Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2021/July

One page from a scan from a 1941 American catalog
I would like to use a scan of page 215 from this: https://vintage-absupply-net.s3.amazonaws.com/independent-look-company-1941-catalog-12/pdf/independent-look-company-1941-catalog-12-ocr.pdf (141MB)

Is the catalog still under copyright? (The company still exists, at least in name, now known as Ilco.)

Does using a single page fall under fair use?

Do I (also) need permission from the people who scanned the catalog?

Bonus confusion: the scan is hosted by another private company, ABSupply. I haven't contacted them and don't yet know if they scanned it or if they copied the scan from elsewhere. I couldn't find a copy at archive.org, but their search engine flummoxes me so maybe it's there.

Thanks! --Skintigh (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * @Skintigh the book clearly was originally copyrighted in 1941. The question is was that copyright renewed?  If not then it is a public domain item.  You need to check the copyright renewal databases This is a good place to start, a quick search doesn't show any renewals but I only did a cursory check so don't take this as definitive. I'd be surprised if a catalogue like this did have it's copyright renewed.  If you can't establish that it is out of copyright then the use of a single page may constitute fair use but you'd have to compile a rationale that meets all ten criteria of WP:NFCC. Nthep (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Nthep I wasn't sure if a 1941 copyright would even have expired yet, thank you for that info. Would asking the company for permission be easier, or is that a bigger can of worms with having to verify the person giving permission?
 * @Skintigh At the time the copyright period was only 28 years so any renewal should be in the 1969 renewals volume. They are on the Internet Archive if you want to search for them and then search through them. Try 1968 as well in case there was an early renewal but I really will be surprised if the copyright was renewed. Nthep (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * More to the point, random clippings scanned and posted somewhere on the net are not generally going to be considered a reliable source for much of anything, in this era of Photoshop. What is the value of this clipping for Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects? -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  17:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Fair use
Can a copyright holder can be get compensated by have one's or their work to get used by fair use for public interest?

e.g. an article of copyrighted work selected to a textbook used in public school in compulsory education stages, the author can be paid by compensation by a nation or a state for public interest purpose on education.Hmht45tgree3d (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Is File:TheMusicManPoster.jpg in copyright?
Hi. I'm not sure if the copyright on File:TheMusicManPoster.jpg (1957 apparently) was ever renewed. The image is extremely low quality and I can't find anything with the same color scheme -- just stuff like this in different colors -- so I'm not sure if it even had a copyright symbol on it. Could someone who knows more about how to find this please check (and maybe tell me what you do to verify that something is/isn't in copyright?). Thanks! DemonDays64 (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC) \

User:JJMC89 bot
Is User:JJMC89 bot working well in removing these images when they're used in each regional organisation's main article (linked on the next column of that table, if you'd like to check)? — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 06:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi . The bot is doing what it's supposed to be doing and the removal of those non-free files from that article was correct in my opinion. This is basically similar to the situation described above in in that the bot removed the files in question because they lack the separate and sepcific non-free use rationales required for their use in that particular article; moreover, it's highly unlikely that a valid non-free rationale could be written for what would be essentially a WP:DECORATIVE type of non-free use in which the files are being used as flag icons in a table or list like format. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I see . was the last to be reverted by  on that one a couple of months ago. I wonder what his opinion is on this. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 09:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There's really no battle. The bot is set up to remove non-free files from articles or pages where their use doesn't comply with WP:NFCC or WP:NFCC. If someone wants to use a non-free file in a particular way, then the onus is upon that person to provide a valid non-free use rationale explaining how the use satisfies all ten non-free content use criteria. If you feel the non-free use of the files in the article is justified and want to use the files as flag icons, then add the required rationales for each of those uses to each respective file's page. If someone disagrees, then that will either tag the file with di-disputed fair use or a similar template, or start a discussion about it at WP:FFD. Before you try to do that though you might want to take a look at WP:JUSTONE for reference. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The page you linked to above with this battle has been raging for a while (i.e. Country data Commonwealth of Nations) doesn't seem to exist. Perhaps you meant to link to Template:Country data Commonwealth of Nations? If that's the case, then that "battle" is going to be impossible to win so to speak because non-free content is not allowed to be used in templates per WP:NFCC. The fact that some editors tried to add the flag to that template could just mean that they weren't aware of the relevant policy, and mistakenly assumed that all images found on Wikipedia can be used the same way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Fair use claim on image lifted from Pinterest, who lifted it from another site which gives no ownership info
seems to have a rather thin fair-use claim (showing a before/after image of an individual who underwent extensive plastic surgery). It's taken from a Pinterest page, which in turn took it from a questionable "biography" site, a site which provides no ownership information regrading the photos. My gut is to speedy it, but I wanted to get some additional feedback first. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It fails WP:NFCC #1 as it is a non-free image of a living person. It's not being used to illustrate a point about the plastic surgery; it's in the infobox. I am nominating for F7 deletion.— Diannaa (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Copyright stated on homepage only
This page gives as a licence for a PhD thesis creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/. However, the PDF document itself does not give any copyright statement. Is the CC BY 2.5 copyright statement on the homepage sufficient to re-use a part of the text or the images on Wikipedia? A part of the history section of the thesis is well references and would be well suited. --Minihaa (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not a "homepage", it is an archive that is affiliated with Oxford. I find it extremely unlikely that they would have falsified or misrepresented the license under which a work is available, so I think we can reasonably rely on that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your opinion! This helps. Minihaa (talk) 11:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Gcmc-logo.png
Any opinions on whether File:Gcmc-logo.png needs to remained licensed as non-free? The country of origin seems to be the US and possibly Canada per General Conference Mennonite Church, and this is basically just a logo of simple shapes. Each individual element certainly seems to be too simple to be eligible for copyright protection in either country, but their combination does seem to have degree of creativity to it. I think if Canada followed a "sweat of the brow" approach, this would be easily copyrightable there; however, c:COM:TOO Canada seems to imply that Canada's TOO is closer to the US's than the UK's. Relicensing this as PD-ineligible-USonly is a possibility, but not necessary if PD-logo is OK for Canada. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Bizunesh Bekele & Yidnekatchew Tessema pictures. Old pre 1991 at least, do these old pictures have copyright? Can i upload them etc.
Greetings! I was reffered here by a Theahouse editor. I want to add pictures of 2 Ethiopian icons from the previous century, hoewever it's difficult to determine copyright. The rules are confusing.

