Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2020/December

Help desk question
Hi everyone, left a question at the Help desk (here) about photo copyright, but hasn't got a response there, so I'm leaving this message here in the hope that someone can help them. Thanks!  Seagull123  Φ  18:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've responded there. ww2censor (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Team logos for B teams
Hi, so when I added the team logo for UD Logroñés B, I used the same file that was on the UD Logroñés since they are the same club and use the same logo. However, it was removed because the image was approved for the A team page, not the B team page. How do I make it approved for both pages? Or would I have to upload it again specifically for the second page? Thanks. RedPatchBoy (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * For sports teams in the same "family" where there is a separate article for the main body or team and each other team in that (as your A/B team, but would also include things like college teams, etc.) and which each all share the same logo, we generally do not allow the same non-free logo to be replicated across each team page per WP:NFCC minimal use. We do allow the logo to be used on the main team or "family" page, but on other pages it can be a problem since you are likely linking back to the main team/"family" page where the logo can be found. --M asem (t) 15:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm running into this issue with recently removed logos for the women's teams in the W-League (Australia). What do you recommend? Upload a separate file? No logo in the infobox for the women's teams (seems imbalanced)?


 * File:Perth Glory FC logo.svg deleted 3 December from Perth Glory FC (W-League)
 * File:Newcastle United Jets Logo.svg deleted 3 December from Newcastle Jets FC (W-League)
 * File:Melbourne Victory.svg deleted 3 December from Melbourne Victory FC (W-League)
 * File:Melbourne City FC.svg deleted 3 December from Melbourne City FC (W-League)
 * File:Logo of Western Sydney Wanderers FC.svg deleted 3 December from Western Sydney Wanderers FC (W-League)


