not the origin of the file; so, Wikipedia might not be able to host as non-free content it per WP:NFCC or WP:NFCC unless it can be determined where the photo actually came from. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Having been prime minister, it's quite likely this was previously published but you will have to find it. I tried Google books and archives.org but did not see anything. According to c:COM:SERBIA it would be in the public domain if it is "An anonymous work published before January 1, 1954". If not anonymous, the Serbia page says it's 70 years pma. ww2censor (talk) 09:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Picture that was taken from Wikipedia
So This picture File:Donquijoteshinjukucropped.jpg is currently specified as being without a licence because I wasn't sure how to specify that it is a cropped version of another picture uploaded onto Wikipedia under the CC BY-SA 3.0 licence. Help would be appreciated thanks Eddiehimself (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added the correct tag template. The license needs to be indicated by such a tag to be machine readable. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you, your help is much appreciated Eddiehimself (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Strike at Hormel image usage question
Hello, wondering if the File:Strike at Hormel Packing Plant, Austin, 1933.jpg. is appropriate for fair-use and free usage on Wikipedia. Thank you.

Hello-Mary-H (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No,, because the reader doesn't need to see this image to understand that there was a strike in 1933. The meaning is perfectly clear when communicated by text alone. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, thank you, . Is there a process for looking at possibly deleting it off of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormel page? Looks like the picture was uploaded on July 9, 2019. Thank you.

Hello-Mary-H (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've nominated the file for deletion. If and when it's deleted, it will be automatically removed from the article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

1976 photograph under copyright?
Page 17 (19 of the pdf) of the April 1976 issue of Cornell alumni news includes a photograph of Robert Kaske, taken by George Simian. Is this photograph under copyright? In particular, I'm wondering if copyright was properly established, and, if not, whether that would place the photograph in the public domain. Page 4 (6 of the pdf) contains a succinct "All rights reserved" notice; the all rights reserved article suggests that this might have some legal currency, but the copyright notice article suggests the opposite. Any help clarifying this, and establishing the copyright status of the photograph, would be much appreciated. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 04:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * , would you have any idea about this? Asking, since you previously weighed in with helpful information on a similar question about copyright formalities. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Just to note that George Simian is still alive and well so unlikely to be free of copyright for a long time. MilborneOne (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . Yes, I saw his website. If it's still under copyright I'll send him an email to see if he would be interested in licensing it, though, as a commercial photographer, one can understand that he might be reluctant. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Walkabout Cover Nov 1934.jpg
I seem to be caught in an infinite loop. JJMC89 bot removed the 1934 image of the cover of the first cover of Walkabout magazine. I added it back after getting message from  "Thanks for uploading File:Walkabout Cover Nov 1934.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed...". The cover is now 84 years old. The magazine is defunct since the late 70s. I don't understand why the core image has been removed for a second time. It's exasperating, since the discussion in the whole section right next to the image makes it of crucial relevance to the article. How do I dodge around the bots' mechanical arms and advance this? Very grateful for your assistance! Jamesmcardle(talk) 04:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . You don't dodge around bots, but rather try and understand why they are doing what they are doing. Have you tried discussing things with who runs the bot? If not, then maybe doing so will help clarify why the file is being removed.  typically removes files per WP:NFC; so, it removes files which are missing either a copyright license or non-free use rationale. A non-free use rationale is required for each use of a non-free file per non-free content use criterion 10c and not having the required rationale is one of the main reasons why files are usually removed from articles. Providing a non-free use rationale is no guarantee though as explained in WP:JUSTONE since there are nine other non-free content use criteria which need to be satisfied. Non-free book cover art is generally considered OK to use per item 2 of WP:NFCI when the cover art is used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the book in question; other types of non-free use or use in sections of other articles, however, tends to be much harder to justify as explained in WP:NFC.Some other things for reference. Being 84 years old is not really that old when it comes to copyright status (see c:COM:HIRTLE for some specifics), and only content first published prior to 1 January 1924 is typically considered to be too old to be still eligible for copyright protection in the US. Moreover, whether a company is no longer in existence doesn't really have any bearing on the copyright status of it's intellectual property. A copyright might lapse because it's not been renewed by anyone since there's nobody around to do the renewing, etc.,  but it doesn't automatically become void because the company goes out of business. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that helps me understand the issues... I will get in touch with . Jamesmcardle(talk) 05:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It was removed because you uploaded it under a non-free license and WP:NFCC is not met. In fact, it doesn't have a non-free use rationale at all. From what I can tell, it is PD in Australia. However, I don't know which of c:COM:HIRTLE "Works Published Abroad Before 1978" applies to determine US copyright. If it cannot be determined that it is PD in the US, then WP:NFCCP applies. I've added what information I could to the file description page. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Since it became PD in Australia quite a while back - 1984, it is also PD in USA. As copyright had expired before copyright restored under URAA. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

