Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2021/November

1955 book and photo
The following book, a collection of memories of Robert Howard Hodgkin by 19 separate authors, was printed in 1955 in England "for private circulation". It includes an unattributed photograph of Hodgkin. The book does not so much as mention copyright. Could someone please advise as to the copyright status of the book and photo? Among other things, does the lack of a copyright notice matter; does each of the 19 memories have a separate (author-specific) copyright term; and is the status different in the US vs. UK?



Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 05:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)


 * @Usernameunique UK copyright will exist regardless of the lack of a copyright notice. It sounds like the book is a compilation of 19 sets of recollections? In which case each section will have a separate copyright of 70 years pma of its author, or if it is joint authorship then 70 year pma after the death of the last surviving author. If the photo is uncredited then eventually PD-UK-unknown will apply but not until 1 January 2026. The US copyright, if the book has never been published in the US, will last until 2050. Nthep (talk) 10:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Makes sense,, thanks for the explanation. 19 dates of copyright expiration it is. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Portrait
Hello, I was wondering about the status of this portrait, https://www.mutualart.com/Artwork/PORTRAIT-OF-MICHAEL-EMMET-URELL-USWV/1AD8D7312EA2FBE5. Both the painter and the subject died before 1925 so it should be safely public domain. Thanks for the help. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You might want to try asking about this at c:COM:VPC since Commons is where such a file should be uploaded if it's truly PD. Based upon the information contained in your post, though, it does seem as if this would be acceptable to upload to Commons as explained in c:COM:PD-Art. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, this seems OK for Commons. Please provide as much information as possible, and use for the license (or  if the painter died more than 100 years ago) . Regards, Yann (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