Bizunesh Bekele (Singer) passed away in 1990, Yidnekatchew Tessema (Athlete & Sports pioneer) passed away in 1987. Both more than 3 decades ago. Are photographs not restricted to just 25 years? Like it implies right here >> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Ethiopia ? i'm interested in adding pictures when they were at their prime, and thus younger and the pictures even older. Can i add picture citing fair use, or old age(public domain), or did i overlook something?

Bizunesh Bekele pictures [] & [] & []

Yidnekatchew Tessema pictures [] & [] & []

The pictures are all over the place with mutiple duplicates, i don't know who holds copyright if any. I don't know the date of the work but, except that it's when they were younger( estamite range from early 1940's to early 1980's. Appreciate your assistance. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 00:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , two things will be necessary in order to help you. First, please provide links to particular images, not just image searches. There is no way for us to know which image on the search you mean. Secondly, in order to determine the copyright status, we will need to know who the photographer was and where it was taken. If it is impossible to determine that, it may also be impossible to determine if the image is public domain. If we cannot definitively determine that an image is in the public domain, we presume that it is not. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello u|Seraphimblade thanks for the response. Regarding Yidnekatchew i reached out to a descendant about copyright, and permission on the use of picture. Hoping for a (good) response. As for Bizunesh Bekele i searched but couldn't find the copyright status or photographer of any picture, nor a descendant. She was active in the 60's and 70's [] and in 2012 a Ethiopian record label Nahom records re-released her old songs using this cover [] so maybe it's worth asking the record label, on the other hand she passed away 3 decades ago and most pictures look really old like for example on this [], hence the questions about the copyright of Ethiopia. There are also many of these same duplicates on Pininterest,facebook and basically all over the web. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

End of copyright
Hi all, the composer Frederic Austin died on 10 April 1952. Does the copyright of his work end on 1 January 2022, or on the anniversary of his death? Cheers, MinorProphet (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * @MinorProphet The items will go out of UK copyright at the end of the 70th year after his death so they will be public domain in the UK as of 1 January 2023. US copyright of any of his works will depend on first publication. Also, any recordings of his works will have their own copyright - belonging to the recording artist. Nthep (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for your swift reply. Could I ask a further question: What would the status be of a recording I made of a work by Austin which was never published, but only exists in manuscript? MinorProphet (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @MinorProphet I don't quite understand your question so this reply may be less than accurate. You've made a recording of an unpublished Austin composition (which somehow you have access to the manuscript copy of)? Assuming my understanding is correct, then the unpublished composition will remain in copyright until 31 December 2039 (the UK so-called "2039 rule" - see File:UK non-Crown copyright flowchart.pdf so unless you have permission from whoever inherited Austin's copyrights (his heirs unless otherwise stated) then your recording is itself a copyright violation.  If you did have permission to make the recording then assuming you are the producer (which the UK copyright act defines as "the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the making of the sound recording or film are made", then the copyright on that recording is yours and lasts for 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which you release the recording. This guidance note is a good guide.  Note - I'm only addressing the UK position here, any other jurisdiction the situation may/will be different. Nthep (talk) 11:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your very helpful reply and the links. You are correct in your assumptions. Austin was my great grandfather, and the copyright is held by my dad, who inherited most of Austin's MSS from his uncle, Richard Austin. At his suggestion I have edited a number of the manuscripts for commercial CD recordings by professional orchestras including Spring, Richard II overture, the Piano Concertino, Pageant Music for the Festival of London, etc. The specific work in my question is a MIDI performance of Austin's unpublished Organ Sonata, using the freely available Jeux 1.4 soundfont by John McCoy. I uploaded it to either Commons or WP:en several years ago, but it was deleted over copyright concerns. I am hoping to upload it again (and perhaps other similar recordings from MSS) under a free CC-type licence. If this is possible, I would be grateful if you could please suggest which licence I should use. Perhaps I should get specific permission from the holder for performances of this type.
 * Further to your reply re the 2039 rule about unpublished works, can you confirm that the copyright holder would still retain copyright of Austin's unpublished MSS compositions until 31 December 2039, including the right to record and/or publish MSS works after 1 January 2023? Thanks for taking the time to answer my queries. Cheers, MinorProphet (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @MinorProphet For recordings you make with permission, you can use any licence you wish but please note that all Wikipedia-compatible licences e.g. cc-by-sa-4.0 give others the right to re-use your recording.
 * Until the copyright expires the copyright holder has absolute control over the use of the material published or not. All that differs is the date of expiry of the copyright on each individual work, the flowchart I linked to previously explains the various copyright expiry dates in the UK. Nthep (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that clears everything up, for the UK at least. Thank you very much for your time and effort. Best wishes, MinorProphet (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Image of Dublin City Councillor and by-election candidate
Dublin City Councillor James Geoghegan was a candidate in the recent 2021 Dublin Bay South by-election.