 * Hmlarson (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * But, for example, in the Perth Glory case, the logo is also not being used on the Youth League team as well, which is equally "fair". Ideally, there should be a parent article on the Perth Glory "family" that discusses all three teams (mens, womens, and youth) which the logo would go to, but I recognize that seems an odd structure because it does appear the womens and youth are adjunct teams, and not "equal" in importance as the mens FC. Hence, not including the logo is still the right answer for the reason I gave above. --M asem (t) 00:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to add to what Masem posted, the reason the above files all seem to have been removed (the files were removed from articles; they weren't deleted from Wikipedia) by was because they were lacking a separate, specific non-free use rationale for those particular uses. WP:NFCC (as well as WP:NFCCE and WP:NFC) require a non-free use rationale be provided for each use of a non-free file; so, if a file is being used more than once (even in the same article), it needs a non-free use rationale specific to each of those uses. This is a common mistake since many editors seem to think that a file only needs a one rationale and that rationale then is sufficient to cover all uses of the file. A simple fix would be to simply provide the missing rationales; this will stop the bot from removing the file and will satisfy NFCC#10c. However, there are ten non-free content use criteria which need to be satisfied for a rationale to be considered valid; so, only satisfying NFCC#10c doesn't automatically mean the file is now OK to use.As Masem pointed out above, there are other criteria (in particular WP:NFCC) which need to be met, and failing even one of the ten criteria means that the use is not going to be considered policy compliant. This type of logo use has to do with item #17 of WP:NFC because it has been interpreted that the use of "parent" team logos for primary identification purposes in articles about "child" entities is not policy compliant and thus shouldn't be allowed; not everyone, however, agrees with this interpretations and there've quite a number of discussions over it in recent years, but nothing has been resolved. In other words, no new consensus or new consensus has been estbalished. Personally, based upon these discussions, I think it's probably OK to treat the main men's and women's team as the parent's of each family tree, which means I could see how using the same logo in each of those articles could be justified as long as it can be clearly shown that both teams use the same branding; however, I don't feel the same way with respect to "B", youth or reserve teams since these teams seem to be "feeder" teams that essentially are grooming players to join the two top-level teams. At the same time, if there are separate logos being used by the main men's and women's teams or logos specific to the other "child" teams, then it should be OK to upload those logos and use them in their respective articles.One other thing to consider are the use of stars, etc. in such logos. Some teams seem to add stars to their logo when they win some important competition so in a way that makes the logo specific to a particular team. So, even if teams in the same family are using that logo, it might not be considered appropriate for Wikipedia if the other teams in the family haven't had the same success. That, however, may depend on whether you see the championship as an individual team's success or a "family" success. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * For reference, I uploaded quite a number of non-free file a few years ago that I thought were specific enough to the various W-League women's teams to justify their use on Wikipedia. Those logos were all being used until quite recently when they were removed with edits like this. I thought about re-adding the files after I received WP:F5 notifications about them on my user talk page, but decided not to since (1) it wasn't clear whether all the teams were still being run by the W-League (like they were when I originally uploaded the logos) and (2) it wasn't clear whether the teams were still using logos like File:Newcastle Jets FC W-League logo.png on their kits anymore. If you want to go back and re-add those logos, and then start a discussion about them somewhere (e.g. article talk pages, WT:FOOTY, WP:FFD) then you can, but you will need to do so before the files are deleted as orphaned free use. There should be no problem temporarily restoring them to the article while this is further discussed since they can always be deleted at a later date if it turns out their use doesn't comply with relevant policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * and Shouldn't the logos be removed from the A-League articles if they have no fair-use rationale templates? See  File:Perth Glory FC logo.svg on Perth Glory FC for example. Hmlarson (talk) 01:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Two things: (1) WP:PING templates don't work if you add them after the fact to an already signed post. So, if you want to try and ping someone like you did above, you need to re-sign your post. I'll pin for you so that he sees your last post just in case he misses it on his watchlist. (2) File:Perth Glory FC logo.svg and the other files do have non-free use rationales for the A-League articles; so, that's why the bot didn't remove the files from those articles. They didn't have corresponding rationales for the W-League articles (most likely because whomever added the files to those articles didn't realize a separate rationale was needed); that's why the bot removed the files from those articles. The bot is only looking for non-free use rationales being added to articles without a correpsonding rationale for the use; the bot isn't capable of assessing why the rationale is missing or whether a rationale could be added. That's where editors like you and I come in. Generally, if you're going to add a non-file file to an article, then it's your responsibility to also add a rationale to the file's page for the use. Sometimes when you don't and it seems fairly obvious that use complies with WP:NFCC, another editor may add the missing rationale; you shouldn't count of this though which is why it's good practice to add the required rationale to the file's page before you actually add the file to an article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Photo of copyrighted material with small depth of field
Is image like this ok for Wikimedia Commons or is it fair use and only allowed in Wikipedia? I was told that the images like that (with small depth of field) are ok. I also wondering if image of a pile of books in library, where cover of the book on top is visible is also fair use. So it's not the right place for commons? Or is person that hold a book (e.g. the author) also fair use and you can't upload it to Commons. jcubic (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . Commons doesn't accept any type of fair use content per c:COM:FAIR. A photograph of a 2D-copyrighted work isn't usually going to be accepted by Commons per c:COM:2D copying unless you have the WP:CONSENT of person who owns the copyright of the work being photographed; so, you typically can't upload a photo of cartoon to Commons without the consent of the cartoonist who created it, unless the cartoon is no longer or never has been protected by copyright for some reason such as WP:PD or c:COM:DM. Wikipedia does accept fair use content as non-free content, but Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is quite restrictive and their are ten criteria that need to be satisfied each time you use a non-free file.Anyway, the photo you've uploaded to Commons has been nominated for speedy deletion; so, if you want to challenge this, you should explain why at c:File talk:Sznikiel.jpg -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Letter published in Falkland Times May 1978.jpg
I uploaded this a couple of weeks back along with evidence of permission from the copyright holder. I later had an email that that said that what I supplied was insufficient, this requested that the copyright holder fill out an online form. This he tried to do but we found that the form didn't work as the file isn't uploaded to commons. So the copyright holder has emailed permission-en@wikimedia.org. And since then silence and there is no record of permission being received.

