Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2020/April

Television logo typeface
Hello all, I just have a quick question. It looks like File:Game of Thrones 2011 logo.svg is in the public domain and uploaded to Wikimedia Commons due to it not meeting the threshold of originality. It does however have a file tag that it most likely is trademarked. The logo is supposed to be appear with on a today's featured list in mid-April, see Today's featured list/April 17, 2020. I just want to make sure it is suitable to appear on the Main Page. Thank you. --   LuK3      (Talk)   19:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between trademark and copyright and Commons hosts lots of files of logos which are too simple to be considered eligible for copyright protection, but which are trademarked. Commons licensing isn't an exact science for sure in that there usually isn't a specific court case which states a particular file it's hosting is "too simple to be eligible for copyright protection"; it seems those who developed Commons's various policies and guidelines over the years tried to do so based upon whatever court cases or legal examples they could find that existed and then worked from there. Most others work from such examples and then try to correspondingly apply them to other files based upon their experience or other discussions related to other files. So, unless Wikipedia has somehow prohibited the use of trademarked content on its main page, it would seem that it should be OK to use there if it's considered OK to use on any other Wikipedia page. The main page might be where it gets the most attention in a short period of time, but it will continue to be used in various articles and hosted on Commons regardless of whether it shows up on the main page for a few days.If you're asking whether the file is "too simple to be copyrighted" then that's a different question and is one that will most likely need to be resolved on Commons. c:COM:L requires that logos, etc. uploaded under a c:Template:PD-textlogo license like this file is be WP:PD in the United States and their country of origin. If the country of origin is also the US (as appears to be the case here), then that means c:COM:TOO United States is going to be how this file's threshold of originality is going to be assessed. The only way the file will be likely removed from Commons is if it's considered too complex to be public domain and is instead seen as c:COM:FAIR, but you might need to try c:COM:DR to establish that. If you want to play it safe and not use the file on the main page, you can I guess as long as others feel the same way; however, it might be hard to convince others of such a thing if you try and argue that the file is otherwise OK for Commons and OK for other Wikipedia pages, but just not OK for the main page. Isn't there a talk page for the main page where you can discuss such things? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Eg File:Red Dwarf logo.png is such a logo that is literally just a typeface + simple object, but because the work is UK, the arrangement is considered artistic enough that we cannot have it at Commons, but consider it fine under the US threshold of originality. --M asem (t) 23:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Logo for Children’s Museum of Southern Minnesota removed and marked for deletion - Why?
The bot User:‎JJMC89 bot removed the logo (File:Cmsm logo.png) from the Children’s Museum of Southern Minnesota page, and then user User:‎JJMC89 has flagged the logo for deletion since it is copyrighted and not used on a page. What should I change in the fair use notice of the image to keep it from being automatically removed/deleted by bots? Am I misunderstanding something about the fair use policy? --Nirobbins (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added the Non-free use rationale logo template. Am I ok to add it back to the Children’s Museum of Southern Minnesota page? Nirobbins (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It all looks OK to me. You should now be able to re-add the image back into the infobox.  20:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I readded it to the article. ww2censor (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Vector graphics recreation of "complicated" logo - is it free or non-free?
I recreated the US version of File:KR-logo.png in Inkscape for use on Crazyracing Kartrider, and they look practically the same (including the TM, but excluding the "Crazyracing" word mark and with shorter height due to the official changes in the US logo). What do I classify vectorizations of logos as, especially where the contents seemingly do not fall under simple geometrical content? - Ray Koopa (talk) 12:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

General question about derivative works
Can you please provide some guidance as to the copyright status of derivative works, where the work is essentially a rendition of an original work that is now in public domain?

For instance, if the New York Philharmonic plays and records a piece by Mozart that is obviously in the public domain, does this new rendition have a separate copyright (that can be non-free), or must it be released under a free license or in the public domain? Does the answer to this depend on the amount of "original" contribution added by the Philharmonic (and therefore, if their performance is nearly identical to the original piece by Mozart, it would not have any additional copyright)? Are there clear laws or court rulings about this particularly with regard to music? Please ping me in your responses. huji— TALK 14:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Toronto Star Archives
I'm uncertain if the following image should be PD: File:Raymond Moriyama.jpg – the source is the Toronto Star archives via The Toronto Public Library Digital Archive, which lists the license information here. According to this, it is free for "personal, educational, and research use" but specifically notes a licensing fee for commercial use, which leads me to think it's not public domain. I am uncertain how to proceed. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , unlikely to be public domain. It was first published 1967, so too new to be automatically PD. It seems from their license page, they don't allow publication without permission, hence a copyvio here.
