Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2020/August

Golden langur region1909 IGImap.jpg and 2 other related files
Hello. Can these three files under the Category:Out of copyright in 1991 be transferred to Commons with their changed "licensing"? For some reason (perhaps the indicated licensing on those three files) I cannot transfer them thru FileExporter.


 * File:Golden langur region1909 IGImap.jpg
 * File:Golden langur highres habitat1909.jpg
 * File:Golden langur lowres habitat1909.jpg

The author of the subject, John George Bartholomew, died in 1920, so according to this section of a WikiCommons page about copyright rules in India, the subject should be in PD since 1980 (60 years after his death, and +1 = 1981, but for some reason it was categorized under 1991). I'm thinking of changing the indicated licensing of these three files to PD-India and Commons:Template:PD-old-auto-1923 (maybe indicate |deathyear=1920), because I suspect the FileExporter doesn't work (giving warning message). But I might need second opinion to say that I will do the right thing. Thanks for the response. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Pinging (for attention) et. Al. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * you are correct about the public domain status (although the country of origin could be also UK instead of India, but that doesn't change anything). See the tags I placed on File:Golden langur region1909 IGImap.jpg that now allow it to be exported (FileExporter doesn't always recognize all of our en Wikipedia tags, because there isn't always an exact match on Commons, even when the files are free). You can swap PD-old for Commons:Template:PD-old-auto-1923 once the files are on Commons if you like. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I transferred all 3 files to Commons thru FileExporter. I begin to think of adding a "3rd PD tag" which is Commons:Template:PD-UK-posthumous-non-photo-1996. Would this be fine or could cause complexity (and unwanted problems) because of the existence of 3 PD tags? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would cause any problems. You can write a note in the Permission field that you are unsure which is the country of origin and hence the two different tags. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:NFCC § Colorized photos/screenshots
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:NFCC § Colorized photos/screenshots. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to get some additional input on this because additional files keep getting updated by colorized versions. The faster is can be resolved the less of a chance that lots of cleanup will be needed. Many of the files being updated are non-free which means it won't be too long before the bots start flagging the now unused versions for speedy deletion per WP:F5. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Portion of mural Tragic Prelude, by John Steuart Curry, Kansas Capitol, Topeka.jpeg
I came across this photo via WP:THQ. It’s a photo of part of larger mural called Tragic Prelude. There are two other photos of different parts of the mural uploaded to Commons under PD licenses and one of them is claiming that the work is c:Template: PD-US-no notice. If that’s correct, then the entire mural should also be PD as well, right? If it is, then any non-free photos of it would likely fail WP:NFCC. This photo, however, isn’t really a case of c:COM:2D copying since it’s not really a straight on photo of a single wall, but more of a photo that has some depth showing multiple walls; so, I’m not sure whether it might qualify as a WP:Derivative work even if the mural itself is PD. That would mean a separate license would also be needed for the photo and that it can’t be used with the WP:CONSENT of the person who took the photo. Is the mural itself PD and can this photo be kept if it is? — Marchjuly (talk) 13:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue seems only to be that the photo in question is "Posted by Kansas Historical Society on public information site about the Kansas Capitol." A freer photo can be made of it, someone just has to walk in and take it which outside of COVID issues should be possible at any point. There's no special "3d" aspects here, the mural spanning 3 standard rectangular walls is not adding special artistic stuff too it (contrast to, say File:Felice Varini - 'Nine dancing triangles', France (Chateau Chasse-Spleen, Moulis en Medoc 2012. Photos by André Morin. Photocollage by Gil Dekel.jpg types of optical illusions (and even those may be PD). Its definitely not an architecture problem, as the Kansas Capital was completed in 1903 so that's out of copyright. It's just the need for a free image to be taken, which is fully possible. --M asem  (t) 23:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look . Do you think tagging with rfu would be OK here or would it be better to discuss at FFD? Another possibility might be to see if the uploader can get the WP:CONSENT of the copyright holder. I can ask and point them to WP:PERMISSION, but I'm not sure how that will play out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that it is easily replaceable (just not at the immediate time) I doubt a CONSENT is needed, I'd just rfu it. I'd only use that if it was a case of a hard-to-reacquire possible free image. --M asem (t) 23:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Use of court documents from California hosted by the Department of Justice
Hi! I am interested in determining if this document is in the public domain (PD), as well as whether individual photos in it are PD. In general I believe that documents released by the Department of Justice are PD. Though this particular document is labelled as from California, rather than the DoJ, I think this is usually not an issue either--California has very generous provisions.