Any idea of who to check with before it's deleted. WCM email 11:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * the OTRS ticket is . Issues like this are best raised at WP:OTRS/N but I'm happy to answer here.  I'm not the OTRS volunteer dealing with the ticket but the issue looks to me like permission isn't from the copyright holder of the letter. Nthep (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sorting this. WCM email 17:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Ideal resolution for a movie/show promotional poster/ Non-free content criteria/
Hi, I'm trying to upload some TV shows promotional posters. I tried once and got flagged because of its high resolution, then reuploaded it in a low resolution but got deleted anyway. What is the ideal resolution for an image to comply with Wikipedia's NFC criteria? That information is not mentioned anywhere.Wikiabitbetter (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We want to keep non-free media under a total resolution of 100,000 pixels. See WP:IMAGERES. You need to scale it down before uploading to make sure the size falls under that. --M asem (t) 15:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * However, you can also tag the file with the non-free reduce template and a bot will normally do the job for you. ww2censor (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Can I use this image?
Hi I have an image I want to upload but I am not sure whether I can use it due to copyright.

Would someone kindly help me so I can use this image?

Many thanks. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kambow120 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * which image? Nthep (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

An image of The Range’s new logo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kambow120 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

DFB badge logo
Hi, I'm not sure about the legacy of the DFB-logo to be uploaded, and used since 1930. .

As per the Commons Template, refering to German Public Corporations, it should be legible. Thus I'm not sure about the Threshold of originality which may be also legible as an unsufficient amount of original and creative authorship?? (Other valid examples here).

Here you can see similar cases, which may apply on DFB badge logo, but I prefered to ask first:


 * Bundeswehr-Zulassungssiegel
 * Gütezeichen für deutsche Markenbutter
 * Kleines Bundessiegel

Thanks in advance. --Brgesto (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

SCP Foundation logo
Many years ago I uploaded the to Wikipedia under the assumption it was under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-alike license (like everything else on the SCP Foundation website). A very helpful IP editor linked a video from a moderator of the website showing that the logo is actually a derivative of a piece of 2007 Adobe Illustrator Suite's clip art (the link leads to the point in the video where this was discussed). The original file the SCP logo is derived from was very simplistic and quite possibly below the threshold of originality; does anyone have any information on the 2007 Adobe clipart license or is familiar enough with copyright law to make this call? Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Ludicrous
Games of MN Lotto deserve their logos around here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Band1301 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you a specific question about logo use in articles? It will be easier for others to help you sort things out if they knew which article(s) and which file(s) you're asking about. It seems you're asking about File:MN Lotto previous logo.png. Non-free content use in not automatic and there are ten specific criteria that need to be met each time a non-free file is used in an article; the file you unploaded currently fails a number of these criterion as indicated by the templates added to it page; so, if you want to ask specific questions about these things, feel free to do so. If the issues, however, aren't resolved fairly soon, the file is going to end up being deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * it has to come.Band1301 (talk) 06:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. There are quite a number of notifications related to image use added to your user talk page, which might mean that you should take a look at Wikipedia:Image use policy for some general ideas regarding how to upload and use image files. Such notifications typically are only added when there's a problem with a file that has been uploaded or with the way a file is being used. It's OK to make mistakes, but repeating the same mistakes over and over again is generally not a good sign. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is quite restrictive and it can be tricky to use non-free files in articles; so, instead of simlply re-adding non-free files which have been removed (particularly when they've been removed by a bot), it's best to ask for help and try to figure out why the file was removed. Editors who continually (even unintentionally) violate Wikipedia's image use policy often find themselves being blocked by an administrator, especially when they've received so many notifications. So, if you've gotten a particular question about a particular file, then perhaps someone here can help you before you end up being blocked. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Yoakum Residence.jpg image
This image File:Yoakum Residence.jpgis from the Farmingdale Public Library digital image collection from NY Heritage digital collection. I think that it is in the public domain, but I am not sure. Please advise. http://nyheritage.nnyln.org/digital/collection/p15281coll40/id/86/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuasol1 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Please help with determining any copyright information on File:Yoakum Residence.jpg image in "Benjamin F. Yoakum" from the Farmingdale Public Library digital collection, I think originally from NY Heritage digital collection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuasol1 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The image is here where it says it is in copyright but educational use is permitted. If this statement is correct it could not be uploaded to Commons and on Wikipedia it could only be used under our Non-free content criteria requiring an WP:NFUR. As it stands, the image File:Yoakum Residence.jpg you uploaded will soon be deleted. Thincat (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I see NY Heritage is claiming copyright on items that are clearly out of copyright. Thincat (talk) 11:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Making such claims is copyfraud but many organisation do it; to make money and/or out of ignorance of copyright law. Anyway, the details, of 2 versions, are found in this websearch but your image seems to just be a photograph that may or may not have been published or does not show exactly when it was created. It does not look like a postcard that was published. Unpublished anonymous works are copyright for 120 years. If you can determine that it was published the situation varies so please consult the Hirtle chart for details. ww2censor (talk) 11:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