TEAL
I don't understand why this has been removed. It is the logo of Union Airways' biggest subsidiary. Please would someone tell me the reason so it can be fixed. Eddaido (talk) 07:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * @Eddaido each use of a non-free image must have its own separate non-free use rationale. This logo only has a rationale for the article on TEAL hence the bot removing it from anywhere else. Nthep (talk) 10:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this. That logo was only used while it was under the management and control of Union Airways (1939 to 1946). I cannot find any declarations about fair use anywhere. Where should I be looking? Thanks in advance, Eddaido (talk) 11:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You can find out more about non-free use rationales in WP:FUR. Logos such as this are generally only allowed to be used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand alone article about the entity they represent; trying to use them in other articles or in other ways is often quite hard to justify and meet the requirements of Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. For corporate logos, this almost always means that the corporation's logo is OK to use in a Wikipedia article about the corporation, but usually not OK to use in a Wikipedia article about a subsidiary of the parent corporation. Similarly, relevant policy doesn't really allow the use of subsidiary-specific logos in the articles about their parent companies. Since the logo in question seems specific to TEAL, using it there seems OK at first glance; the use in Union Airways of New Zealand, however, seems entirely WP:DECORATIVE per WP:NFC and item 6 of WP:NFC. If you add a rationale for that particular use to the file's page, it will stop the bot from removing the file; adding a missing rationale, however, is not always sufficient in and of itself per WP:JUSTONE and it seems very unlikely that a consensus could be establish in favor of that use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've only just had a look here in case there had been a response. I suspect you have not read either article. TEAL was the creation of Union Airways to fit with the future BOAC etc. Does that change your thoughts at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddaido (talk • contribs) 12:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I did read both articles and I agree with Marchjuly about the use of the TEAL logo in the article on UNAZ, it's hard to justify its inclusion. If readers want to know more about TEAL, including its logo, they click on the links and read the article on TEAL; we don't have to include all the information in the article on UNAZ. Wikipedia policy on non-free use is, deliberately, very stringent to keep the amount of non-free content to a minimum and that includes repeated use of the same image in multiple articles. Nthep (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't read each and every word of both articles, but I saw enough to offer my opinion on the file's non-free use based on how relevant Wikipedia policy has been applied over the years. It's OK to disagree with my assessment, and you're free to add a non-free use rationale for that particular use to the file's page if you do. If you don't add a rationale for the file's use and continue to try and use the file in that article, it will keep being removed by a bot; so, the first step is to add a rationale for that particular use of the file. If someone then disagrees with your assessment, they can challenge the file's use either by tagging it will di-disputed fair use rationale or starting a discussion about it at WP:FFD. If that happens, it will fall upon you to establish that the file's use in that article satisfies relevant policy. Now, I'm just going to add that Nthep is a Wikipedia Administrator who does lots of work in the file namespace and thus has probably dealt with similar types of issues over the years. So, if Nthep also feels that it would be hard to justify such a type of non-free use, then perhaps that might carry a little more weight than just me saying so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just because I have admin rights doesn't give me a supervote or make me infallible. My opinion is just that, an opinion, that I don't think the use of this logo in the article on UNAZ would pass all ten criteria of the non-free content criteria especially in this case WP:NFCC. Nthep (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Automobile Picture
Hello, writing up some documentation for various Mazzanti automobiles, and would like to include images. As far as I know, no free use licensed images of said cars exist. Is it appropriate to include them under non-free use? I've filled out non-free use rationale templates for album covers before, so I know that that must be included too. If you could also provide a template for automobile photo rationale (if there is one) or just a vanilla template, that would be great. Obama gaming (talk) 03:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * @Obama gaming You're going to hit problems with non-free use images, mostly WP:NFCC as it's possible for someone to go out and photograph a car and upload it as a free image. Granted, Mazzanti's aren't common but as c:Category:Mazzanti automobiles shows, it isn't impossible to obtain free images so that really makes non-free images a non-starter. Nthep (talk) 14:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes I've seen the wikimedia commons category, that's the exact reason I ask this. There aren't any pictures for the base Millecavalli, the Black Edition Millecavalli that has been uploaded is actually taken from another person presumably without permission, as it's been downsized and nor are there any pictures for the Pura apart from press releases, which is why I've emailed Mazzanti for a photo for each model. I understand your standpoint but Mazzantis are hardly ever seen outside of the odd concours or during their reveal. Obama gaming (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Deletion request started: c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Evantra Millecavalli.jpg. Yann (talk) 21:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Obama gaming But they are seen, so I stick by the WP:NFCC point. Anybody, if they're enthusiastic enough, could attend a show or launch and take photos. Nthep (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well unfortunately I'm not Italian & cannot attend said shows, so I guess I'll keep my fingers crossed that someone spots one of the five that roll off the production line annually. It's just that there hasn't been any photos other than the press releases for various models in a decent couple years. I have asked a person on flickr for permission to use their Millecavalli photo, if approved, what sort of template(s) do I need to use then? Obama gaming (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Believe me, I know how frustrating the NFCC can be, there are loads of things I would like to illustrate but can't. Sadly NFCC#1 doesn't allow for "it's difficult for me to create a free image so I'll upload a non-free image" but goes on it has to be very difficult for everyone. Each case is judged on it's own merits so if this were, for example, a North Korean car and all five builds were still in North Korea, then there might be a consensus that NFCC#1 couldn't be met and that a non-free image would be acceptable. But the exceptions have to be approaching this level of difficulty. Nthep (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Addendum: said user on flickr has granted me permission to use his photo, saying "Hello, you can use the image without problem". It is appropriate to upload this with a CC BY-NC-SA 1.0? Obama gaming (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, you have to ask them to release the image under a freer licence, such as cc-by-sa-2.0 because we do not accept files with NC or derivative restrictions. ww2censor (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I see, I have also read documentation regarding Flickr requests and have commented on the post in question for the user to release it as CC-BY-SA 2.0, so hopefully I get a response soon. After the licensing has been updated, I should upload it on Commons, yes? And do I need any templates for uploading a file there? Appreciate it Obama gaming (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Addendum: license was changed to public domain. File can be found here Obama gaming (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Since you seem to have already uploaded the photo to Commons, answering your question at this point might not be necessary. For reference, though, files licensed in such a manner are almost always better off being uploaded to Commons because Commons is a global project and the files it hosts can be used in all Wikimedia Foundation projects; on the other hand, file's uploaded to English Wikipedia can only be used on English Wikipedia. As for your Flickr exchange with the copyright holder, also for future reference, you might want to ask the copyright holder to take a close look at c:COM:CONSENT and c:COM:LRV just to make sure they fully realize what's being asked them. When you ask someone whether you can use their photo on Wikipedia, they might mistakenly think that means their photo will only be used on Wikipedia. However, what you're really asking for is their agreement to let anyone download their photo at any time and use for any purpose without restriction, even if that means using the photo in a way that makes money for other people or in a way that they might not like. Moreover, once they've agreed to this and allowed you to upload their photo, they can't really change their mind. If they're OK with this and agree to allow the photo to be uploaded under an acceptable Creative Commons license, then they retain copyright over the photo and just are making a version of it easier for others to freely use. If, however, they make their work PD, they are basically giving away any claim of copyright ownership and donating their photo to the public to do whatever they want with it regardless; re-users of the photo don't even have to attribute the photo to anyone in particular. So, you need to kind of keep this in mind when asking for permission and do your best to make sure the copyright holder understands what they're being asked to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