Wikipedia has no photo of him, but at https://councilmeetings.dublincity.ie/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=843 there is an image of him: https://councilmeetings.dublincity.ie/UserData/3/4/8/Info00000843/bigpic.jpg

Do fair use rules allow this pic to be used in the byelection article? -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 16:14, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry but no, it fails WP:NFCC because he is still alive, so a freely licensed image could be created. ww2censor (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi . It's important to remember there's a distinction being made between fair use and non-free content when it comes to Wikipedia. Wikipedia could most likely use such a photo as fair use, but relevant Wikipedia policy has been intentionally be set up to be more restrictive than fair use as explained in WP:NFC. As Ww2sensor points out, non-free images of still living persons are pretty much never allowed per NFCC#1 (WP:FREER) except perhaps maybe in a case like the ones mentioned in item 1 of WP:NFC. One thing you might want to look into though is whether official photos of Dublin City Councillors are possibly in the public domain or otherwise have been released under an acceptable; for example, I think photos of UK MPs are released under a license that Commons accepts per c:COM:L, but that might be something done for only politicians at the national level. FWIW, I know Ireland isn't part of the UK, but maybe there's something in c:COM:Ireland that you'll find helpful. For example, official photos of national US office holders are generally considered to be within the public domain, and some US states (e.g. California and Florida) do the same at the state level as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * that does not happen in Ireland, though FoP is quite open. Dublin County Council is not an Irish Government department or organisation, so they are not like UK MPs covered by the Open License. Their copyright terms are shown here https://www.dublincity.ie/using-dublincityie/terms-conditions which are of no use in this instance either. ww2censor (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure either way, but thanks for taking the time to check on that and clarify things . -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Can i upload this picture? Agegnehu Engida
This picture is a self portrait by a deceased Ethiopian painter(1950) from the year 1944 and is hanging in the National Museum of Ethiopia in Addis Ababa [] In https://www.jstor.org/stable/20447829 page 3 you can confirm it's from the year 1944. Can i upload this picture? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 06:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

How does this file look?
Have I done my due diligence with this file? Thanks! Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , you almost have. One of the nonfree criteria in the rationale, however, is marked "n.a.". None of the nonfree criteria are ever "not applicable", so that needs filling in as well. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , How about now? I've filled in the field. Weird that the upload wizard didn't prompt me to fill it in during the file upload. Best wishes, Tyrone Madera (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, looks good now, and a use of one nonfree file to illustrate a subject for which creating a nonfree image isn't possible does in itself look to be appropriate. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , Awesome. Thanks!