UK law
Is UK legislation copyrighted? I would like to use this image (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/35/images/ukpga_19860035_en.jpg) on the relevant page. Better yet, I'd like to upload the PDF to Wikimedia, but I just don't know what the copyright status of legislation is. Faceless Enemy (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As legislation it should fall under the Open Government Licence as described here ; OGL is a compatible free license for Commons and other sites. Coming from the main site and searching for that legislation, I get this page where I see no notice to say that the OGL does not apply. So yes, this should be fine to use and upload to Commons. You'll want to use the template license OGL3 there when you upload and make sure to link to the page I point to that shows the absence of any other license qualifier. --M asem  (t) 00:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * that's incredibly helpful, thank you!! Faceless Enemy (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * before you upload, check the OGL in full. While Masem is right, I have a recollection that the Royal coat of arms is specifically excluded from the OGL. Nthep (talk) 10:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The OGL "does not cover ... the Royal Arms except where they form an integral part of a document or dataset". I see they are included on the OGL statement itself! Thincat (talk) 10:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * it appears they are an integral part of the document, since the government included them at the top of the table of contents, and at the top of the first page of the Act. Faceless Enemy (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And the page that I pointed to says that it is only available as a PDF at this point in time. And its clearly a scanned document from the original printed version, so it is sorta integral... --M asem (t) 18:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The only thing copyrightable in this legislation front page image https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/35/images/ukpga_19860035_en.jpg would be the Royal Arms. That has been in use for more than the 50 years covered by crown copyright. Here is a use of the same image used in the Ghana Independence Act 1957 found here. ww2censor (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Stanley Cursiter image questions
Hey, I've been doing some editing of the Stanley Cursiter article(s) and got a couple of questions.

1: Would it be permissible to use File:Cursiter, The Regatta.jpg on a different language wiki article, specifically the Scots article on Stanley Cursieter (given the whole 70 year copyright thing), and if it is allowed how would I do so? I'm asking here because it's got a warning template on it forbidding uploading to Commons due to it still being in copyright in the UK, and scowiki appears to lack an actual image policy.

