Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2021/June

Two images
I added these two images Sachindra Chandra Pal.jpg and Kamala Bhattacharya.jpg to the Sylhetis article but a bot removed them claiming they are not free. Can you fix the status of these two images? They are clearly very old images. UserNumber (talk) 09:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * File:Sachindra Chandra Pal.jpg and File:Kamala Bhattacharya.jpg links for courtesy.
 * , these are not PD-India if they were published after 1961; date of publication is unknown so I assume after. Either way, they would have copyright restored by URAA and would still need the fair use. They also need to have good reason to be in the Sylhetis article, and I don't think that it would demonstrate necessity under NFCC. There is nothing to be fixed. Sennecaster   ( What now? ) 12:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Milwaukee Brewers logo.svg
File:Milwaukee Brewers logo.svg is essentially nothing more than File:Milwaukee Brewers cap logo on navy.png with a few additional non-copyrightable elements. The Commons file was uploaded after the non-free one and it's quite possible it's not correctly licensed and needs to be deleted. However, if there's a chance of the Commons file being OK, then there's no reason for the local file to remain non-free since simply being in svg format is not enough to justify a non-free license per WP:NFCC. Either both file's are PD or both are non-free. In the former case, whether both are need is more of editorial decision; if the latter case, however, both shouldn't be used per WP:NFCC. Is there any way the Brewers logo is PD? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I tried to upload an image, but it was rejected for having no tag.
I created the image. It appears to me that I should use the "Attribution" tag (whatever that means). I feel blinded by a blizzard of information. So what do I do? Please notify me on my talk page. Thanks. Chuckage (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi . It would help if you could be more specific and provide a link or at least the name of the file you're asking about. There is a notification on your user talk page related to File:HKG5k.png, but it's from 2018. Is that the file you're asking ahout? That file was deleted by an administrator named Explicit in July 2018 per speedy deletion criteria F4. Files deleted for this reason are usually ones which aren't provided with a proper source or of unclear provenance. I'm not a Wikipedia administrator and am unable to see the file, but you can post a message at User talk:Explicit if you would like further clarification. A file which has been deleted isn't gone forever, but rather it's only hidden from public view; moreover, a deleted file can be restored by an administrator if the issue(s) that led to its deletion are subsequently sorted out. So, perhaps if you explain things to Explicit, he will restore the file or at least explan what you will need to do to get the file restored (if possible). -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the file I'm talking about is File:HKG5k.png. I created the chart in excel and converted it to png for the purpose of posting it on my Earth section paths page. Chuckage (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As I posted above, that file was deleted by an administrator named back in 2018; so, if you want further clarification, you can ask him about it on his user talk page. Finally, perhaps it was just a natural choice of words, but Wikipedia articles aren't really technically our pages per se. So, even if you're able to sort out the file's licensing, you still may have to establish that the file should be used in the article for contextual reasons per WP:IUP and sometimes article talk page discussion is required to do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Babak khoramdin2.jpg
File:Babak khoramdin2.jpg seems to be too simple to be licensed as Non-free book cover and should be at least OK as PD-ineligible-USonly for local use on Wikipedia if it's still protected per c:COM:Iran. There's also File:Babak khoramdin1.jpg which appears to be the same cover art that has been tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F5 and WP:F6. Any there any reasons why these need to remain non-free? -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to update: The uploader of these file's has been indefinitely blocked per a SPI, and the account has been globally locked as well; so, they aren't coming back anytime soon. So, it makes no difference what happens to these files really because one has been tagged for speedy deletion per WP:G5 and the other will eventually end up being deleted per WP:F5 once the article it's being used in has been deleted. I can't see any other possible way to use them, and moving files not being used anywhere or with a very low likelihood of ever being used to Commons seems to be pointless. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Xuzhou Metro logo
The logo for the Xuzhou Metro is uploaded both to the English Wikipedia as non-free (File:Xuzhou Metro 2019.png) and to Commons as PD-textlogo. It's not obvious to me whether the file is above or below the threshold or originality. Thoughts? * Pppery * it has begun... 20:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Company Logo of Assure Quality.png
Anyone think File:Company Logo of Assure Quality.png is PD-logo or at least PD-ineligible-USonly? It's bascially nothing more than a bunch of letters, thought the first too might have a tad bit creativity to them to meet sweat of the brow. c:COM:TOO New Zealand state that NZ's TOO is not high, but not sure if that means it closer to the UK's than it is to the US's. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Copyright of UK Government Sub-committee report from c.1946
Hi all, in  List of WWII Maybach engines I cite  In Appendix III there is a reproduction of the 5-page typewritten ''Report on the Interrogation of Dipl.-Ing. Ernest Kniepkamp (a.F.Vs.)'' by W. J. Semmons for British Intelligence Objectives Sub-committee (BIOS) c.1946 (Final Report No. 34). I'm wondering about its copyright status, since I am thinking about linking to a faithful transcription of the report at for those who don't have access to the printed source. I realise it's a Russian blog and all that entails for an article, but in any case I wouldn't want to link to a page which might contravene any copyright. Could you please advise on the status of the original 1946 report? Cheers, MinorProphet (talk) 01:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this might be better off at WP:ELN. MinorProphet (talk) 01:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Screenshot 2021-06-09 11.47.56 AM.png