 * P.S. Is it okay to solicit administrators/patrollers to review the file so that it could be marked as, should it qualify, more speedily? Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Is The Golem: How He Came into the World in the Public Domain?
Is the movie The Golem: How He Came into the World in the public domain for our purposes? Please notify me on my talk page, and thanks :) Tyrone Madera (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this the wrong page to ask this question? Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Tyrone Madera It is out of copyright in the US having been published prior to 1 January 1926. It's German copyright situation is more complicated. According to this website "the term of protection is the life and 70 years after the death of the longest surviving of a group of authors consisting of the main director, the author of the film script, the author of the dialogue, and the composer of any music created for the film." As a silent film the last two can be discounted in this case.  The others appear to be Paul Wegener (died 1948), Carl Boese (died 1958) and Henrik Galeen (died 1949) which means the copyright will run until 31 December 2028 - 70 years after Boese's death. Nthep (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , Would that be different for the English version, which was released separately by a separate company in the United States, and would therefore be subject to US copyright law? Ergo the (English) work is a US work as published in the US separately before 1926? Tyrone Madera (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @Tyrone Madera The production company doesn't matter. Any version released prior to 1926 anywhere is out of copyright in the US (see commons:Commons:Hirtle chart the section of works published outside the US). It's the German copyright that hasn't yet expired- for use on Commons a work has to be out of copyright in both the US and its source country. Here there is no escaping that it is a film produced and released in Germany and even though separately released in the US is a German film to which German copyright law applies. The version you've uploaded to Commons also has an issue with the soundtrack, this will have it's own copyright that has to be explained. Nthep (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , You mentioned Commons specifically. Is it different for uploading to Wikipedia itself? Tyrone Madera (talk) 13:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @Tyrone Madera Yes, see c:Commons:Licensing and Non-U.S. copyrights, files hosted on commons have to public domain in both the US and the source country. Files hosted on this Wikipedia have to be public domain in the US even if not public domain in the source country. So the file you uploaded to Commons that is nominated for deletion would be acceptable here using the licence template PD-US-expired-abroad and with the soundtrack removed. Any upload here is only valid for use on this Wikipedia so you couldn't, for example, link to it from the German Wikipedia. Nthep (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thank you for your help clarifying. I have a few more questions now (if that is okay with you). Was the soundtrack released after 1926, or is there a separate reason that the film cannot contain the original score? Also, is German Wikipedia hosted in Germany? If so, I'm surprised to find out—prior to this I thought everything (including foreign-language Wikipedias) was hosted in servers in the US. Best again, Tyrone Madera (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @Tyrone Madera The soundtrack has two separate US copyrights, the original composition and the recording. The original composition, assuming this was published in the US at the same time as the film, will be out of copyright. The recording though dates from when? This determines when the recording becomes out of copyright in the US. The earliest date being 1 January 2022 if this is the original recording that accompanied the film in 1921.  As the article talks about the score being lost and rediscovered in 2018 I suspect this is a much more recent recording and therefore still in copyright for a long time to come.
 * No, the German Wikipedia is hosted in the US. However the German Wikipedia does have different policies from the English Wikipedia about files used on it. For example the German Wikipedia does not allow fair-use files despite them being allowed on the English Wikipedia. Off-hand I don't know what the German Wikipedia policy on images that are only PD in the US. If they do accept US-only PD files you would need to upload it separately there. Nthep (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , Ah, I get it now. Thank you for your help! Do you know where I can get help figuring out the logistics of uploading files larger than 100 MB onto Wikipedia? Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @Tyrone Madera No idea. Ask at WP:VPT to see if anyone there can help you. Nthep (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Bot not acknowledging fair use rationale
Hi. I am nonplussed about this revert by JJMC89_bot. The image File:Blue_book_cover.png has been a fair use book cover image since 2009, with fair use rationale and license template included. I changed the formatted and wording slightly after the bot tagged it so it matched other book covers I've uploaded. But I'm not sure what cased the bot to tag it. Maybe someone can plus me here? - Scarpy (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi . What that particular bot is looking for is a separate, specific non-free use rationale for non-free files being used in articles, and the way that it does this is by looking for WP:WIKILINK somewhere in a non-free use rationale which connects a file to a particular use per WP:NFCC. When the bot first checked File:Blue book cover.png for a non-free use rationale for the file's use in GROW (support group), it didn't find any such link; so, it removed the file and left an edit summary linking to WP:NFC. The bot should stop removing the file now that you've tweaked the non-free use rationale for that use on the file's page, by adding a link to the article. The bot isn't really able to assess whether a particular rationale is valid in terms of all ten non-free content use criteria; it just mainly is looking for files which don't comply with WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC#10c. Checking for NFCC#9 issues is pretty straightforward, but checking for NFCC#10c is a little more tricky because the bot can't really read a file's page like a human editor might; so, it will not notice "non-link Wikilinks" to articles where a file is being used. I think that was what happened here. You could probably help avoid this in the future with other files you upload or have uploaded by using a template for the non-free use rationale instead or making sure to ensure there's an active Wikilink to the article where a file is being used somewhere in the rationale as shown here. Ideally, a human editor follows the bot around and looks at what it does to make sure there aren't any mistakes made; bots, however, work at much faster pace that we can and there can be a bit of a lag between the two. Perhaps this was also what happened in this case since it does appear that (the bots's operator) did go around and assess the file to check on the bot's work and saw the change you made to the file's page. What happened after that though has nothing to do with the bot. JJMC89 looked at the way the file was being used and felt that particular use didn't comply with relevant policy. There are ten non-free content use criteria (as mentioned above) and all of these need to be met for a use to be considered policy compliant. Providing a rationale is only one (actually just part of one) of the ten criteria, and doesn't automatically mean a particular use is policy compliant. Now, if you disagree with JJMC89's assessment, you can clarify why on the file's talk page. Some things for you to consider though are WP:NFCC, WP:NFC, WP:DECORATIVE, WP:NFC, WP:OTHERIMAGE and WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED. Generally, non-free book covers like this are only allowed for primary identification purposes in the main infoboxes or at the tops of stand-alone articles about the relevant books themselves; it's not impossible to use such non-free content in other ways, but it becomes much harder to justify absent any sourced critical commentary about the book cover art itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The bot should stop removing the file now that you've tweaked the non-free use rationale for that use on the file's page, by adding a link to the article. Something deleted the file. I didn't see the comments you left. What were/are your objections? - Scarpy (talk) 05:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * An administrator named deleted the file per WP:F7. If you want further clarification, you probably should ask Explicit about it on his user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The file was nominated for deletion for violating WP:NFCC. It was a book cover being used in an article about an organization. Such uses are considered pretty standard violations of policy, which is explained to a certain degree at WP:NFC and WP:NFCI. A justified use of non-free content on GROW (support group) would be its logo, not one of the organization's book covers. ✗  plicit  14:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. (Unrelated, is there a reason you three tilde'd your signature)? - Scarpy (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Whoops, finger must have slipped. ✗  plicit  23:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Whistl logo.png
This file was uploaded to Commons as c:File:Whistl logo.png, but it was deleted per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Whistl post logo.png. The comment left by the deleting Commons admin was that the file could be uploaded to Wikipedia if deemed necessary, which is what seems to have been done. However, the file was uploaded under a PD-textlogo license which cannot be used if the file is not PD in both the US and it's country of origin the UK. If the file is really "PD-textlogo", it probably shouldn't have been deleted from Commons. The question I have is whether this would be OK to convert to PD-ineligible-USonly for local use on Wikipedia. It does seem for the most part to be OK as "PD-logo" per c:COM:TOO US with the only possible "creative" element being the "smiley face" dot for the letter "i". Even that, however, seems too simple to be eligible per US copyright law. If the opinion is that the png version is OK to license as "PD-ineligible-US only", then File:Whistl logo.svg should also be OK to be licensed the same way. There's no real difference between the two files other than the file format, and there's no real justification per WP:FREER for the svg to be non-free just based upon that alone. Anyone have any opinions on this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: File's licensing was converted to PD-ineligible-USonly by . -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Photo Upload
I am creating a wiki page on an audio engineer and I have permission from him to use a picture from his facebook page. How should I upload and is this. ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yodeddy (talk • contribs) 20:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably not, unless the copyright holder, who is normally the photographer, releases the image under a free licence we accept. And because as a previously published image, it needs to be verified. Details of how they can do that are on the Volunteer Response Team page. ww2censor (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I added the Creative Commons copyright? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yodeddy (talk • contribs) 17:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So who released the image under that CC licence you added? ww2censor (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