The reason why I'm hoping to get a second opinion on this is that public records get tricky when they're court documents or related to criminal investigations (as I think this one is). Is this document in the PD? Are the included images?

If yes, then users have expressed interest in using at least one image.

Thanks for your help.

(Note: this question has been copied from Help desk) Jlevi 11:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Help regarding [[:File:Mark Greaney at Rhodes College.jpg]]
Hi there,

I am writing to ask for advice regarding File:Mark Greaney at Rhodes College.jpg on behalf of a friend, CarverSindile. CarverSindile is fairly new to Wikipedia and unfamiliar with the norms and protocols here. We just needed some advice on how to ensure that the image complies with Wikipedia policies including whether it is replaceable and what sort of licensing we can use for the image. Personally, I don't know whether the image can be used legally on Wikipedia. Was wondering if someone could advise us on how to resolve this matter. Thanks. Andykatib 10:02, August 4, 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . Non-free images of still living persons are pretty much never allowed per WP:NFCC because it’s almost always consider reasonable for a free equivalent image that can serve the same encyclopedic purpose as a non-free one to be cremated or found per WP:FREER. There are sometimes exceptions to this allowed like those specified in item 1 of WP:NFC, but I don’t any of them would apply to this photo. So, unless you can get the WP:PERMISSION of the copyright holder and have them email their WP:CONSENT to Wikimedia OTRS, this file is likely going to end up be deleted as replaceable non-free use per WP:F7. Please note that for Wikipedia’s licensing purposes CONSENT basically means that the copyright holder is agreeing to allow anyone anywhere in the world to download the file and use it for any purpose (including commercial reuse and derivative use). The copyright holder can require that they be properly attributed by anyone reusing the file and that it be used under the terms of the license it’s released under, but that’s about it. So, “for non-commercial use only” or “for Wikipedia use only”, etc. types of licenses are not going to be accepted. Non-copyright related restrictions will not be accepted as well. Please refer to c:Commons:Licensing for more specific information. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . Thanks very much for your advise. Will pass this on to . The best idea would be to seek permission from the copyright holder. If not, it will probably have to be deleted per Wikipedia policy and process. Andykatib 11:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, CarverSindile here, I emailed/messaged them but not sure if they will see it or reply to it. CarverSindile (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You're best bet here may be to contact a representative of the subject, which it looks like you can do via . It's a bit "in their own best interest" to have a Wikipedia article, and so they may be willing to release a photo under a Creative Commons license for use here. I...probably get a response 30% of the time I ask. But it's still better than nothing.  G M G  talk  11:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will pass this on to my friend as well. Andykatib 11:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

1856 map
This 1856 map could be uploaded under PD-art, correct? Best wishes, Eddie891 Talk Work 18:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You would probably be better off using PD-old-100 because that also covers countries outside the US. Convert the pdf to highest quality jpg or find original jpg or tif file and then upload that. ww2censor (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Adding a magazine cover
Can someone help with how to format Comics Buyer's Guide Fan Awards so that it lets me keep the image that was auto-deleted? I thought I used similar code from the parent article Comics Buyer's Guide but the JJMC89_bot didn't like it. I'm trying to include the image as an example of the magazine's cover that announced that year's winners. This previous version of the fan awards page is what I'm going for. Thanks! Wizardimps (talk) 04:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . The bot removed the file because it was lacking the separate specific non-free use rationale that's required by WP:NFCC for the use in Comics Buyer's Guide Fan Awards. That's why the bot included a link to WP:NFC in the edit summary it left when removing the file. So, all you need to do is provide a non-free use rationale for that particular use and the bot will stop removing the file.Now, the question then is whether a valid non-free use rationale can be provided for such a use as explained in WP:JUSTONE. Generally, non-free magazine covers are allowed per item 1 of WP:NFCI when they're used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox or at the top of stand-alone articles about the magzaines they represent; however, "Comics Buyer's Guide Fan Awards" seems to be more about a type of award than a type of magazine; so, perhaps it would be better to use a logo for the awards (if one exists) than a image of a magazine issue about the awards. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt File:Cbg1600.png can pass the all 10 WP:NFCC policy criteria for use on Comics Buyer's Guide Fan Awards as Marchjuly suggests. Unless they had a special issue just for the awards, you are out of luck. Besides which not all article need or have images and as an encyclopaedia, illustrations are there to supplement the text not as decoration. ww2censor (talk) 10:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Distribution of Races on the Balkans in 1922 Hammond.png
Hello. Can this file (File:Distribution of Races on the Balkans in 1922 Hammond.png) be transferred to Commons? Is the PD-tag on that file sufficient for it to be transferred to Commons? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging sorry for disturbing again hehe. I can still remeber your response here before, and I thought you have ample insight on media copyrights. Also, it seems that my query is ignored. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem, . C. S. Hammond & Co. means that the country of origin is the US, and since the map has been published in 1923, its copyrights have expired. I changed the license tag to the slightly less ambiguous PD-US-expired. That's the only tag the file needs to be moved to Commons. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Keep safe in the midst of the pandemic :-) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Screenshot from a webpage.
I think the answer is no, but, I want guidance here. Trying to add some information to Air India Express Flight 1344, which is a developing story right now.