I need help with this: I uploaded this picture this no license, and I want to put a license on it before it gets deleted after 1 week, how can i add a license to an already-uploaded photo of mine? Please help, DinosaurTrexXX33 (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * we need to know the source, the author and the copyright status of the image before we can advise you. Likely it is copyright and can't be used. Also, you should give your files a descriptive title because this one is meaningless but it can be renamed if we keep it. ww2censor (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It was from my friend's youtube video, here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ DinosaurTrexXX33 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi . Your notification of won't go through because you didn't WP:SIGN your post the first time around. I've notified him in my post so perhaps he'll respond. However, most likely he's going to ask is that whether your friend actually created the video that they uploaded to YouTube. Lots of people upload stuff to YouTube, but that doesn't necessarily make them the original copyright holder of what they upload. Is that an original avatar/character that your friend created or does it come from somewhere else? For example, I might create my own avatar from start to finish and if it was my own original idea, then I would own the copyright on it. If, however, I borrowed the image (either totally or partially) from somewhere else, then the copyright of the original work also needs to be considered. So, either the original copyright is held by your friend or it isn't. In the first case, Wikipedia would need to verify that your friend gave their constent for their work to be uploaded to Wikipedia in order for the file to avoid deletion; in the second case, Wikipedia would need the to verify the consent of the original copyright holder, whomever that may be. So, ask your friend to clarify where the image came from. If they're the original creator, then someone can help you figure out what needs to be done; if they're not the original creator, then things are much more difficult to resolve because they involve asking the original copyright holder for their permission. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, sorry for not signing my post. I completely forgot! His avatar creation of me was made by this site called "Wrapper Offline". I took a screenshot of it so that I can put it on my Wikipedia page, but my friend, neither did I ask for permission to upload it. I am very sorry about this, Regards, DinosaurTrexXX33 (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It might depend upon the terms of the licensing offered by "Wrapper Offline". I don't know much about software licensing per se, but there might be something that states you can create something for you yourself to use, but you can't create something, uploaded to another website and release it under a license that allows everyone else everywhere in the world to use anyway they want (including using it to make money). That's pretty much what you or your friend will be doing if you upload a file to Wikipedia under one of the free licenses that Wikipedia accepts. You can upload the file just so for use on Wikipedia or for use only by you under one of the free licenses that Wikipedia allows, and there's no way this type of file could be uploaded as non-free content for use on Wikipedia, unless perhaps there was a Wikipedia article written about you where it could be used.If you uploaded the file by mistake, don't worry about because lots of people make similar mistakes. You can just do nothing and the file will be deleted in a few days, or you can add the syntax  to the top of the file's page and it will probably be deleted a little sooner per WP:G7. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for helping me! Signed, DinosaurTrexXX33 (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Embedding a (c) img from an external source
Hi. Wondering about embedding copyrighted images (e.g. linking from the publisher's website) without uploading them to WP and claiming a fair-use exception. Where is the policy & templates for that? Thanks, — kwami (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia isn't hosting the file, then I don't think it's subject to WP:NFCC. There may be an issue with WP:COPYLINK and WP:CONVENIENCE if the image is sourced to a site which might itself be violating someone's copyright, but there also some allowances made for websites to reliable sources used as citations that contain embedded images (e.g. newspapers, magazines) because it's generally assumed that the website is using the image under fair use or fair dealing. User-generated websites like blogs and video hosting sites are the ones which seem to be the most problematic, unless they are controlled by the original copyright holder of whatever content they host. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks.
 * The image is from a book, on a site selling the book, so that should be fair dealing. It's been up for years.
 * What's the proper format/template?
 * — kwami (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you want to upload the image to Wikipedia or Commons? You cannot upload the image to Commons as fair use, but Wikipedia does allow certain types of copyrighted content to be uploaded locally as non-free content. If you just want to add a link to the website, then maybe it can be done as a citation or as an external link. That won't display the image on in whatever article you add the link to though. You could try External media, but that once again is only a way to link to external website and won't display the image in the article. Finally, as for It's been up for years., that doesn't really matter when it comes to COPYLINK; there's lots of stuff online that's probably a copyvio but that's been there for years. It could simply be there because nobody noticed or wanted to go through the hassle of getting it removed. If you've got any doubts, you might want to ask at WP:ELN since this noticeboard tends to deal with issues related to media either already uploaded to Wikipedia or that someone wants to upload to Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't want to upload it, just embed it so it displays in the article. I've seen that done, but forget how.
 * As for it being up for years, I just meant that the link should be stable.
 * Thanks — kwami (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no way to embed an image from a third party site on Wikipedia. Only link. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Dick, Kerr's Ladies Programme.jpg
This was removed from Huddersfield Atalanta Ladies F.C. with the edit summary "Removed WP:NFCC violation(s). No valid non-free use rationale for this page. See WP:NFC#Implementation. Questions? Ask here." The file now appears to have a statement saying it is PD in the US. Could someone have a look and confirm whether or not that image could be used in the Atalanta article? Thanks. Pam D  11:55, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A UK handbill produced in 1921 and presumably not published in the US I think is  (see File:UK_non-Crown_copyright_flowchart.pdf for the UK copyright process and as such is eligible for transfer to Commons. Nthep (talk)