3 days to fix file "missing information on its copyright and licensing status"
Hello. A bot recently sent me this talk page alert and now the image page File:Recordings-of-prototypical-breathing-patterns-for-each-basic-emotion.png has a warning saying that the image will be removed after Sunday July 18 2021 if not fixed. Only I am not clear on what information is lacking. Can someone please help clarify? In the meantime I will try to contact the owner of the file in person and make sure they are on board with the upload. Thanks. Remando (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Remando (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So, the image has no copyright license details and there must be one that copyright holder released the file under. Also the image will need a permission statement from the copyright holder of that license or evidence of the copyright has been transferred by legal means and then we require verification for the current copyright holder. ww2censor (talk) 23:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Ww2censor. I guess I had wrongly assumed giving credit was enough. I have tried to contact the most recent author but will probably have to let this lapse. Will be more careful in future! Remando (talk) 12:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Since the image was published, there is also the possibility that the copyright was transferred to the publisher. CapitalSasha ~ talk 17:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That might apply if they were an employee of the publisher or it was a work-for-hire so long as they complied with the legal work-for-hire contract requirements. Neither seems likely to me but the country of origin may also affect that. ww2censor (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It is common in academic publishing for the author to transfer the copyright to the publisher as part of (often as a condition of) the publication process. CapitalSasha ~ talk 22:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

File says non-commercial but also CC-BY-SA, which is correct?
Regarding this file, currently on Commons: File:Brazil_Product_Export_Treemap.jpg. The description says "R Haussmann, Cesar Hidalgo, et. al. Creative Commons 3.0 non-commercial license. 2012." but further down the page it says "This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.".

Is this a problem? I know some files can be dual-licensed, is that the case here? If not, how do we determine the correct license for this file?

RudolfRed (talk) 01:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Since this is a Commons file, it might be better to ask about it at c:COM:VPC. However, the answer to this question might be found by looking at the file's edit history and also c:User talk:Doubleodd2. Non-commercial CC licenses are not compatible with c:COM:L as explained in c:COM:CC. In this file's case, it looks like the uploader originally uploaded to file as licensed, but it was tagged with c:Template:Npd by another editor a day later. The editor who tagged the file with npd, then removed that tag about a week later with the edit summary "Source site changed licence [sic] to one compatible with Commons". The source link http://atlas.media.mit.edu/ appears to now be for something else, but a March 2012 archived version can be found at here. If you scroll down to the bottom of that page, you'll see that it's released under a license that Commons accepts. Now, if you look at this February 2012 archived version, you'll see that the page was licensed under a ND-NC type of CC license which isn't acceptable for Commons; so, the licensing of the page was change somewhere between February 21, 2012 and March 18, 2012.  My guess is that in the process of sorting this file's licensing out, everyone involved forgot to clean up the file's description by removing of at least clarifying the information about the NC license.-- Marchjuly (talk) 13:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to strikethrough "[sic]" per comment left by Nthep below. -- 21:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)]
 * @Marchjuly Complete aside but licence isn't a typo to British English speakers. Nthep (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for catching this . I should've checked that better. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that great explanation. RudolfRed (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This file seems to be being currently discussed over on c:COM:VPC; so, you probably will have better luck if you ask for assistance there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