"Let Us Continue"
Well, back in September 2021, I downloaded and uploaded the audio file, and a frame from President Lyndon B. Johnson's famous "Let Us Continue" address, available on the YouTube channel of TheLBJLibrary. The description of the video then was: "'Credit: LBJ Library video by CBS News No usage fees. Footage shown here was a gift from CBS for the LBJ Library. They are pool coverage of live presidential addresses and are not copyrighted. The Library has made them available (excluding any network commentary) for decades without incident.' (emphasis mine; archived link)." But... the current description just says: "'Credit: LBJ Library video by CBS News. For research purposes only. Use/publish only with permission from CBS.' (archived link)" I have licenced it as, and have requested a licence review. Now, what should the copyright status of the file be considered? Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC) Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Related files:
 * File:"Let Us Continue" speech audio trimmed.ogg
 * File:Let Us Continue speech audio.ogg
 * File:Lyndon B. Johnson delivering "Let Us Continue" speech.png
 * File:Lyndon B. Johnson delivering "Let Us Continue" speech (cropped).png


 * @Kavyansh.Singh this all depends on whether PD-US-no-notice is correct or not. I suggest you ask at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright where there are people with in-depth knowledge of US copyright law. Nthep (talk) 10:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Photo
Can I use a photo of a screen shot from Citizen Kane that was published in a book?Wis2fan (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , Citizen Kane itself is still under copyright, so any such use would be considered nonfree and so could be used only if the proposed usage would comply with the nonfree content criteria. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Information for Copyright(the poster of the Special Lovd Line series)
description about (special Love line serial poster) this poster is published in all sites and news agencies, i copied the poster from sarshanasan magazine, in this magazine all information is free to reproduce, and the photo link is in sarshanasan magazine i send you, http://sarshenasan.com/wp-content/uploads/

Please go to the bottom of this link and see this post

2021/10/0338F90C-1915-402C-B72B-A44EAA8DF1EE.jpeg http://sarshenasan.com/فیلم-و-سریال-های-ایرانی/سریال-خط-ویژه-عشق-ali-tajdary-special-love-line/

copying and duplicating the content of this page is open to the public — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoseinkandovan (talk • contribs) 09:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , while the site you are listing does contain that verbiage, it does not appear likely that they are the original author or copyright holder of that poster. Only the copyright holder actually has the authority to grant that kind of permission. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

PD-US-expired
File:Don Miller (football player, 1902-1979).jpg is probably fine as non-free since it was almost certainly still under copyright when it was uploaded back in 2010. I'm wondering though where it has now lapsed into the public domain and thus is OK to covert to a some type of PD license (perhaps PD-US-expired?) given that it seems to be from before 1926. The file's description states it's "circa 1923" and some other wesbites (, and ) seem to indicate that the photo was taken around that time as well. If there's not enough to clearly establish this as PD, then that's OK. I just am curious about what some others might think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

What the fuck?
Hey - I’ve edited Wikipedia for a longass time. I’ve occasionally used non-free images where the justification made sense. This the second time in recent memory I’ve gotten these very confusing bot notifications about an image with a fair use rational that’s been up for several years. If I screwed up somewhere, I totally want to know and I totally want to fix it if possible. This process doesn’t support that. I have to come here and ask someone who here to explain it to me, and if it works out like it does last time it’s like “ask this other editor who didn’t explain it adequately initially.” I know you’re trying to do good work here, and I support as much free image content on Wikipedia as possible, but you’re obfuscating the process and making it opaque even to experienced editors.