logo from a defunct sports team: Richmond Roosters
Hello and I'm appreciative of any help and insight in doing this correctly as someone new to Wikipedia. There is a logo from a defunct sports team, the Richmond Roosters, that I would like to add to the page for information purposes. There is a lot of precedent it seems for the use of a logo in this way, but I'm not sure how to do this correctly. Any advice is appreciated. Gonzaga15 (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Just for a reference a similar question was asked on my user talk page at User talk:Marchjuly, but I wasn't online at the time. So, it appears that the OP then asked about it here as well. As I explained on my use talk, I think the file that was uploaded (File:Roosters Logo.jpg) is probably OK, except for perhaps a bit of questionable sourcing. If others think the sourcing isn't such a big issue but have other concerns, then feel free to clarify. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Who can set the 'image has rationale' field?
Some of the non-free tags (Ex. ) say that 'image has rationale' can be set to 'yes' if there's a good rationale, and that patrollers and admins can set it. Of course we know who admins are, but is there anything special/formal about being a patroller, or can anyone with experience do it? I know Commons has some special folks that review certain licensing issues, but I'm not aware of anything like that here, and wanted to check before reviewing rationales. Sunmist (talk) 07:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Press kits with CC license
If a press kit contains copyright images (here for example, and the legal page says that All Press Kit materials are made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND licence described below., etc., should that be uploaded to Commons or locally? -2pou (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The "NC" and "ND" parts of the license are not compatible with Commons, so they would have to be uploaded locally and used as non-free. --M asem (t) 19:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * However, such images can only be uploaded here as non-free if they comply with all 10 non-free media policy requirements. So, for example, if a new photo can be taken then it will not be allowed. ww2censor (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions § IMAGENAZI shortcut
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions § IMAGENAZI shortcut. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

use of images of Bank of England banknotes (Crown copyrighted)
I recently edited Banknotes of the pound sterling to add thumbnails. While I was at it I decided to see if images of the new Turing note had been released. They had so I uploaded appropriately scaled down versions (File:Bank_of_England_£50_Series_G_obverse.jpg, File:Bank_of_England_£50_Series_G_reverse.jpg) and added them to the table (I didn't modify Bank of England £50 note because the Turing note doesn't enter circulation until the 23rd - his birthday). My changes were removed for "WP:NFCC violation(s). No valid non-free use rationale for this page". That then resulted in the Turing note images being marked for deletion (which will happen on the 23rd) because they weren't being used in any article. I had reviewed all the rules about non-free content prior to uploading, but I did so again and tried to expand the use rationale on the file pages as best as I could, including adding the Bank of England's rules on reproducing images of their banknotes (which actually rule out the possibility of using a recreation).

I'm not sure what my next step should be here. Is the use rationale now satisfactory? Can the deletion process be aborted? Can I put the thumbnails back into that table? Aside from the new 50, all those images were uploaded by other users, does that affect anything?

PS. I also noticed that a bot scaled down the images by 8.668%. I chose the resolution I used because it matched some other banknote images which had been scaled down by bots. This whole process is very opaque to new(-ish) editors. - Wikkiwonkk (talk) 12:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * For a start, the files need a separate NFCC justification for each use - you provided justifications for Bank of England £50 note where the files weren't added, but not for Banknotes of the pound sterling where they were added. Others will pass an opinion as to whether the NFCC justification was good enough.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing the NFCC justifications should all be under the Licensing heading? The only reason my file pages are laid out the way they are is because that's what the upload wizard did (and I've since read that the upload wizard isn't quite perfect at using that particular rationale template).  I have since discovered Template:Non-free use rationale currency, so I made a little example page - User:Wikkiwonkk/sandbox/banknote - with it alongside Template:Non-free use rationale 2.  Is one template preferred over the other?  Regardless of which template I end up using, that is the way it should be laid out, one block per article the image is used in, yes? - Wikkiwonkk (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