 * I've nominated it for deletion.  Alex Noble / 1-2 / TRB  19:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've nominated it for deletion.  Alex Noble / 1-2 / TRB  19:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Image copyright question?
Is this picture in the public domain under PD-old-100? Eddie891 Talk Work 23:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes it is. The original painting is too old for copyright protection, and photographs that are essentially a reproduction of a two-dimensional work, are not original enough for copyright, in the same way as scanning a document gives no new copyright.
 * Additionally, it can be uploaded to Commons, per Why do we allow the PD-Art tag to be used for photographs from any country?  Alex Noble / 1-2 / TRB  09:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * : The topic of copyright claims of digitised public domain art is discussed in detail in this article The Public Domain vs. the Museum: The Limits of Copyright and Reproductions of Two-dimensional Works of Art. ww2censor (talk) 09:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * : The topic of copyright claims of digitised public domain art is discussed in detail in this article The Public Domain vs. the Museum: The Limits of Copyright and Reproductions of Two-dimensional Works of Art. ww2censor (talk) 09:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I have 5 images which I'm not sure who to attribute to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lam_pin_min_singapore.jpg (Parliament of Singapore) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lam-Pin-Min-cover-pic.jpg (MustShareNews) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lam_pin_min_prof_lionel_lee_east_timor.jpg (SAF Medical Corps) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lam_pin_min_east-timor-orphanage.jpg (MustShareNews cited it as from https://web.archive.org/web/20180307183134/http://lampinmin.sg/) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lam_pin_min_sunny_2.png (same as 2nd pic but i cropped it)

I've been looking around on the file pages and i have no idea what i have to input, where, how, despite reading all the instructions. I'm not sure if this is where I'm supposed to upload it but I'm really at a loss here. Nyoome (talk) 08:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * image 1 isn't permitted, per commons:project:SINGAPORE - government works have 70 years of copyright protection.
 * The rest has no evidence of any other license, so must be assumed to be copyrighted.
 * In short, unless an image is clearly stated to be released under another license, it is probably copyrighted, and so can't be uploaded here.  Alex Noble / 1-2 / TRB  09:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In short, unless an image is clearly stated to be released under another license, it is probably copyrighted, and so can't be uploaded here.  Alex Noble / 1-2 / TRB  09:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In short, unless an image is clearly stated to be released under another license, it is probably copyrighted, and so can't be uploaded here.  Alex Noble / 1-2 / TRB  09:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Alright got it, how do i delete images? I read that a speedy deletion may result in a block and I don't want that hahah Nyoome (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , you won't be blocked unless you're uploading thousands of copyrighted images, or the images are obvious spam or something.
 * A bot goes through images without a license tag, and removes them after 7 days. So you don't have to do anything.  Alex Noble / 1-2 / TRB  09:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . You can add Template:Db-g7 to the top of each file's page if you like since you are the person who uploaded the files; just explain why you're doing so in your edit summary. Also, you might want to take a look at c:Commons:Licensing and Wikipedia:Image dos and don'ts for future reference if you're planning on uploading any more files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . You can add Template:Db-g7 to the top of each file's page if you like since you are the person who uploaded the files; just explain why you're doing so in your edit summary. Also, you might want to take a look at c:Commons:Licensing and Wikipedia:Image dos and don'ts for future reference if you're planning on uploading any more files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Independent Restaurant Coalition
The bot removed File:Independent Restaurant Coalition logo.jpg from this page for "No valid non-free use rationale for this page", and then another bot tagged it for deletion because it was orphaned fair-use. I did add a fair-use tag when I uploaded it, but obviously I've done something incorrectly. I'm not sure how to fix it. Thanks for any help! —valereee (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . Bots sometimes have a hard time figuring out rationales like the one you provided because they don’t specifically contain a link to the article(s) where the file is being used. You should have no problems if you convert the rationale to Template:Non-free use rationale logo or add a link to the article where you intend to use the file to the rationale you provided. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you! —valereee (talk) 11:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Possible youtube copylink problem, with rehosting 5-minute Fox News clip on youtube
I wish to discuss a potential copylink problem on the page Harold Ambler. The concerning link is this one, which links to a 5-minute section of a Fox Red Eye broadcast. The video is hosted on Youtube on a non-Fox-affiliated account. The account may be the interview subject's account or a fan account. This rehosting seems analogous to a similar conversation at the external links noticeboard here.