File with different file history
Probably not the right place for this question, but I've been looking for a better place and can't find one. Anyhow, this file: File:Europcar.jpg is weird. The file history isn't the same as the file itself. It claims that it has a copy on Commons as well but it's just a redirect (which I guess is the reason to the file history problem). Sorry if this is the wrong place but rather the wrong place than no place.Jonteemil (talk) 03:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is T30299. File:Europcar.jpg was shadowing c:File:Europcar.jpg (redirect to c:File:Europcar coach.jpg). I've moved it to File:Europcar logo 2.jpg to fix the problem. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 03:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks!Jonteemil (talk) 16:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Herbarium type samples and copyright
Howdy hello! As part of my job I have access to a rather large collection of herbarium samples as well as several thousand type samples of plants (the original sample from which an entire species was defined). I was thinking of photographing many of them and adding them to Wikipedia articles, but then I wondered if that is a copyright issue. Each sample includes a physical plant, and a label by a botanist giving details about the collection. Obviously I could just photograph the plant itself (as I can release my own photos CC-BY-SA), but can I include photos of the labels on these samples? Is the text of the description of locations/habitats/plants by botanists copyrighted? See for example. I originally asked this at and was suggested to come here. Any help would be appreciated! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Assuming the details are mostly functional - that is, things like location, area, etc. and not descriptive, then the text would not be copyrightable as data, and thus the photos with labels would still be free. The photo above suggests this is the case. --M asem (t) 05:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Screenshot of a video
Can I take snapshot from a public video (for example on youtube) and then upload it on Wikipedia as a main picture of a public person in the Infobox?--2601:1C0:CB01:2660:8D79:239A:124E:E0A7 (talk) 04:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If the person is still alive, then this is only allowed if the video itself has been uploaded by a reliable source and that it has been uploaded with YouTube's Creative Commons license, then yes. IF the person is long since dead (like > 6mo), then you can use a screenshot as a non-free image. --M asem (t) 05:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi IP 2601:1C0:CB01:2660:8D79:239A:124E:E0A7. Just to add to what Masem posted above, "reliable source" generally means "original content creator/copyright holder". So, the creators/copyright holders of a TV show upload episodes from their show to their personal or the show's official YouTube channel, then you can create a screenshot from that and upload it to Wikipedia. On the other hand, if someone other than the creators/copyright holders of the show uploads the episode without the permission of the creators/copyright holders, you can still create a screenshot, but Wikipedia won't accept it even under YouTube's Creative Content license. You might want to read Wikipedia:Copyrights and c:Commons:Screenshot for some more details.Now, it may be possible to upload the screenshot as non-free content per item 5 of Wikipedia:Non-free content, but only when the intended use complies with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. This policy is quite restrictive and, as Masem points out, a non-free image/screenshot of a still-living person is pretty much never going to be allowed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Use of low resolution image of cover of IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate September 25, 2019?
I uploaded a low-resolution of the cover of the IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate here in and also on  Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons here  for article I created Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate and potentially for a Wikinews item on that article.

I used the same rationale as that used for the use of a of the similar Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C.

I changed the image size using CorelPaint Shop. Is this acceptable?

I posted a similar question on the Wikimedia Commons. I have not yet received a response, but after reading some of the other comments, I understand that this rationale can sometimes be used in Wikipedia but not in Wikimedia?