GFDL v1.2 licence only
I wasn't around when GFDL-only ceased to be a valid licence for Wikipedia, so please excuse me if this is a dumb question: can this image be used in this project? And if so, how should the required attribution be provided? We seem to have about twenty instances of it here. I chose this one at random; I don't see any attribution there. It was added in 2006, so GFDL was still a valid licence then. Does that make it OK to ignore the terms of the licence? I've looked at Licensing update, where I read "any content on Wikimedia Foundation projects available under the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 with the possibility of upgrading to a later version was made available additionally under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA)". I don't see any mention of "possibility of upgrading" in the file description. Oh, I wanted to use the image at Australian Merino, but don't know if I can. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , what happened, as of June 2009, was that any GFDL-only submissions will no longer be accepted. In other words, CC-BY-SA is the primary Wikimedia license for text, and GFDL is retained as a secondary license. The sheep photograph was uploaded in 2005, so it can still be used, as GFDL was permitted (and indeed, required) at the time it was uploaded. You could not today upload an image to Commons dual-licensed under "GFDL 1.2 only" and "CC-BY-NC", but since that was permitted at the time, that image is essentially grandfathered, and you could use it just as you could any other image from Commons. If you're using the image on Wikipedia, the attribution is provided already by the image description page; you do not need to, for example, attribute it in the caption. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Stockholm City Hall Organ console.jpg
I uploaded this image somewhat unsure of the copyright restrictions (my first upload), but as another image from the same source (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Orgel_Domkirche_L%C3%BCbeck_Walcker.jpg) was already uploaded to Wikimedia commons under the same licensing as I used, I thought it was okay. When further examining the information about copyright from the source, the owner stated that (translated from German) "We would like to point out that the entire image material is the property of Gerhard Walcker-Mayer and that it is not permitted to be reproduced or published without written permission. A copyright claim is made on both the original image material and the image material brought to the Internet level through reworking.The reuse in organ magazines and on other organ sites on the Internet is expressly not desired. Please only use links after consultation." (https://walcker.com/opus/index.html)

The image was originally published in 1926 and the presumed owner (his name was on the image) died in 1948. Is this image in the public domain and is it possible for the image to remain on Wikimedia Commons?

Thankful for thoughts.

Nils Engström (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , this is the English Wikipedia, and you are asking about a Commons image, so that discussion should instead take place on Commons such as here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Maximus Inc. Logo.png - PD logo with (R) mark
The logo File:Maximus Inc. Logo.png consists of only a typeface and an individual words, therefore it isn't original enough to be eligible for copyright.

So the image is tagged correctly with PD-logo, but there a little ® trademark symbol in the image also. Due to that, I'm hesitant to remove the stuff about fair use. So now there's a conflict of licensing information in the file.

The uploader (, representative of the company, properly declared COI) has asked for help in getting the image on Commons. Would someone be able to assess what needs to be done with respect to tagging? Does the uploader need to send a permissions notice to OTRS? Can the fair-use stuff be removed? Should the ® symbol be removed?

See also discussion at File talk:Maximus Inc. Logo.png. ~Anachronist (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Trademark and copyright are not the same thing (see c:COM:TRADEMARKS and c:COM:CB for more). There are quite a number of PD logos uploaded to Commons which have visible trademarks on them. I don't think it's really necessarily to remove it. In such cases, the template Trademark is often added to the file's page, but some times the copyright licenses will contain language regarding the possibility of a logo being trademark; so, it's not always needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I have removed the non-free tagging from the file. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

File:SGRlogo.jpg
I don't understand why JJMC89 bot don't let me use this image on List_of_Stargate_games. Because this same image is used on Stargate:_Resistance for the exact same purpose, the game infobox and about the same game, without issue since 2009. Kwasor (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwasor (talk • contribs) 10:37, 23 June 2021
 * The answer is simple. The image is copyright and under our strict non-free policy use of such images IS allowed in the infobox of the article about the subject for identification purposes. It is NOT permitted to use non-free images in list articles per WP:NFLISTS. Please sign you posts by adding 4 tildes, like this ~ to the end of your talk page posts. ww2censor (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Books by William Coles Finch
I'm attempting to collect all books written by William Coles Finch (1864-1944), but having a little trouble establishing copyright status for the works in the USA. As I understand it, the situation is this:-

There are some cracking photo's in these books, which could be used in articles. If I were to upload images from the books published in 1927 or later to en-Wiki, would the images have to be used in articles, would they need a NFUR as they are still copyright in the USA? For the record, I've uploaded file:HMS Canada 05071811.JPG to commons from The Medway River & Valley, but that is a special case, as the image was already PD in the UK before it is assumed to have been first published in 1929. Some images in Life in Rural England and Watermills and Windmills were also published separately as postcards before 1926, and are therefore PD in UK and USA (AIUI). Mjroots (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * You'll be using the template PD-UK and as per the instructions on that template: "If the image is not in the public domain in the United States, in addition to the license tag for its status in the United Kingdom an appropriate fair use license and rationale should be provided, or the image should be proposed for deletion.". So the post-1927 books will still need to be handled as non-free, but the earlier ones can be handled as PD. --M asem (t) 13:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Obviously any images from books that are PD in the USA will be uploaded to Commons. I take it from your reply that if I upload an image to en-Wiki, then it will need to be used. Mjroots (talk) 13:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Just remembered, Water in Nature was jointly authored with Ellison Hawks, who died in 1971. Would that mean the book is still in copyright in the UK and USA until 2042? Mjroots (talk) 13:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes and yes to both the en-wiki and joint-authorship questions. --M asem (t) 14:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh well, 2042 it is then. Mjroots (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