Specifically, I was thinking of a screenshot from FlightRadar24, of the playback data before the crash. Link to map here. The Screenshot will be zoomed into the crash site and will offer approx last 30 minutes view on the map, as a static image.

My preliminary view is that this is not allowed, but, I wanted to seek your guidance.

Ktin (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Removal of a Fair Use Image
Can anyone explain me the removal of the Farrah Fawcett red swimsuit poster from the article about the Farrah Fawcett red swimsuit poster? Redrobsche (talk) 08:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * . If you look at the edit summary left by the bot and then look at the file’s page, you should see why it was removed. A non-free file needs a separate specific non-free use rationale for each use, and this file only has such a rationale for the Farrah Fawcett article. Perhaps whomever added the file to the poster’s article wasn’t aware that another rationale specific to that particular use needed to be added to the file’s page, but the bot has no way of knowing that. It only checks to see whether there’s a rationale for each use and removes the file’s from those articles lacking rationale per WP:NFCCE. So, if you think the non-free use in the poster article satisfies all ten WP:NFCCP, add the required rationale to the file’s page and then re-add the file to the article. That should stop the bot, but even then that doesn’t automatically make the file’s non-free use WP:NFCC compliant per WP:JUSTONE.My personal opinion is that the file’s non-free use should be OK in poster’s article, but this in turn might mean that the file’s non-free use in the Farrah Fawcett article is no longer OK per item 6 of WP:NFC; that is something, however, which might need to be further discussed at WP:FFD by anyone who feels the file isn’t needed in both articles. — Marchjuly (talk) 09:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer, Marchjuly. I'm the guy who added the image to the article since I'm the guy who has written the article. So far, I almost exclusively worked in the Germany Wikipedia, so I'm not familiar with the Fair Use policies here. I changed the file description page and added the image to the poster article again. It is surprising for me that a bot deleted the image because I added it last year to the Pro Arts article without doing anything to the file description page and it was not deleted (until this month where a user deleted it because of the newly created article about the poster). --Redrobsche (talk) 09:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You’ll need to ask the bot’s operator any questions about how it finds files like this. Perhaps it checks files being used in newly or recently created artIckes first, or maybe the file was removed by a human editor from that other article before it showed up on the bot’s radar. Finally, for future reference, non-free content and fair use aren’t exactly the same thing when it comes to English Wikipedia’s non-free content use policy. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I think this is PD-Textlogo
File:Plymouth (automobile_logo).jpg might be PD. Do you think it is? --BlueCrabRedCrab (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It is indeed PD-ineligible. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 02:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

File:CAMRAlogo.svg
Can someone with more knowledge than me check this out and confirm if the public domain tags on it are applicable to this image.


 * The logo is for an organization set up in 1971 so the pre-1925 usage will not be valid - what else does this tag allow?