For the interested
Wikipedia_talk:File_Upload_Wizard Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Officer's Choice logos
File:Officer's Choice logo.jpg and File:Officer's Choice Blue logo.jpg are both being used in the article Officer's Choice. The red script logo seems to be PD in the US, but I'm not so sure about c:COM:TOO India which means that PD-logo might not apply. Even if it's still protected in India, however, this seems to be certainly OK to convert to PD-ineligible-USonly. The blur logo, on the other hand, is a bit more complex though not by much. The only possible copyrightable element might be the "grain" imagery beneath the brand name. Is this bit enough to push it above c:COM:TOO United States or can this one be converted to "PD-ineligible-USonly" too? If the blue one needs to remain licensed as Non-free logo, then I don't think it can be kept because I'm not seeing how it meets WP:NFCC or possibly even WP:NFC; so, converting it to some sort of PD seems to be the only way to keep the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 July 20 § Henry Kulka images
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 July 20 § Henry Kulka images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Michael Cutter character photo for actor Linus Roache
Noticing there was no photo for the actor Linus Roache, I entered onto his page a link of the photo of the actor from the page for Law & Order character Michael Cutter, Roache's most famous role. However the "JJ89MC Bot" removed it from Roache's page due to "Removed WP:NFCC violation(s)", yet the photo remains in use on the Cutter page. Either the Cutter page should not have the photo as well or the bot's action should be corrected. Jyg (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * We require a separate rationale for each use of a non-free image, so likely the bot removed it from Roache's page as there's no rationale for it. Now, before you go adding it there, that for illustrating living persons, we do not allow the use of non-free imagery unless there's exceptional reason for it; this is a requirement from the WMF on the basis that as long as someone is living, we can likely get a photo of them. The image on the character page is appropriate since the article is only about the character, which will only be available in copyrighted images (from the show, etc.). --M asem (t) 15:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * @Masem, Thank you for explaining. After reading that and the notes on the photos itself, in short: the image of Roache is a screenshot from the show and therefore may only be used within articles directly associated with the show. . Jyg (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Disney Frozen 2 promotion brands.jpg
Is File:Disney Frozen 2 promotion brands.jpg acceptable under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0? Or does it fall under fair use because of its incorporation on copyrighted promotional artwork? Wingwatchers (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The file you’re asking about is uploaded to Commons. You can ask about it at c:VPC if you want, but neither Commons nor English Wikipedia accept NC-ND types of licenses of any type; so, such a license wouldn’t be acceptable per either c:COM:L or WP:COPY. Moreover, Commons also doesn’t accept any type of fair use per c:COM:FAIR, and files uploaded under a claim of “fair use” usually end up being speedily deleted. Wikipedia, on the other, does accept certain types of copyrighted content as non-free content, but Wikipedia’s policy is much more restrictive than fair use as explained in WP:NFC. Do you want to know whether you can use this photo on English Wikipedia? That’s a bit tricky to answer because I personally think there are issue with the Commons file per c:COM:Packaging that need to be sorted out and that the file will likely need to be deleted if those issues can’t be resolved. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the type, the correct license is Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic, would that be ok to use? The image is from Flickr . Wingwatchers (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That particular license is typically OK for Commons and Wikipedia, but in this particular case I don't think it's sufficient on its own. As a posted I above, I think there is a problem with the file for the reasons given in c:COM:Packaging. This photo is, in my opinion, a derivative work which means there are two copyrights involved: the one for the photo itself and the one for the products being photographed. Both of these need to be taken into account for Commons to keep the file. The person who took the photo owns that copyright, but they don't own the copyright on the product packaging. So, the license they've released the photo under only applies to their photo. Now, they could probably claim they uploaded the photo to Flickr under a claim of fair use for the packaging if pressed on the matter or they could simply change the license to a NC-ND type and not get in any trouble, but that doesn't work for either Commons or Wikipedia; both require that freely licensed content be 100% free with respect to all possible copyrightable elements. So, Commons cannot, again in my opinion, keep this file unless it can be shown that the copyright holder of the product packaging has also given their c:COM:CONSENT. It might be possible to upload this photo to Wikipedia, but in that case it would be treated as non-free content because it's not 100% free. The current licensed used on Commons would be OK for the photo, but a non-free copyright license  and non-free use rationale would also need to be provided. Figuring out the license is fairly straightforward (Template:Non-free product cover would probably work fine), but the tricky part is writing a valid non-free use rationale since a separate, specific and valid non-free use rationale needs to be provided for each use. It's the valid part that is tricky because there are ten specific criteria that need to be satisfied for a non-free use to be considered valid. Given the way the file is currently being used in Frozen II, I think it would be hard to justify the file's non-free use; however, it would be OK to use such an image in a stand-alone article about either product itself if such an article could be written per WP:NPRODUCT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Removed. Wingwatchers (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Belgium FA logo/badge: PD-ineligible-USonly?
Please see c:COM:VPC for more additional details, but I would like to know what some others think about File:Belgium national football team notext.png and File:Royal Belgian FA logo 2019.svg. Can this team logo/badge be treated as PD-ineligible-USonly for local use on English Wikipedia? The two files are essentially the same with the only real difference being the file format and the additional text added to svg version uploaded to English Wikipedia. c:COM:Belgium doesn't really provide much information on Belgium's WP:TOO, but it appears to be closer to the UK's TOO than it is to the US's TOO based upon this website. If it turns out that Commons can't keep the file, then non-free svg would also not be PD-logo; however, "PD-ineligible-USonly" might still be a possible alternative to non-free.FWIW, the png file uploaded to Commons isn't being used anywhere on English Wikipedia and appears to have been superseded by the svg version; so, deleting it from Commons wouldn't impact any English Wikipedia articles. The svg, however, was asked about here because the file was removed from some articles by a bot for WP:NFCC reasons. If the opinion is that the svg can be relicensed as "PD-ineligible-USonly", then it's use would no longer be subject to WP:NFCC; if not, then a discussion might need to take place regarding WP:NFC and the non-free use of the file to determine whether a valid non-free use rationale can be written for any additional uses of the file. The logo/badge looks like it would be PD in the US per c:COM:TOO United States, but it's the crown at the top which might make things close. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Is posting the copyright images on wikipedia talk pages forbidden and can we make people pay for copyright images?
To the Wikipedia staff.