This has been discussed extensively at the talk page with no resolution.

Thanks for your thoughts! Jlevi (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

1) Appears to be non-profit; only one video posted by the youtube account. Adds meaning (transformative) by excerpting and linking to Wikipedia's "Global warming" article. (Note: other two examples previously discussed did not do similar). 2) Is a factual work (thus "is more likely to be fair"). 3) Uses a small fraction, about 1/12 (5/60 minutes) of the original hour long show. 4) Approximately zero impact on "owner’s ability to profit from their original work." -- Yae4 (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair use. I reviewed Google's youtube fair use guidance. Based on the four criteria, I conclude it is "fair use," not copyright violation:


 * It's not appropriate for its purpose which is to simply document that Ambler was on a FOX news segment; instead you want to use a cite episode template for the Red Eye show. You just need to find the date of the show to lock that citation down (I don't know if that March 2009 date on the link is right) Eg: it like linking to a improper copy of Star Wars on YouTube to say Star Wars exists. --M asem (t) 15:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * All the article says now is he was on the show; it could be expanded to summarize the points made during the interview. I think the March date is approximate, but will try to identify the exact episode; the problem is it was before the shows were being archived at archive.org. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi . Sorry to ask more of you, but it seems that there remains a lack of clarity. I am reading your statement to mean that 1) it is not okay to link to that particular youtube link, and 2) that it is not necessary anyway (eg. that the episode information is needed, and not necessarily any URL). Thanks! Jlevi (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That is correct. You don't need to link to that video but instead just provide the episode citation and that avoids any copyright questions, if all you are stating is that he was on the program. Now if there's a specific statement that he made that should be highlighted, then maybe linking to the video as well would help, and that might fall in fair use, but I'd avoid it if you can in the first place. --M asem (t) 20:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe what Masem is referencing here is WP:SAYWHERE. In other words, reliable sources only need to be published and accessible, not be available online; so, if the source is considered reliable you can cite it as such without linking to YouTube or any other video site, particularly if the original copyright holder didn’t upload the content you want to cite. A link might be helpful as a WP:CONVENIENCE to the reader, but should be avoided if there are concerns per WP:ELNEVER and WP:COPYLINK. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Similar issue: there is also a possible rehosting problem associated with this link from a local radio station broadcast. Is this a similar circumstance? The discussion on audio content in policies and guidelines is smaller than that regarding video. Jlevi (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note the host of the WBLQ shows, Ann Marie Spatharakis, also has a channel,, and the link being questioned (currently) appears to be Part 1 of a 2 part interview (but part 2 was posted twice on Spatharakis' channel). There's no copyright issue here either. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, if the show's copyright owner uploades the media segment themselves, that removes the copyright issue of linking to it. --M asem (t) 20:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Image copyright problem
I was using the image in SpongeBob SquarePants: Legend of the Lost Spatula in the video game series article for SpongeBob SquarePants video games. Why is this considered a violation? --Osh33m (talk) 01:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . The bot that removed the file is operated by an administrator named ; so, you can ask him for more specific details if you like. The edit summary left by the bot here explains why the file is removed and if you click on WP:NFC you'll find more details, but basically non-free use is not automatic and there are ten non-free content use criteria which need to be met for each use of a non-free file. The bot is removing the file per WP:NFCCE and WP:NFCC because it lacks a separate specific non-free use rationale for the "Legend of the Lost Spatula" article; so, if you provide the missing rationale, the bot should stop removing the file. However, as explained in WP:JUSTONE, just providing a rationale doesn't automatically make a particular non-free use compliant and someone else can either remove the file or challenge the rationale if they feel the particular use still doesn't satisfy all of the ten aforementioned criteria. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for responding. I actually typed the question here because this is where the bot led me. I believe using the image from Legend of the Lost Spatula is fair use, and I can explain my rationale for it but where would I go to do so? Would I edit it back in with the rationale or would I have to go to a specific request section on wikipedia? Osh33m (talk) 14:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * First, just want to point out that there's a difference in meaning (at least with respect to Wikipedia) between "fair use" and "non-free content" as explained in WP:NFC and it's the latter definition that is going to matter here.Next, non-free content is required to be used in at least one article per WP:NFCC, but it may be used in more than one article as long as each use complies with the non-free content use policy. A single use of a non-free file is, in a sense, already considered to be a exception to WP:COPY which means that any additional uses are going to be considered to be even more exceptional. In other words, the more a non-free file is being used the harder its going to be to justify each additional use per WP:NFCC.Each non-free use needs its own rationale per WP:NFCC; so, if you believe this other use is justified, then you need to add a rationale for it to the file's page. You shouldn't really try to combine multiple uses into a single rationale or tweak/modify an existing rationale to accommodate a new use because the respective uses might not actually be the same or you might unintentionally cause an existing use to become "rationaleless" in some way. Just add a new rationale to the file's page which clarifies how the particular use satisfies all ten non-free content use criteria. If you're not sure how to do this, look at WP:FUR for some examples.One thing about this file to try and keep in mind is that video game box cover art is generally going to be considered to be OK when used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article; so, the use in SpongeBob SquarePants: Legend of the Lost Spatula seems fine. The use of such box cover art, however, is not so clear when it comes to list articles or more general articles about a game series where multiple video games are covered. In such a case, it might be better to use some kind of logo/image to represent the branding for the entire series (if one exists) or a more general logo like shown in c:Category:SpongeBob SquarePants logos for simple identification purposes instead of the cover art from a specific game in the series as explained in WP:NFLISTS. Even if no such general logo or acceptable common logo exists, it still might be hard to justify the specific cover art from a single game and instead no image should be used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * First I just want to say that I appreciate the response you gave, that was very elaborate. I think I understand the problem here, and I can explain my rationale for how the secondary use of the image would not violate non-free content. To go off of your last point about how using the image for Legend of the Lost Spatula is not clear for a video game series, I was following the article Harry Potter video games as a model. If you look at that article, it uses the cover art for Philosopher's Stone in the infobox, the PC version. The convenient thing is, is that that game is multiplatform, so the the article for the Philosopher's Stone video game uses cover art for the Ps1 version of the game, and that same image does not have to be used twice in the series article. The logic is that that box art is used in the series article because it is the first installment, and that is the logic I followed for the SpongeBob SquarePants video games article. The problem herein lies that Legend of the Lost Spatula is exclusive to the Game Boy Advance, so no alternative box art exists. Looking at the page for the image itself, I don't know where I would add a rationale for using it in the new article. The only thing I was thinking, was that I could just upload the same image again and have it be a separate entity for the article, but instead I just used a cover art for a compilation of SpongeBob video games for the PC. However, I still believe that the box art for Legend of the Lost Spatula would be more appropriate, and the current image should be deleted. Does this make sense? Feel free to comment back if some things still seem missing. --Osh33m (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you look at File:Cover Art for Harry Potter video game Philosopher's Stone.jpg, you'll see that another editor has challenge its non-free use rationale; so, as explained in WP:OTHERIMAGE, trying to justify a particular non-free use based upon similar uses of similar files in other article doesn't always work. For sure, sometimes it can give you an idea as to whether it might be OK, but it's no guarantee. This is not too different from similar arguments like WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:OTHERCONTENT, etc. Just because someone has created and article or added content to an article or even added a file to an article, it doesn't meant that they should've done any of those things or that it's OK for another person to try and so something similar.You can add a rationale to a file's page pretty much in the same way you add content to any page; you open the edit window and add the rationale. Many file's have sections titled "Summary" or "Non-free use rationale" which is probably as good as a place as any to add the one you want to add. If the file already has a non-free rationale for another use, you should be able to just add the one you want to add right below it. However, as I also pointed out above, adding a rationale is WP:JUSTONE and it can still be challenged by another editor if they feel the rationale isn't valid (i.e. the use doesn't meet all of the remaining non-free content use criteria).I wouldn't recommend that you upload the same non-free file twice for separate non-free uses