 * The not original enough template - according to Logos, if an image created of simple text and simlple shapes is constructed to form a larger image then it is not free. The image CAMRA part of the logo forms a stylized tankard - is this sufficient to be original enough?

noq (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Going off of U.S. Copyright Office decisions (as seen here), it definitely looks to be OK in the United States. The British TOO, however, is lower, so it may be under copyright there. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 02:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Business Development Bank of Canada Logo.svg
This seems quite simple with the only possible copyrighted element being the red maple leaf. The maple leaf shape in general is probably simple and generic enough to not be eligible for copyright on it's own, but a bit of a 3D effect seems to have been added to it in this logo. Does that 3D aeffect push this over c:COM:TOO United States? Even if it's not PD per c:COM:TOO Canada, the file could still be licensed as PD-ineligible-USonly if it's considered PD in the US. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that by comparison to the Best Western example, it is public domain in the United States. In Canada, I think there might be some legitimate question about whether the decision to stylize the maple leaf in that unconventional form was a creative act. (Is it a reference to a typographical asterisk? A simplification for artistic purposes? Does the bifurcation represent a conceptual duality, or is it intended to represent the physical form of a leaf?) I'd say that if it is unlikely that we will learn the designer's intent and whether it was indeed a product of skill and judgment, PD-ineligible-USonly is the better option. Either way, I think this is a low-risk decision. TheFeds 10:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and changed the description from fair use to public domain in the U.S., as described. If any controversy remains, feel free to address it. TheFeds 10:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

File:WhathavewelearnedCB-TC.jpg
This screenshot is nothing but colored text on a light blue background which seems simple enough for PD-simple or PD-logo? Is there some reason it needs to be non-free? -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with that assessment: PD-simple ought to apply. (Rather, the version at is better, but that template isn't independently available on Wikipedia.) The text simply states title information, and doesn't appear to be a poem or other creative literary work. The slight variation in background colour is probably due to a mechanical process related to the transfer between media, and not a creative act. I don't think it is a logo. I'm changing it to PD-simple. TheFeds 10:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Using cover art on 2 pages?
Are there any circumstances under which it would be allowed to use the same cover art on two pages? In this case, I'm thinking about Ross Poldark (novel) and Poldark. Poldark is the article about the twelve-volume series. Ross Poldark (novel) is about the first volume of that series. Currently, Poldark has an image on it of the cover art that was published on the 1st edition of the first volume (that is, Ross Poldark (novel).) I'd like to be able to put the image also on the Ross Poldark (novel). If I did, it would be on two pages. I did put it on Ross Poldark (novel) and it was removed by the User:JJMC89 bot because (I believe) of the two-articles problem. If it can't appear on both pages, I can still illustrate both pages with cover art, because there have been multiple editions, all with their own cover art. So, really, I just want to be able to use the cover art from the first edition on both pages, which is hardly really a big deal, but thought I would check. Thank you!! Novellasyes (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It is reasonable to use the cover of the first book of a series as the infobox image for both the series and the book itself. But the reason it was removed is that per our non-free content requirements, you need a separate rational on the file: page for that image to use in on the book's page (it has one for the series page).  (See WP:NFCC) --M asem  (t) 19:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I am so sorry for my ignorance but does that mean that I go on this page (the file page) and type up some words representing that rationale? Novellasyes (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:FFD § Mass FFD nom
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:FFD § Mass FFD nom. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Ruth Johnson picture copyright
I was looking at Ruth Johnson's page, and noticed her picture here: c:File:Ruth_Johnson_2019.jpg. It's listed under the "Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication." The website does say that the picture is "intended for media and public use and may be freely reproduced", but I remember I've uploaded photos that had a similar disclaimer that were taken down. I may have simply put the wrong copyright information on them, but I wanted to check if this was valid for inclusion on Wikimedia, because if so, I'd like to upload more pictures that have this disclaimer. RoundSquare (talk) 06:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * that statement is not a clear indication this is a freely licensed image, especially with the copyright notice at the bottom of the page. I suggest you get in touch with the senator's office to find out who is the copyright holder and have they actually released the image under a free licence. ww2censor (talk) 08:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Are these OK for Commons?
Good day. Are the following three files OK for Wikimedia Commons? I have some reservations over these three photos before I can transfer them to Commons.
 * File:NLEX Balintawak Toll Plaza - with billboards (Caloocan; 12-07-2019).jpg
 * File:Jones Bridge - new light posts, to Binondo (Manila; 11-24-2019).jpg
 * File:Jones Bridge - new light posts (Manila; 11-24-2019).jpg