2: There's a portrait of Cursiter taken by Lafayette in 1934 which was given to the National Portrait Gallery in 1989 (link). The site appears to offer a "Creative Commons" version, and I'm a bit unsure of how to proceed with obtaining/using the image, such as can it be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons or just locally on wikis under NFCC, if at all. I've tried contacting the NPG to ascertain its copyright status but their site has been returning errors. Thanks CiphriusKane (talk) 10:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . Regarding your first question, that file is uploaded locally to English Wikipedia which means it can only be used on English Wikipedia. So, in order for it to be used on Scottish Wikipedia, you will either (1) have to upload the file to Commons or (2) upload the file locally to Scottish Wikipedia. If the file is still protected by copyright in the UK, (1) is probably not an option unless you can get the consent of the copyright holder. Whether you can upload the file locally to Scottish Wikipedia might depend upon c:COM:Scotland or whether Scottish Wikipedia allows fair use content. Some Wikipedias do but others don’t, and I’m not sure whether Scottish Wikipedia has its own version of WP:NFC.As for your second question, try looking at c:COM:L. The photo doesn’t seem old enough to be PD simply because of its age, but if there’s a version of it released under a license accepted by Commons, it should be OK to upload. Just for reference, not all Creative Commons licenses are the same and those that place any type of restriction on commercial use or derivative use won’t be accepted by Commons. I didn’t notice a license on the NPG page you linked to above, but they do seem to be selling the photo. If they’re selling copies of the photo, they might not have released it under an acceptable license to protect their commercial interests. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a version of the portrait image licensed for limited non-commercial use and specifies it can be used "online in scholarly and non-profit publications and websites" here, so would uploading it to the local wikis (as non-profit websites) be acceptable? CiphriusKane (talk) 14:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Such a license is, unfortunately, still too restrictive per c:COM:L and WP:COPY. The CC licenses Wikipedia and Commons accept are listed at c:COM:CC and "educational use only" or "non-profit use only" are not a type of "free license" that either accepts. Basically, the only types of free license that are accepted are those where the copyright holder is giving everyone in the world permission to download the file at anytime and use for any purpose. The license you've described above would be treated as non-free content locally on English Wikipedia, but wouldn't be accepted by Commons per c:COM:FAIR. I've got no idea about Scots Wikipedia since there's nothing listed about that here. You may have to ask about that at Scots Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Three images tagged for deletion
Three images I've uploaded on Wikipedia under the fair use rationale, have been tagged for deletion which I was notified about on my talk page

I wanted to check if I've understood it correctly - is the fair use rationale I've used not sufficient if it could be argued that it would be possible to find equivalent free images in the future, or just that there is doubt that there isn't one already available?

I've searched quite extensively for images to use for skyline images of Taghavard, Khtsaberd and Hin Tagher, on Commons and elsewhere. Khtsaberd and Hin Tagher have been heavily shelled and are currently uninhabited, and Taghavard is on the frontlines after the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, and access isn't currently available for the inhabitants so I considered it to be fair use with regard to the "historical image" description. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The answer is these three images can be replaced with freely licensed ones. The places exist so someone can go there, though maybe not right now, and take a photo that they release freely. For that reason they immediately fail the 1st requirement of our non-free criteria which is actually much stricter than fair use law. While you may not have found freely licensed images you may want to keep on trying if you want to include them in those articles. You could always ask the current copyright holders if they would release them under a free licence we accept. Non-free use of images is generally reserved for images that can never be created, such a dead people, after a suitable amount of time has passed to try to find an image, or places and things that no longer exist, such as File:Railway Road bomb 1973.jpeg or File:Horton House image from 1927.jpg. ww2censor (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Album Covers, Fair Use?
Hi! I'd like to know if I could upload the album cover for Garibaldi Guard! because I saw other albums have pictures, but I have no clue how the copyright and uploading process works, thanks!  SnazzyInfinity (chat? • what I've done) 16:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * For album covers used in an article about that album, the cover art can be uploaded for inclusion in the infobox. The following two templates exist that need to be used together: Album rationale and Non-free album cover. Check them out to see how to use them. ww2censor (talk) 21:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Image upload
Hi Team,

I have created a biographical article for a public figure and I would like to upload images from his Facebook page and his websites. Do you accept such sources or is it enough to just mention the url or do I need to get a permission for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dineee90 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . Please take a look at c:Commons:Licensing, c:Commons:OTRS and Wikipedia:Copyrights, but basically the copyright holder will need to give their WP:CONSENT for any of there work to be uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. You can find some examples of how to ask for someone’s consent at WP:PERMISSION. Wikipedia does, however, allow certain types of copyrighted content to be uploaded with out such permission as Wikipedia:Non-free content (Commons doesn’t all any such content), but its use is highly restricted. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:43, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Non-free Microsoft screenshot license and low-resolution
If a screenshot is being used under Microsoft's non-free license, does it also need to be low-resolution? I know Wikipedia holds itself to stricter rules than necessary when dealing with fair-use, but this is an actual license rather than fair-use. Sunmist (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. The template says that the image must comply with the WP:NFCC criteria.  RudolfRed (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)