because (1) it's not really necessary to do so because an non-free file can be used more that once and (2) it won't make either of the individual uses automatically compliant and most likely one of the two will end up being deleted as redundant or unused. Unless it's a different file altogether or in a different format, you shouldn't need to upload a completely new file. If there's a minor change in the file (e.g size, straightening), you can just update the exiting file with a "new" version.You might want to ask about this at WT:VIDEOGAME since one of that WikiProject's members might be able to suggest something for the series article. might also be a good person to ask because he an admin, has lots of experience with non-free content use, and also seems quite knowlegable about video game articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So looking at File:Cover Art for Harry Potter video game Philosopher's Stone.jpg, the editor that challenged its non free-use rationale was, the same user whose bot removed the image in question from the SpongeBob article, and the challenge was added just yesterday, so I'm inclined to believe that it's under dispute now because I brought attention to it. Otherwise the image was being displayed there all this time without any challenge towards it. I also did create a section for the SpongeBob article in WT:VIDEOGAME - which was mainly for assistance in filling in the article, but it was futile. I think I have come across 's radar before so perhaps I should reach out to him for my concerns in this article as well. In the meantime though, I understand that I shouldn't upload the same image twice. The current image will suffice for now. --Osh33m (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Since Wikipedia can be pretty much edited by anyone anywhere in the world at anytime, problematic content can ofte go unnoticed for quite a long time as explained in WP:LONGTIME and WP:CONTENTAGE, and the same applies to image related matters as explained in WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED. In some cases, something added a long time ago might have actually even be considered to be OK at that time, but for whatever reason now is no longer considered appropriate, and something being around a long time doesn't not necessarily mean it still should continue to be around. How an editor may come across content they feel is problematic is not really relevant; the fact that they do think the content is inappropriate, however, means that WP:SILENCE no longer applies and that the content is considered to be contentious. The best thing to do when that happens is to try and resolve things per WP:DR and see what the consensus turns out to be. A non-free file tagged for speedy deletion is usually done because someone feels it's non-free clearly doesn't satisfy relevant policy. Speedy deletion isn't automatic, and such files are ultimately reviewed by an administrator who will determine whether this is indeed the case. You can challenge such tags by explaining why on the file's talk page why you think it does meet relevant policy and the administrator reveiwing the tag will look at both claims and decide what to do; so, that's probably the best place for you to post your justification for the file's use  because that's where the reviewing administrator is going to be looking. If the administrator feels that further dicsussion is needed to resolve things, then they will either suggest discussing the file at WP:FFD or start a discussion about it there themselves. Even if the adminstrator does end up deleting the file, there still may be options available at WP:REFUND, WP:DRV or even per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE if someone feels the deletion was in error. At some point though, the person wanting the file deleted and the person wanting the file kept may have no choice but to just move on to something else per WP:STICK if the community doesn't agree with their position. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Should I upload or not?
Hello i was thinking of uploading a image of a school logo but i don't know where to start because there are some schools with logos on wikipedia without problems but i don't know if i should upload any. Edit: I don't really want to risk it without knowing if i can upload it also the image is a logo of Reynella Primary School but can't upload unless i know it can be uploaded. 2 Edit: Can i really upload any School Logo?}} Gold Wario (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . It's hard to give you a specific answer without knowing a few more details, but generally whether a logo file can be uploaded (as explained in Wikipedia:Logos) often depends upon its copyright status, where (i.e. which Wikipedia page) you want to use the logo and how you intend to be use it. I'm not finding any Wikipedia article titled Reynella Primary School so I'm not sure which Wikipedia page you want to use the logo on. If you can at least clarify that and then perhaps where the logo can already be seen online (i.e. a website where the logo can be seen), then perhaps someone can better answer your question. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If it's this logo, I'd guess it's below the threshold of originality and therefore copyright wouldn't be an issue. buidhe 10:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah it is that logo that User:Buidhe is saying Edit: Yeah i would create the article if the Logo is fine to upload  but  is saying its fine.