I'm sorry for blindly posting copyright images on the talk pages earlier, it scared me to death and caused me to take a long break from Wikipedia to prevent getting me into further trouble. I'm an autistic man and I didn't know any better before the copyright strike.

Can I ask you something? Is there a better legal way to share copyright images on the wikipedia talk pages that won't get me suspended from Wikipedia editing? Are outside website links sources okay to post on talk pages?

Can you remove the copyright strike on my Wikipedia talk page?

Is it possible to pay the Wikipedia staff gift card money like google gift card money for paying for copyright image rights for talk pages?

Also can I upload my own original artwork on my own Talk page?

Please let me know and I'll try harder to be of good faith and respectful to the wikipedia pages. CrosswalkX (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia editors like myself are volunteers; we do not ask, and will not accept, gifts for doing what we do. In any case, the only people whom you can pay for use of copyrighted material, are the owners of those rights, not the Wikimedia Foundation, its small staff or its myriad volunteers.
 * So unless copyright holders license their intellectual property for free public use, including commercial re-use: no. You can't use copyrighted content anywhere in Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia Foundation project.
 * And you could not upload your own original artwork here unless you're willing to license it for anybody in the world, now and in the future, to use it and re-use it, including altering it and exploiting it commercially. Many artists are more than a little reluctant to do that. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  20:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi . I'm just going to add a little bit to 's answer above. Even if you're willing to release your own original artwork under a free license that Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons accepts per WP:COPY and c:Commons:Licensing, adding such files to your any of user pages might still not be OK per this. If you just added one or maybe two such images, then probably nobody would give you a hard time; however, if you try to add lots of images or try to do so in a way that is as an attempt to promote yourself or your artwork, then you're probably going to run into problems per WP:NOT. So, before you start to upload any of your own artwork, you might want to look at this and figure out if you can use them in a way that would comply with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Belgium FA logo/badge: PD-ineligible-USonly?
Please see c:COM:VPC for more additional details, but I would like to know what some others think about File:Belgium national football team notext.png and File:Royal Belgian FA logo 2019.svg. Can this team logo/badge be treated as PD-ineligible-USonly for local use on English Wikipedia? The two files are essentially the same with the only real difference being the file format and the additional text added to svg version uploaded to English Wikipedia. c:COM:Belgium doesn't really provide much information on Belgium's WP:TOO, but it appears to be closer to the UK's TOO than it is to the US's TOO based upon this website. If it turns out that Commons can't keep the file, then non-free svg would also not be PD-logo; however, "PD-ineligible-USonly" might still be a possible alternative to non-free.FWIW, the png file uploaded to Commons isn't being used anywhere on English Wikipedia and appears to have been superseded by the svg version; so, deleting it from Commons wouldn't impact any English Wikipedia articles. The svg, however, was asked about here because the file was removed from some articles by a bot for WP:NFCC reasons. If the opinion is that the svg can be relicensed as "PD-ineligible-USonly", then it's use would no longer be subject to WP:NFCC; if not, then a discussion might need to take place regarding WP:NFC and the non-free use of the file to determine whether a valid non-free use rationale can be written for any additional uses of the file. The logo/badge looks like it would be PD in the US per c:COM:TOO United States, but it's the crown at the top which might make things close. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Is posting the copyright images on wikipedia talk pages forbidden and can we make people pay for copyright images?
To the Wikipedia staff.

I'm sorry for blindly posting copyright images on the talk pages earlier, it scared me to death and caused me to take a long break from Wikipedia to prevent getting me into further trouble. I'm an autistic man and I didn't know any better before the copyright strike.

Can I ask you something? Is there a better legal way to share copyright images on the wikipedia talk pages that won't get me suspended from Wikipedia editing? Are outside website links sources okay to post on talk pages?

Can you remove the copyright strike on my Wikipedia talk page?

Is it possible to pay the Wikipedia staff gift card money like google gift card money for paying for copyright image rights for talk pages?

Also can I upload my own original artwork on my own Talk page?