The first includes billboards above the toll plaza. Could this photo pass de minimis? If not, can it be remedied? (Exempli gratia: upon using FileEx/Importer, renaming it to remove "with billboards," then after the transfer cropping out 50% of the billboards with CropTool, then afterwards requesting an admin to delete the uncropped one)

For the second and third, the substantial inclusion of the stylistic lamp posts. Nevertheless, our copyright law is obscure concerning objects carrying artistic properties like lamp posts. Are lamp posts like those at Jones Bridge not included in copyright protection? If included, could the second photo fulfill de minimis while the third should be marked as "no-FOP in the Philippines as applied art"? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Pardon me for paging you again,. seems my query is ignored again.. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * File:NLEX Balintawak Toll Plaza - with billboards (Caloocan; 12-07-2019).jpg
 * I'd say this is de minimis. It's impossible to give a general view of the place, which includes billboards, without them being in the picture. Since there are many billboards, it is entirely incidental which were there at the time of photography. I'd say the photo is therefor not specifically about any single ad.


 * File:Jones Bridge - new light posts, to Binondo (Manila; 11-24-2019).jpg
 * Philippine copyright law is quite similar to US, and I'd say the light posts are non-free under that interpretation (i.e. not c:COM:UA) and outside of the scope of FOP (which is for buildings only in this case). However, in this picture, it could be de minimis. The file name says it's about the light posts, but it's more of a general view.


 * File:Jones Bridge - new light posts (Manila; 11-24-2019).jpg
 * This image, on the other hand, is too much focused on the lamp posts to be de minimis. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I've moved the two files to Commons under their different file names, both with de minimis notice tags):


 * File:NLEX Balintawak Toll Plaza (Caloocan; 12-07-2019).jpg
 * File:Jones Bridge - to Binondo (Manila; 11-24-2019) 2.jpg

I tagged the remaining file as "Do not move to Commons" (to prevent others from moving this to that repository). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Adding a copyright tag
I upload images only very occasionally, and I'm having trouble figuring out how to supply a copyright tag after receiving a notice here that I need to do that. The notice says, "just go to the image, click edit, and [add an appropriate tag]". The appropriate tag, ADAICS, would be PD-Philippines (after a bit of searching, I found that tag in File copyright tags/Public domain). However, I don't see how to add the tag to the image while editing its description page. I'm probably missing something which ought to be obvious to me -- can anyone help? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I doubt that is the correct copyright template but it is the only Philippine template here. If this is a freely licensed image it should be on the wikimedia commons and it is much more likely that their template c:PD-PhilippinesGov applies BUT you need to determine if the photographer is a government employee in order to use that one. For now the template you mention would do but if freely licensed should be moved there and I've added a completed template for you and when you have determined the employment status of the photographer you will have to add the appropriate template. ww2censor (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * After some research and some browsing on Facebook, the photographer Cesar Tomambo works at PRIB which stands for Public Relations and Information Bureau, headed by its director Raymundo R. Corro and headquartered at 4th Flr., Senate of the Philippines, Roxas Blvd., Pasay City. I assume he is an employee of PRIB (in effect a government employee), but I think other editors might give better inputs here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks fpr the info and the edit. I have other fish more in need of frying; I think I'll just let the bot remove the image when it gets around to doing that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * (Update) I've already moved this file to Commons, using provisional template PD-PhilippinesPubDoc (because FileExporter doesn't recognize the PD-Philippines). During the transfer process I changed the license to the most suitable Commons:Template:PD-PhilippineGov. Since this is a work by an employee of the Senate Public Relations and Information Bureau, it is a photo from the government without a doubt. It has been argued many times that such photos are PD, most recently 's inputs at Commons:Template talk:PD-PhilippinesGov. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.)  11:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Percy Pig images File:PercyPigs.jpeg and File:PercyPiglets.jpg
The images File:PercyPigs.jpeg and File:PercyPiglets.jpg in the article Percy Pig both show Percy Pig product packaging and/or Percy Pig candies. Is the depicted Percy Pig product packaging copyrightable? How about the depicted candies? Would the mentioned images be derivative works of non-free copyrighted content? --Elegie (talk) 07:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Intentionally derivative work?
If I create an image which is to show massive similarity between two copyright/trademarked individual images, will this still be considered a derivative work and be susceptible to deletion, even when the intention is to draw attention to the similarities?