 * Gold Wario (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi again . Uploading a logo and creating a WP:ARTICLE are two completely different things. Articles don’t need logos to be created, but articles do need to be about something considered to be Wikipedia notable to avoid being deleted. One of the main reasons articles are deleted is because they are written about subjects not considered to be Wikipedia notable. So, I suggest you first figure out whether this school is considered to be Wikipedia notable. If it is, create an article about it and then worry about the logo. If it isn’t, then there’s no reason to upload the logo. You can find out more about what kinds of schools are generally considered Wikipedia notable at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, WP:SCHOOLS or by asking at WT:SCHOOLS. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is being discussed on Gold Wario's talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Copy of music/composition of alma mater written by Samuel Barber in 1928
In, offered to contribute a document to Wikipedia:

What is the copyright status of this document? I'm also going to refer 2601:246:4800:58b0:c0bb:6703:b099:6189 here to answer any questions if needed. —  Newslinger  talk   11:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If it was published in 1928, it could be uploaded, temporarily deleted, and undeleted in 2024 (95-year rule). If unpublished, it could be copyrighted decades into the future. Of course, the heirs could release the composition under a free license which would be great. buidhe 08:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If it was published (not created) in 1928, it would be in the public domain if it was published without copyright notice or if its copyright was not renewed before 1957. --MrClog (talk) 14:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Uploaded Images found on Facebook
I noticed that two photos (File:Amir abbas Fakhravar 3.jpg and File:Amir abbas Fakhravar 2.jpg), both tagged with Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International, are availabe on verified Facebook page of the person (here and here). The uploader User:Sfcdfb5 claims that the source of the photos is 'Own work'. Is this a copyright violation? Pahlevun (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes. Do you know how to report copyright violations on Wikimedia Commons? --MrClog (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Frankly I'm not much familiar with Commons. Pahlevun (talk) 01:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm not either, but I found it was pretty easy. Go to the commons page, like, and choose "Nominate for deletion" at the bottom of the links on the left. In my case it took about 3 weeks, but it happened. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have nominated both files for speedy deletion. --MrClog (talk) 08:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Have copyright use permission for image
I have written permission to use this image from the copyright holder; it's a book cover image. What do I need to do to reinstate the image to the article page? ARD (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Most images used on Wikipedia are hosted on Wikimedia Commons. However, Commons does not accept any content that is copyrighted, even with permission from the copyright holder (unless they agree to release the book cover under a free license, like a Creative Commons license). However, book covers, even when copyrighted and without permission from the copyright holder, can be used on Wikipedia to illustrate the article. I will add a fair use rationale to File:Credence Cover.jpg, assuming that is the one you're asking about, so that you can use it in your article. Best, MrClog (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh, thank you! I have one for the Eighteen Straight Whiskeys book article, tool that image was removed as well, and I have the same written permission to use. Could you possibly do the same for that page -- and do I need to re-upload both images again? ARD (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Just FYI: you do not need permission from the copyright holder if you have a valid fair use claim. I have done it for File:Eighteen Straight Whiskeys cover.jpg too. --MrClog (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much; you're a peach for doing that, and I appreciate it. So far the book cover image for The Green Woman hasn't been removed; it falls under the same fair use/permission to use, so I'll keep an eye on it in case someone removes it.