With that said, specifically, what’s the problem with using File:Networked Help Desk Logo.jpg

in Networked Help Desk? It is the placement of the fair use rational on the image page? Is more justification needed? Is it something completely different? Thanks. - Scarpy (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What that bot is looking for on the file’s page are links in the non-free rationale to the particular articles where the file is being used. This is usually not a problem when a template is used for the rationale; however, the rationale for this isn’t using a template and bots sometimes have trouble wit such rationales. You should be able to use Non-free use rationale logo for the rationale or just follow the guidance in WP:FUR. A rationale doesn’t need a link to your user page; it’s better to include a link to the article where the file’s being used per WP:NFCC. Otherwise, the bot will likely keep removing the file if it’s unable to find such a link. — Marchjuly (talk) 04:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, so in addition to Non-free fair use in where it links to the article, I added Non-free use rationale logo where it also references the article. Currently the fair use rational looks a lot like WP:FUR, and I'm not sure what the gap is there? I shouldn't have started with User:Scarpy asserts?


 * Who do I complain to that these bot-driven processes are inhuman, frustrating, and should be made reasonably user-friendly or shut off? Have they seen the Dead Parrot sketch? It almost feels WP:POINTY in that it disrupts normal editing because Non-free fair use in was used but not in addition to Non-free use rationale logo and this is very important because... why? What is the ROI on this? Like there is, perhaps, an important point about encouraging free images at the bottom of all of this, but whatever humans are orchestrating this in an attempt to make that point are going about it all wrong. I know all of the words to the Free Software Song by heart, and have for decades, and if you've lost me you'll probably lose a lot of other people. - Scarpy (talk) 05:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You can try discussing this with the bot’s operator, but I’m not sure what you can really complain about. This is what the file’s page looked like when you uploaded the file, and I don’t see any mention of what article the file is being used in anywhere on that version of the page. You seemed to have tried to add something to the syntax of Non-free fair use in, but that’s a template for a copyright license (not a non-free use rationale) and a non-free file needs both a copyright license and a non-free use rationale. A non-free file is required to have a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use, but usually one copyright license for such a file is all that’s needed. I’m not sure why you added three copyright licenses for the file when you uploaded it, but maybe you mistook one for a rationale template. It doesn’t look like anyone removed or altered the rationale you originally provided; it just seems to have never mentioned the specific article where the file was being used by name. One thing about this bot is that it’s only set up to remove files missing rationales, but they don’t delete the files. Files removed by the bot are then reviewed by an administrator before they are deleted. Sometimes other editors who try to resolve file problems also check the file to see what the problem might be. So, I’m pretty certain that someone would’ve figured out what you were trying to do and fixed things accordingly. Sometimes things just go unnoticed until a bot does something to bring the file to a human editor’s attention. There are roughly 900,000 files currently being used on Wikipedia and there’s pretty much no way to keep track of them without the use of bots; moreover, all bots are vetted ad approved to do certain tasks. They pretty do only the things they are told to do; so, once again, if you think the bot did something it shouldn’t have done, then discussing things with the bot’s operator is probably the best place to start. — Marchjuly (talk) 08:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If I look at the source for the 2016 upload, it's linking back to Networked Help Desk in Non-free fair use in. It's pretty clear if you look at this diff. That may be the wrong template, but it is linking back to that page. And then I gave a non-free use rational in text.
 * Basically, I would find an article with a fair-use image where I wanted to do something similar and and would copy what they did making small modifications where necessary. Maybe everyone (or lots of people) do this wrong and this is why?
 * Anyway, what would be useful for these bots to do is say something like what you said here: You need (1) a copyright license (2) you need to use a template for fair use rational rather than writing it out for each article that uses the image (3) what are are missing is (2) and here's how to add it. I'm not sure why this is a big ask, as it would have to be in the code already and it would just be documenting it in a human-readable way when the rules are applied.
 * None of that is clear from the bot output. From my perspective it looks like "hey, can we find a technicality by which we can delete some non-free images?" Maybe that's not what it is, and maybe another user would have intervened to correct this and maybe Wikipedia should have fewer non-free images. I'm good with all of those, but if it's really a "hey non-free images are acceptable sometimes, and we just want to make sure this is appropriately documented according to these standards" it seems to me that this process would be implemented in a way that makes it easy for users to understand and comply with, and I'm saying that's not the case now. - Scarpy (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I saw that diff and was able guess your intent from it based upon what you posted above; a bot, however, cannot guess your intent and it might not even have seen "Networked Help Desk" buried in the copyright license template's syntax because it wasn't told to look for that names of articles in such a place. A human reviewer might've even overlooked it as well since it wasn't visible of the file's page unless they decided to dig through the file's page history and check individual diffs. The only thing visible on the file's page that might be considered an article name was "Neurotics Anonymous logo", but the file wasn't being used in Neurotics Anonymous and it's not clear why that information was added when you uploaded the file. I'm not sure what to tell you other then to perhaps try to make and be a bit more clear as to what article you want to use a non-free file in by including the name of the article somewhere in the rationale you provide. You don't need to use a template for a non-free use rationale, but you should at least and make sure it's clear where the file is being used; for example, "Non-free use rationale for article name " should be fine. Anyway, I've gone ahead and asked the bot operator to take a look at this thread. Perhaps he will be able to better explain the technical reasons why the bot did what it did in this particular case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Adequate project rate setting on Audacity
Audacity's default setting of project rate is 44,100 Hz. However, how much project rate is adequate enough to fall within appropriate fair-use restrictions without ruining the audio quality? I have lowered the project rate to 22,050 Hz. I figured that a sample can still sound good without making it sound mono-ish or like an AM radio. Can the sound be okay if the project rate is set to 16,000 Hz, 11,025 Hz or 8,000 Hz? I thought about responding at the talk page of MOS:SAMPLE, but I've not yet seen replies there. --George Ho (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , it probably depends a lot upon what it is you're sampling. Complex orchestral music would be impacted very differently by a change in quality settings than "speaking to a beat" types of styles (and of course hertz rating is only one quality setting; there are others like compression ratio as well). You may just have to test to determine where the point is between making such an insignificant change that you didn't noticeably affect the quality at all, and degrading it so much that it becomes entirely useless, and that will likely vary between both individual sound recordings and even more so between various styles. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