Thank you for any guidance you can give me.Oceanflynn (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . Commons and Wikipedia are really separate projects with their own respective policies and guidelines. There's lots of overlap, but there are some important difference as well. Commons will not accept any fair use content, while Wikipedia does (under certain conditions). If you're going to upload something to Commons, it will need to meet c:Commons:Licensing; if it doesn't, the file will be deleted. If you're going to upload something to Wikipedia, it will need to meet Wikipedia:Copyrights. The resolution of a file really only matters if you upload it locally to Wikipedia as Wikipedia:Non-free content (see Wikipedia:Non-free content for more details); it doesn't matter as much with respect to Commons or freely-licensed/public domain files uploaded to Wikipedia and high resolution images are generally preferred over low resolution images. Most cover art (e.g. book covers, album covers) and logos (e.g. sports team, company) are things which are considered to be protected by copyright and Commons will not accept them unless it can be shown that the original copyright holder has released them under an acceptable free license; Wikipedia will accept them as non-free content, however, but only when their use(s) meet Wikipedia's non-free content use policy.The file you uploaded to Wikipedia as File:IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere LR.jpg seems OK, but it might need to be further reduced in size. This file, however, will eventually be tagged for speedy deletion per speedy deletion criterion F5 if it's not used in at least one article as required by non-free content use criterion #7. The file you uploaded to Commons as c:File:IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere.jpg has already been tagged for speedy deletion and will end up deleted unless you can clarify how the file's licensing meets Commons requirements. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for this clarification. I added the image to the relevant Wikipedia article. I had wanted to use the image in WikiNews. Will that be a problem if it is not in Wikimedia Commons The WikiNews item has to be published while it is still news :)?Oceanflynn (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I had noticed it was tagged for a speedy deletion. I had tried unsuccessfully to find the talk page to clarify how the file's licensing might meets Commons requirements. I will try again.Oceanflynn (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Non-free content can only be used in the article namespace per non-free content use criterion #9; so, this file cannot be displayed anywhere else on Wikipedia. Non-free files are uploaded locally to (English) Wikipedia which means that it you want to use them on another Wikimedia Foundation project, like WikiNews, you will have to upload the file to Commons or locally to the other project. Each project has their own policies and guidelines, however, and not all of them accept non-free content per meta:Non-free content. If you want to contest the speedy deletion of a Commons file, the place to do so would be on the file's talk page; if the page doesn't exist yet, just create it by adding your comment. Another option would be to replace the speedy deletion template with a nomination for deletion template per c:Commons:Deletion requests. A "deletion request" is a formal discussion as to whether a file should be deleted and anyone can comment; the comments will eventually be reviewed by a Commons administrator who figure out what should be done. In this particular case though I think a "deletion request" will only prolong the inevitable if you cannot demonstrate the file has either been previously released under an acceptable license or that the copyright holder has agreed to release it under an acceptable license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I did hear from the Commons that it would not be accepted there so I will not be able to use it in the WikiNews item. I will not prolong the inevitable. :) Thank you again for providing the useful steps for the future. Oceanflynn (talk) 02:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Help to resolve Image source problem
I had created a myself based on. But while uploading through default media adding option in wikipedia page edit-mode I was getting duplicate name issue although the other file was with file extension .jpg. So I went for other way without going through default wizard where maybe I missed something and I was informed in my talk page that there is Image source problem. So I would like to know how can I resolve it?

The base file I used says in license that: For the same I guess I have set same license while uploading the file. Is attribution missing or required for this work which is actually created by me? If yes kindly help me in what way I can add that? If not then what other issue is hindering or raising such issue?
 * share alike – If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same or compatible license as the original.

Thanks and Regards, --Vikram Nankani (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @Vikram Nankani: your file is fine, but since it is a derivative work, attribution is required. I have fixed it here. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 14:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Magog the Ogre thank you for helping me to fix the issue. Regards.--Vikram Nankani (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Screenshot of a figure from an academic journal
I'd like to add a screeshot of a figure from an academic journal just so show the morphology of the fly P. xanthostoma. I found it on the article "SEXUAL SELECTION, GENETIC ARCHITECTURE, AND THE CONDITION DEPENDENCE IN THE SEXUALLY DIMORPHIC FLY PROCHYLIZA XANTHOSTOMA" I didn't know how to directly save the image so I took a screencap and would like to know what the licensing should say in order for it not to get deleted. I am very very new to Wikipedia (I have gotten strated within the last week) and would appreciate it if people gave me some guidance. I control-found "copyright" on the journal and did not see anything about the licensing. So I have no idea how to add this image.

Chickfilkay (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * . The pdf of the file that I found on the author's website is clearly marked "(c) 2005 The Society for the Study of Evolution. All rights reserved." It cannot be used. All journal articles are under copyright, whether by the publisher, authors, or both. Some are licensed in such a way that they can be reused, usually with one of the Creative Commons licenses. They will say so clearly, usually at the bottom of the first page of the paper. If you find a copy of a paper that says nothing about licensing that means it hasn't been licensed for reuse. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)