 * I also need to update the author's photo on his main bio page and have a new image (with permission) that we want to upload. Do I need to put it on WikiCommons first? I apologize for my ignorance; the photo stuff is very confusing. ARD (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. However, please note that the copyright holder must release the picture under a free license. For an overview of what kind of licenses can be used, see this page on Wikimedia Commons. Regarding File:Green Woman Cover Art.jpg, it says the cover art has been released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. Is that true? If not, you could still use the cover under the fair use doctrine, though the file's page should be updated to reflect that. --MrClog (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, I believe that is true, but I think I'd feel safer if I used the same fair use doctrine as the others. Do you have advice on this? Also, I'm currently attempting the Wikimedia Commons upload. Pray for me. ARD (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you uploading the biography picture on Commons? Because the cover art cannot be uploaded on Commons, because pictures on Commons are used by websites hosted outside the U.S. (where the fair use doctrine is not part of copyright law). --MrClog (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * No, the photo I want to upload is a headshot of the author/actor (Michael Easton) on his Wikipedia page. The current one is outdated. I have a new photo he's given me to use, with permission, with relevant credit to the photographer. It's a typical headshot; the kind that actors and authors use for press kits. ARD (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have updated the file page for The Green Woman. Regarding the head shot, it is a good idea to have the copyright holder send an email confirming that they release the picture under a free license. They can use the Wikimedia OTRS release generator to easily create an email that they can send to Wikimedia releasing their photo under a free license. --MrClog (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Sure, I can ask him to do that. Any specific verbage he should use? He usually just writes something like, "I hold the copyright to the image ____ and grant Angela permission to use for Wikipedia (or whatever I'm using it for)". ARD (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If he uses the release generator I linked to, it automatically creates an email with the appropriate legal language. --MrClog (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I just clicked through to see how it worked and saw the language; seems pretty simple. Okay, I'll send him the link and ask him to send it with a photo attachment. Thank you so much for all your help! ARD (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You have to make sure that he OWNS the copyright to that picture, not that he owns the picture or paid to have the picture taken. Normally, copyright in a photo remains with the photographer. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  21:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That is true, unless the work is legally seen as a work for hire. That would require the work to be made by an employee in line of their employment, or by an independent contractor in certain limited circumstances (that don't seem to apply here). Besides that, it may be possible that the photographer signed a copyright transfer agreement. MrClog (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * He owns the actual copyright to the photo. But it's good to know the distinctions. Thanks, guys!  ARD (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi. A couple of things just for reference. The copyright holder can uploaded their work to Commons or Wikipedia under a free license like Creative Commons, but it has to be one that the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) accepts as explained in c:Commons:Licesning or c:Commons*Creative Commons. The copyright holder is not reliquishing their copyirght ownership or transfering it to anyone else; they are just making available a freely licensed version of it for others to use. The WMF only accepts licenses that basically pretty much allow anyone anywhere in the world to download or reuse the content in question at anytime for any purpose (including commercial and derivative use); moreover, once the content has been released under such a license there's no real way to cancel the license if there's a change of heart. So, even if the content is subsequently removed from Wikipedia or Commons, it can still continue to be used under the terms of the license by anyone who got it before it was axed or gets it from some archived version, etc. So, the copyright holder cannot try to limit how others reuse the content (e.g. "for Wikipedia use only", "for non-commercial only" or anything like this) except perhaps to require that proper attribution to the copyright holder be given by those reusing the image. If the copyright holder is OK with all of that, then they should upload the file to Commons because it will make it much easier to use on not only English Wikipedia, but also all of the other Wikipedias and other WMF projects. Wikipedia does allow copyrighted content to be uploaded locally as non-free content, but such content needs to satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. This might be a good option for things like copyrighted book covers, etc. per item 1 of WP:NFCI, but it's usually doesn't work to well for copyright images of still living persons. The long-standing consensus is not to allow non-free images of still living persons per non-free content use criterion #1 because it's almost always considered reasonable to expect that freely licensed equivalent image can either be found or created to serve the same encyclopedic purpose as any non-free one. Such a free equivalent doesn't have to be a free version of the same exact image and it doesn't have to even currently exist; it just has to be sufficient enough to serve the same encyclopedic purpose of primary identification and be capable of being created by someone, not just the subject of the photo. Finally, some more things that might apply here are Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Ownership of content. Subjects of article have no editorial control over article content and don't have any final say over what to leave in and what to leave out. So, while image copyright is really important and Wikipedia will be happy to have any freely-licensed high quality images the copyright holder wants to upload for use in the article, whether they will end up actually being used might end up being determined through Wikipedia:Consensus. It seems highly unlikely that anyone will dispute the adding of image of the author to the article, but if that does happen then Wikipedia:Dispute resolution should be used to try and resolve things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * That makes sense, and I think it SHOULD be okay, but I'll keep track and make sure. May I message you in the future if I need help or clarification? ARD (talk) 02:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)