. Have acquired a signed copy of the 1908 book Water, its Origin and Use. However, there is a letter pasted in the book which makes it clear that the book wasn't signed until 22 October 1934. In which case, is the signature still in copyright in the USA until 2030? Mjroots (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Going by Commons that signatures under UK law are not PD, that would seem right. --M asem (t) 13:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * file:WCF signature.JPG uploaded to en-Wiki. I think I've got all the appropriate templates on the file page. No doubt someone will shout if I havent. Mjroots (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * How does the file you uploaded meet WP:NFCC (WP:NFC)? The non-free use rationale you provide for the file states it’s purpose is to “illustrate” the signature which sounds sort of like WP:DECORATIVE non-free use (at least to me). What is it about seeing this signature that improves the reader’s understanding of the subject of the article or what’s written in the article to a degree that not seeing it would be detrimental to that understanding? Is there some reason that it needs to be seen now instead of say in nine years when it probably becomes PD? I’m asking this because this is a type of non-free use that you seem to have put a bit of thought into, but nonetheless seems at risk of being tagged or nominated for deletion per WP:NFCCP. Is it just that the signature is unique and historic? Maybe or someone else has some thoughts on this, but it seems like a better way to try and use a non-free file in the main infobox of the article would be a photo (if one can be found) of the subject. — Marchjuly (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There are PD images available of WCF. I'll be uploading them to Commons in the next few days. IMvHO, the article is improved by having his signature. Without getting into otherstuff territory, many articles about people exhibit their signatures. Everybody's signature is unique, and this one is historic. Am happy for the issue to be thrashed out if that's the way you feel. Mjroots (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Lots of articles may have signature images, but that’s not necessarily a justification for non-free use per WP:OTHERIMAGE. What’s going to need to be established is how and why this particular non-free use meets all ten non-free content use criteria. I linked the words “unique” and “historic” in my previous post to arguments which are often made against this type of non-free use and which I think are concerns that apply to it as well. Kudos to you on the free images of the subject, but again that’s not really a justification for a non-free image of his signature. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The image is PD in the UK. Seems that a deletion discussion is needed then. Mjroots (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a possibility that the signature is in the PD in the US. Apparently a signature doesn't meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the US, but it does in the UK. As we have established that the signature is PD in the UK as its author died more than 70 years ago, the file may be eligible for Commons after all. That said, I'm not an expert in these matters, which is why I've erred on the side of caution here. Mjroots (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't know signatures well - I don't know if they are from when the specific signature is made (eg when they signed the book) or if just considered a fixed part of the person and thus the clock starts when they die. This may be a question over at commons to resolve, where they know better on these matters. I will say that unless there is something notable about the signature (not just illustrating but actual sourced information about it), a non-free signature by itself would fail NFCC#8, so yes, figuring out the PD-ness would be good. --M asem (t) 21:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Mjroots: The license PD-ineligible-USonly is often used for logos which would be "PD-logo" in the United States, but which might not be "PD-logo" in their country of origin. That license can't be used for files which are not logos, but the license PD-USonly sometimes is used in a similar manner. If the file is PD in the UK for reasons other than c:COM:TOO United Kingdom, then I think it's PD in the UK regardless of how "creative" the signature might be. I was only trying to point out that there might be some issues in just assuming that it's automatically OK for the file to be an acceptable type of non-free use. It seems possible that a signature can be PD in the US for one reason and PD in its country of origin for another reason, but maybe it's not. The main reason files seem to be licensed as non-free on English Wikipedia is because they clearly are protected or are strongly suspected of being protected by copyright under US copyright law. If this file isn't, then it's probably OK to upload as "local PD" for local use on English Wikipedia if it's copyright status in its country of origin is unclear. If, on the other hand, the file is PD in the US and also in its country of origin, then it might be OK for Commons. Even if the reasons the file is PD are slightly different, it might be acceptable to add a different copyright license for each. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, its c:COM:SIG UK I was going by. That says UK signatures are generally copyrightable, but it also says at the very bottom that "However, if the signature is extremely simple (eg a scribbled line or two), it will not be copyright even in the UK". It is arguable that this is a simple signature, which means that PD-signature can be used. In any case, any UK copyright that may have existed has expired. If we take the view that the signature was under UK copyright, then the solution would seem to be to use PD-ineligible-USonly and PD-UK to cover the situation In which case I could upload to Commons and delete the image here. Mjroots (talk) 05:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologize if the links I provided were confusing, but "PD-ineligible-USonly" is a template used locally on English Wikipedia and I don't think there's a Commons equivalent for it. Maybe or someone else knows more about this, but I think you would have to upload the file under a different license if you were to upload it to Commons. If the file is PD in both the US and UK because the signature is too simple to be eligible for copyright, then a single c:Template:PD-signature might cover both countries. If, on the other hand, the signature is too simple to be eligible for copyright in the US but is PD in the UK for some other reason, then "PD-signature" might be OK for the US and a different PD license might be more appropriate for the UK. You might want to ask about this at c:COM:VPC to make sure. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