For example - the logo for Electric Dreams Software and Captain EO? I'm not asking of the validity of doing such a thing, or whether it's notable, or indeed a valid use of my time - only whether the creation of such an image would fall foul of derivative - or any other copyright/Non-free usage.

Moved from helpdesk.

Thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If that image was being created to support third-party sources that discussed the closeness of the images in the first place and you were creating it to point out the similarities and/or differences outlined in those sources, that would probably be fair to keep, but other factors would come into play. But the sources to support that would be critical. If you did that comparison on your own, that would likely lead to deletion . --M asem (t) 13:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In the above example that would be the case - a computer magazine of the day pointed out the similarities and ran side-by-side images of the two. Again - only for the above examples - both target articles make mention of this similarity, and both are sourced to the same magazine piece.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Drawings with initials only from 1930s in UK journal
Early accounts of excavations at Whitehawk Camp have plans of the site which are signed by "R.G." and a date -- 1930, 1933, 1936. I've checked through the acknowledgements and the list of assistants at each excavation for each, and there are no names with those initials. The sources are: Per this Commons explanation, copyright expires 70 years after the death of the author for a known author, and 70 years after publication for an unknown author. The author of this was very likely still alive in 1950, so this is only out of copyright if I can treat the author as unknown. Can I do so? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Just found out the name, so this is now moot. And fortunately the author died in 1938 so the plans are out of copyright. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Stained Glass Window Copyright
So, several years ago I was in Normandy in the town of Sainte-Mère-Église and I took a of a stained glass window in a Catholic church that commemorates US troops liberating the town in the D-Day Invasion. The town and church are popular tourist attractions because of the history of the place and because of these windows.

I have recently received notice from that because the image is a derivative work of the window design, I need to indicate the copyright status of the original window or that it may be deleted. The image is also. A brief check online shows no indication of copyright of the image, but I doubt that is sufficient. Otherwise I have no idea how to proceed with this. Can someone offer some advice on how to proceed?

Thanks, -- KNHaw  (talk)  06:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If the window commemorates the 1944 event, it is likely still in copyright to the artist or their heirs. Do you know when the window was installed, who the artist was and their death date, unless still alive? Normal French copyright extends for 70 years after the artist's death, so they would have to be dead since 1949. ww2censor (talk) 09:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * France notably doesn't have a freedom of panorama clause which would allow unfettered publication of such photographs without permission from the authors. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 13:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * OK. Thanks for clarifying the issue. It's a longshot but I have fired off a query with the town government and will see if I can get any contacts with the church proper. Assuming I get traction with them, what kind of documentation is necessary to be granted permission and what would be the timeframe that would have to be met? -- KNHaw   (talk)  18:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , the window is prominently dated "6 Juin 1969" which is strong evidence that it was installed for the 25th anniversary of D-Day. That makes it more likely that it is covered by copyright. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  18:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that it had not lapsed into the public domain. I was hoping to get permission to leave the image up. Again, a long shot, but I thought it was still worth a try. -- KNHaw  (talk)  19:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

==Discussion at User talk:Debitpixie § Question about an edit you made to File:Bharti Airtel Limited logo.svg== You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Debitpixie § Question about an edit you made to File:Bharti Airtel Limited logo.svg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps some others can take a look at File:Bharti Airtel Limited logo.svg and File:Airtel logo.svg and do a TOO assessment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Egypt copyright law (1954)
Hi there. I see User:Ashashyou has placed under public domain by the virtue of Egypt's 1954 law that was applicable on works published prior to 2002.

So, would the Qur'an (audio) recitations of the famous Egyptian reciters (El Minshawi, Al Hussary, Abdul Basit Abdus Samad, Mustafa Ismail) fall under public domain too, especially since most of them published their works well before 2002 regardless of whether anyone claims legal rights to the recitals (record companies or firms that acquired rights to the recordings post their deaths or secured rights in other countries)?

Thanks.

Originally asked here: User_talk:Ashashyou and here Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1068. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murtaza.aliakbar (talk • contribs) 19:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)