Please let me know and I'll try harder to be of good faith and respectful to the wikipedia pages. CrosswalkX (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia editors like myself are volunteers; we do not ask, and will not accept, gifts for doing what we do. In any case, the only people whom you can pay for use of copyrighted material, are the owners of those rights, not the Wikimedia Foundation, its small staff or its myriad volunteers.
 * So unless copyright holders license their intellectual property for free public use, including commercial re-use: no. You can't use copyrighted content anywhere in Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia Foundation project.
 * And you could not upload your own original artwork here unless you're willing to license it for anybody in the world, now and in the future, to use it and re-use it, including altering it and exploiting it commercially. Many artists are more than a little reluctant to do that. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  20:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi . I'm just going to add a little bit to 's answer above. Even if you're willing to release your own original artwork under a free license that Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons accepts per WP:COPY and c:Commons:Licensing, adding such files to your any of user pages might still not be OK per this. If you just added one or maybe two such images, then probably nobody would give you a hard time; however, if you try to add lots of images or try to do so in a way that is as an attempt to promote yourself or your artwork, then you're probably going to run into problems per WP:NOT. So, before you start to upload any of your own artwork, you might want to look at this and figure out if you can use them in a way that would comply with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Doodle Champion Island Games
I want to add this image to the https://www.google.com/doodles/doodle-champion-island-games-begin to the Doodle Champion Island Games. What Template should I put.--Nosecone33 (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There are lots of images on the webpage that you've linked to; so, it's not exactly clear which one you're referring to. In most cases, the images on that page are likely going to be considered to be protected by copyright which means it might be possible to upload them as non-free content for use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is, however, quite restrictive and there are ten specific criteria that need to be satisfied for each use of non-free content. Assuming you want to uploaded the main logo for the games for use in the main infobox of Wikipedia article about the games, it should be OK for you to do so per WP:LOGO under the license Non-free logo with Non-free use rationale logo being used for the required non-free use rationale. The use of other types of non-free content in that article might, however, be much harder to justify and thus not be OK to upload and use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Peru Olympic Committee Logo
The Peru Olympic football team (a.k.a. Peru under-23 football team) uses the same logo of the Peruvian Olympic Committee as do many other Olympic football teams (for example: Honduras national under-23 football team or Brazil national under-23 football team) I added the Peruvian Olympic Committee logo to the Peruvian Olympic football team infobox. A few days later, User:JJMC89 bot removed the logo stating that "Removed WP:NFCC violation(s). No valid non-free use rationale for this page." The issue to be WP:NFCC#7. In other words, because the non-free use rationale template for the logo does not include both the Peruvian Olympic football team AND the Peruvian Olympic Committee under WP:NFCC#7 then there is no rationale for the logo to be used in both. Reading the actual text of WP:NFCC#7 it states that "Non-free content is used in at least one article." In this case the logo would be used in TWO articles and thus meet the WP:NFCC#7 standard. The problem is that the current non-free use rationale template only seems to allow the name of ONE article and not too. So, if I am not able to add the name of the second article then JJMC89 will probably erase the logo again if I try to add it again. Is there any way to have rationale under one logo that can justify its use in more than one article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Critviz (talk • contribs) 00:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi . Not all images the images you see used on Wikipedia are licensed the same, and how an image is licensed is largely going to determine how it may be used. The articles for Hondurus and Brazil that you've referenced above are using images that have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons under public domain licenses, while the one you want to use in the Peru article was uploaded to Wikipedia as non-free content. This is an improtant difference and is often why it can be hard to try and compare image use on Wikipedia as explained in WP:OTHERIMAGE because only images uploaded as non-free content are required to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and there are lots of restrictions placed on how such files may be used. 's bot's removal of the file didn't really have anything to do with WP:NFCC, but rather with WP:NFCC. That particular bot looks for non-free files added to articles for which a corresponding non-free use rationale has not been provided on the file's page. As you correctly state, NFCC#7 doesn't say that a non-free file can be used only once, but NFCC#10c states that a non-free file is required to be provided with a separate and specific non-free use rationale for each use; moreover, it's the responsibility of the person wanting to add a non-free file to an article to provide valid rationale for its use per WP:NFCCE. There are ten non-free content criteria which need to be met for each use and if you feel that the file's non-free use can be justified in the Peru Olympic team's article, then you will need to provide a separate specific non-free use rationale for that particular use to stop the bot from removing the file again. However, simply providing a rationale doesn't mean it's a valid rationale as explained in WP:JUSTONE; so, you might stop the bot from removing the file, but another editor can challenge the rationale. FWIW, the most likely reason for such a challenge is going to be item 17 of WP:NFC. Generally, when dealing with non-free logos of organizations (like an national Olympic commitee), the use of the logo in the primary Wikipedia article about the organization is considered OK; however, additional uses in articles about sub-entities of the same parent organization are generally not considered OK. How this should be applied to Olympic sports teams is not always clear, but in this case the "Peru Olympic Commitee" would be considered the parent entity and the "Peru Olympic football team" would be considered a child entity; so, even though Peru might choose to use the same branding for both for whatever reason, relevant Wikipedia policy might limit the logos use to only the article about the committee. Some Olympic teams have their own separate non-free logo that is different from their national Olympic committee and in such cases such a logo would be acceptable to uses. In cases where different logos don't exist though, the default is not just to automatically use the logo of the Olympic committee in the individual team articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Science (journal)
There's a discussion about fair use on cover images that would benefit from more eyes. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Newspapers.com photo copyright question
I have recently gained access to Newspapers.com through Wikipedia Library. Newspapers.com is a premium newspaper archive. Would it be general acceptable to use images from Newspapers.com from newspapers that were printed before 1926? The photos from the newspapers would considered public domain for sure, but I'm wondering if there is any legal weirdness involved, as Newspapers.com is typically a service which is paid for. RoundSquare (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I think you're better asking this at Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Library. Copying the content, public domain or not, may breach the site's T&Cs and jeopardise Wikipedia's entire relationship with newspapers.com. Nthep (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Logo of the New Democracy (Greece).svg
File:Logo of the New Democracy (Greece).svg and File:New Democracy Logo 2018.png are essentially the same logo with the only difference being the file format and a slight difference in the shade of blue. The png was uploaded to Commons in 2018 and the svg uploaded locally as non-free content back in May. I can't see any reason why these both shouldn't be licensed the same way; in other words, they should either both PD-textlogo or both be non-free logo, shouldn't they? If the only reason the svg version needs to be licensed as non-free is because it's svg, then that would fail WP:NFCC since a non-vector PD version would work just as well as a vector non-free version. It possible the uploader of the svg version just picked a non-free license because they thought that what needed to be done. Is there really any copyright related reason why the svg needs to be non-free? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchjuly (talk • contribs) 13:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)