How about I change the templates here at en-Wiki to PD-ineligible-USonly and PD-UK and leave the do not transfer to commons template in place. Mjroots (talk) 08:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * PD-ineligible-USonly and PD-USonly are sometimes used for files uploaded locally to Wikipedia which are PD in the US but are not PD in their country of origin. PD-UK seems to be a license for files uploaded locally to Wikipedia which are PD in the UK but which might not be PD in the US. If a file’s country of origin is the UK and the file is PD, then a PD-USonly template doesn’t seem to work well with PD-UK.
 * If the file is PD in both the US and country of origin, then upload the file to Commons.
 * If the file is PD in US but not in country of origin, then upload file to Wikipedia under one of the PD-USonly types of licenses or as non-free content just to play it safe.
 * If the file isn’t PD in the US but is PD in the country of origin, then upload the file to Wikipedia as non-free content for the US and use a template like PD-UK (if one exists) for the country of origin. However, just a non-free license should be fine for both countries.
 * If the file is not PD in neither the US nor the country of origin, then upload the file as non-free content. A PD license for the country of origin wouldn’t be applicable.
 * I think that’s how it works but my apologies if I’m missing something or over simplifying things. — Marchjuly (talk) 09:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, the first of those applies. Have asked at Commons for guidance as to whether or not I can upload the image there, and what licences are needed if I can do so. Mjroots (talk) 10:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Commons says it's ineligible for copyright in the US, have uploaded to commons and deleted the file here. Many thanks for the help. Mjroots (talk) 11:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Copyright question for a photo whose holders have granted permission to use on Wikipedia
The New York City Municipal Archives has graciously authorized the upload of a 1915 photograph for use on The Great Gatsby Wikipedia article. Although I have uploaded many files in the past, I am uncertain what is the appropriate copyright tag to use for the photo. Clearly, I would not upload the file to Commons, and I also would not tag the photo as public domain. Is there a copyright tag that indicates the holders of the photo have granted Wikipedia the permission/right to use the image? — Flask (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It would seem, at least in principle, that a photo taken in 1915 and first published around that time would no longer be eligible for copyright protection and would’ve lapsed into the public domain a few years ago per WP:PD and c:COM:HIRTLE. Did the archive elaborate on why they feel they own the copyright on the photo? Sometimes an organization may claim copyright ownership over a photo for whatever reason, but the photo is really PD. I’m just curious as to why it’s being done in this case. Anyway, if the photo is still copyrighted, then it depends upon what you mean by “consent”. If you mean the archives agreed to WP:CONSENT (or c:COM:CONSENT), then the file should be fine to upload to Commons. WP:VRT verification might be required, but it should still be OK. If, on the other hand, you mean that the archives simply said it’s OK to use on Wikipedia, then that’s not really sufficient for CONSENT and the file would most likely need to be licensed as non-free content. This means that each use of the file would need to satisfy Wikipedia’s non-free content use policy. Copyright holder “consent” isn’t really necessary for non-free content to be uploaded and used; it’s nice perhaps, but not necessary and the file’s use will need to comply with relevant policy regardless. You could add Non-free with permission to the file’s page, but that doesn’t make the non-free uses of the file policy compliant. — Marchjuly (talk) 03:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, Marchjuly. Thank you for your swift reply. The photo in question is a 1915 surveillance photo taken by the New York City Police Department of Max Gerlach, a millionaire bootlegger who was F. Scott Fitzgerald's mysterious neighbor on Long Island and served as the key inspiration for the character of Jay Gatsby. As a police surveillance photo, the image was never published in any newspaper and assumedly the copyright is still owned by the City of New York. (I suspect the image is likely public domain since the 1915 photographer likely died before 1950 and the copyright of his work would have expired after 70 years, but I have no way of investigating at the moment.) Yesterday, I spoke with the Associate Commissioner of the NYC Department of Records regarding the photo. The department emailed me a high resolution scan of the photo with an attached authorization letter in PDF format stating the photo can be used anywhere on Wikipedia. Although they have explicitly authorized its use anywhere on Wikipedia, I don't want the file to be assumed to be public domain. Per your instructions, I'll use Non-free with permission and include an appropriate rationale explaining why its policy complaint. I assume that a photo of the historical individual upon whom Fitzgerald based the character of Gatsby and who the article discusses in detail would justify its inclusion under policy. — Flask (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think you should assume the photo is historic because it's old (even really old) and one-of-a-kind as explained here and here. It would better clarify the file's non-free use if you're able to find reliable sources which discuss (discussed) the photo and and the add content reflecting that coverage to the article as explained here. If you simply add the file to the article with nothing more than a caption and perhaps an unsupported sentence or two, then there's a chance it will be nominated or tagged for deletion for not satisfying WP:NFCC by someone. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:50, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Where can the FIDE flag be used?
The flag of FIDE, the world chess federation, is at File:Fidelogo.svg. It is copyrighted. Every now and then it gets added to articles, and then another editor removes it, as in this recent edit. I have read a comment previously that the flag should be used in the FIDE article and no other Wikipedia article, but I can not find that in any policy. So my questions: (1) Where it the exact policy which applies to the usage of the FIDE flag; and (2) would it be appropriate to put a reference to that policy somewhere on the File:Fidelogo.svg page, so it can be shown to editors in future? Because this issue keeps coming up. Adpete (talk) 01:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Non-free content is required to be used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy; more specifically, there are ten criteria which each use of a non-free file needs to meet in order for it to be considered acceptable. The FIDE flag file was removed from the 2021 World Cup article by a bot mainly because of criterion #10c which states that a separate and specific non-free use rationale is required for each use of a non-free file. This is also stated in the link to WP:NFC that the bot left in its edit summary. What the bot does is look for non-free files being used in articles that are missing a corresponding rationale for its use. When it finds such a file, it removes it and leaves an edit summary explaining why. So, the simple way to stop the bot would be to provide the missing rationale. However, criterion #10c is only one (actually just part of one) of the criteria that a non-free use needs to meet and they all need to be met per WP:JUSTONE. The way someone was trying to use this non-free file in the article as if it's some kind of MOS:FLAGICON is a common mistake that many editors make, but it's simply not going to be allowed per criterion #1, criterion #3a and criterion #8. Trying to use a non-free file as an icon is pretty much a decorative type of non-free use to begin with for even a single use, but then trying to use it three times also makes it excessive. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So if I understand correctly: the Template:Non-free use rationale logo at File:Fidelogo.svg is specific to the FIDE article, so it allows the flag's use in the FIDE artcle but nowhere else. Is that correct? Adpete (talk) 04:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The non-free use rationale on the file's page is for the FIDE article; so, criterion #10c is being met for the non-free use in that article which is why the bot didn't remove it from that article. A non-free file is only required to be used in at least one article per crierion #7 and it may be used more than once or in more than one articles; each use, however, still needs to meet all 10 criteria. For a non-free flag image like this, the most obvious uses would be in a stand-alone article about the flag itself or in a stand-alone article about the organization, etc. the flag represents; so, the non-free use in the FIDE article is probably OK. A single non-free use is already considered an exception to WP:COPY per the Exemption Doctrine Policy though, which means additional uses of the same file become increasingly harder and harder to justify. If you think the file's three uses in the 2021 World Cup article are justified, then you can provide a rationale for each of these uses and add them to the file's page (maybe even one rationale for all three uses might work. but not sure). That would stop the bot from removing the file. As I posted above, however, I don't think this would be considered a valid non-free use and that whatever rationale(s) you provide would almost certainly be challenged. I don't see how a consensus can be established for this type of use at WP:FFD. My opinion perhaps and if you disagree you can add the required rationales to the file's page.Many editors just assume that all images are the same on Wikipedia; so, they see the other flag images being used in that particular section of the article and naturally think its OK to add the FIDE flag. Those other flag images, however, aren't non-free files which means their use on Wikipedia isn't subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. Personally, I don't think even the free flag image add any really encyclopedic value to that particular section, but that is just my opinion. They look nice and perhaps link to each country's Wikipedia article, but the same thing could easily be accomplished simply adding the name of the country the player represents as a link in parenthesis for each individual entry (e.g. Marchjuly (FIDE)). A free alternative to using a non-free image doesn't necessarily mean a free version of the same image; it could mean an equivalent image or an alternative presentation such as text. That's my opinion on why such a use fails criterion #1, but there also criteria #3 and #8 which also aren't being met (in my opinion). All it takes is for one of the ten criteria to not be met for a non-free use to be considered non-compliant; so, addressing criterion #10c by adding a rationale still leaves at least three more criteria to sort out.If you're worried about other editors continuing to try and add the file to the article, then I don't think adding anything to the file's page or its corresponding file talk page will really help stop that. I don't think most people adding files to article even bother to look at the file's page; they most likely just add the syntax and don't look at anything else. Sometimes on an article where non-free files are being repeatedly added and subsequently removed because their uses aren't policy compliant, an administrator might add an edit notice to the top of the editing window to let those editing the article know about using non-free files; these notices, however, are often (no pun intended) not noticed or even ignored; in some cases, therefore, it might be better to add a hidden note to the exact place where the file tends to be added to let others know not to use a non-free file there (e.g. ), with something added to the article's talk page to elaborate further. Once again, some editors (particularly new or newish editors) either won't understand the note or will just ignore it and try to add a non-free image anyway. Changing the presentation of that section and removing all of the flag images might actually be the most effective way of stopping people from trying to add the FIDE flags to those three players' names, but others might not agree with that approach. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your detailed reply, but I think the first sentence was sufficient to answer my question! Just to be clear, I am not interested in challenging either the flag's inclusion at FIDE or its removal at other articles. I am just interested in applying WP policy correctly, and being able to justify it to other editors, which I now can do ("The Template:Non-free use rationale logo at File:Fidelogo.svg is specific to the FIDE article"). I don't care for the use of flags either, but they are widespread not only in chess articles but also other sports (e.g. 2021 French Open – Men's Singles), so I gave up opposing them years ago. Adpete (talk) 08:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to to use this image in an article?
The museum records indicate the photo was taken during the excavation of the archaeological site at Laugharne by Eccles and Dalton in either 1913 or 1917 but the subject is unknown and no other information is available about the photograph.

I am correct in thinking that this image is in the public domain and may be used? Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * In the absence of any cautionary words I've been bold and uploaded the image into the Laugharne article.Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Image of Arnold Majewski
On this page of the Finnish "Sotaveteraanit" magazine, the first image of the page is the last photograph ever taken of Arnold Majewski (standing, with his back towards the camera). He was shot dead by a Soviet sniper only seconds after this photograph was taken.

The photograph was taken on 10 October 1942 by fi:Ilmari Laukkonen, at that time a military photographer, later a magazine editor and a major figure in the journalism business. Laukkonen died in 2013.

I'd like to use the image in the article Arnold Majewski to better illustrate the event when he was killed. Can this image be uploaded to Wikipedia or to Commons? J I P &#124; Talk 12:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * @JIP a read of c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Finland suggests that this image is a simple photo and not a work of art and will therefore have been out of copyright since 1993 which also makes it PD in the US being out of copyright in Finland before 1 January 1996. On that basis it can be uploaded to Commons using PD-Finland50 and PD-1996. Of course someone may wish to argue that it is a work of art which, if is the case will make the photo to still be in copyright in both Finland and the US. Nthep (talk) 13:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Gina Coladangelo
Can someone confirm the File:Coladangelo and Tress.jpg used in the Gina Coladangelo article is correctly licensed and there are no problems. I have concerns, perhaps unjustified, but the area can be complex and a minefield and I would like a quite peruse by an expert to confirm that everything is order. uploader courtesy informed with this ping. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the image has to be deleted. We do not accept non-free images of living people, per WP:NFCC. This is also codified in Foundation:Resolutions:Licensing policy. Using such an image for depiction purposes when a free equivalent can be created is simply not allow. I'm sorry. I'm going to being removing the image from the articles in question and tagged it as replaceable fair use. Someone already has and has placed it for FfD at Files_for_discussion/2021_June_28. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * @Djm-leighpark it's now nominated for deletion and the basis of the nomination looks to be valid; images of living people normally fail WP:NFCC in that it possible to find or create a free image. Nthep (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks ... and  ... I suspect File:Hancock's embrace.jpg may have similar or other problems and may have to go the same way but I'll leave to experts.  (I'm not uploading these - I'm just asking the question).  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Jo Grimond.jpg
Would some others mind taking a look at File:Jo Grimond.jpg? It's licensed as PD-Pre1978, but that only seems to apply for works published in the United States. The country of origin for this file, however, appears to be the UK which would seem to mean that "PD-Pre1978" isn't applicable since the file isn't a "US work". Is there anything it the "Works Published Abroad Before 1978" section of c:COM:HIRTLE which might be applicable to this file? If the file is, by chance, not OK as currently licnesed and isn't PD for some other reason, it would still most likely be acceptable as Non-free biog pic; however, in that case, a valid non-free use rationale could most likely only be provided for the main infobox use in Jo Grimond. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , you found a really, really interesting case there, and I suspect there are more like it. This one is said to have been published in the Shetland Times, but I'm unsure whether that is the only place it was published. The question as to PD-Pre1978 is: Was it also published in the US within 30 days of that UK publication? If it was, and contained no copyright notice, PD-Pre1978 is correct (so it couldn't go to Commons, but could be used under that as a free image on the English Wikipedia.) If it was not published in the US within 30 days of its UK publication, it is then on Hirtle under "Works First Published Outside the U.S. by citizens of foreign nations..." and "Solely published abroad, without compliance with US formalities or republication in the US, and not in the public domain in its home country as of URAA date". That would put it at 95 years from publication to go PD in the US, and it would in that case currently be nonfree. Since it hinges on the question of US publication, I'll have a look and see if I can find any information regarding that, but I honestly don't hold out a great deal of hope on finding it. Unless someone can actually show it to be the case that it had a concurrent US publication within 30 days of UK publication, I suspect we will have to treat this as nonfree and decide what to do with it from that standpoint. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And as I suspected, I cannot find any information indicating that this image was concurrently published in the US. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I will ask the uploader if they can clarify their reason for choosing that particular license. The file was originally uploaded as non-free, but subsequently converted to PD by the uploader. — Marchjuly (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)