photo of Xerox 2700 printer and scan of print
Hello, I would like to add to an article on the Xerox 2700 Distributed Electronic Printer (Draft:Xerox 2700 Distributed Electronic Printer) a photo from the Xerox product brochure of 1983 and a scanned image of a print from a 2700 made at the Los Angeles 1984 Olympics. Neither source has any copyright notice. The Olympics print was of immediate results at the rowing venue, one of many distributed freely at each venue. Will this be acceptable? Thanks. Ruston7 (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * @Ruston7 It is just possible that the Xerox corporation would donate the copyright material Donating copyrighted materials will give you information on what you need to do to achieve that. This would be the most useful route for Wikipedia, but is a hard route for you to follow
 * It might be that the doctrine of Fair Use could be deployed here, but not in a Draft: space article. You would need to await the draft's becoming a main space article.. There are serious rules you must obey for Fair Use.
 * A freely distributed handout is, nonetheless, subject to copyright. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 21:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Many thanks. I'll approach Xerox on donating the photo.  As to the Olympics print, I found a page on Olympics intellectual property. ( https://www.genericfairuse.com/2016/08/04/olympic-trademarks-are-sacred-and-easily-infringed/ ) Looks worse than a lost cause. Ruston7 (talk) 21:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually our rules for using non-free media are more narrowly defined criteria than apply under the fair use provisions in United States copyright law, than is suggested above. Any such use must comply with all 10 of the strict non-free media copyright policy guidelines. ww2censor (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A brochure (including its contents) or scanned print can still be protected by copyright even if it was given out for free by its creator unless there is some clear statement from the copyright holder stating to the contrary. The act of the copyright holder giving it out (even for free) would be considered a form of "publication", but that wouldn't automatically mean the work is in the public domain or otherwise free content. I'm pretty sure that prior to March 1, 1989, a copyright notice needed to be visible on a published work for it to be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law as shown in copyright notice, but advertisements seem to have been treated slightly differently per c:COM:CB and a product brochure sounds like it might be considered a type of advertisement. Something published in the US circa 1983 might possibly be within the public domain per PD-US-1978-89 per c:COM:HIRTLE, but the onus on establishing that would fall upon the person making such a claim. It might be easy to check to see whether there is a visible copyright notice on either the brochure or the scan, but checking to see whether any copyright registration was made sounds a bit harder to verify. As for the scan, it's so much as to whether the scan is protected by copyright, but rather whether what was scanned is protected by copyright. If the original print was just a bunch of text without any elements which might be considered eligible for copyright protection either of their own merit or because of the combination they form together, then scan itself might be seen as a slavish reproduction that doesn't introduce any new copyrightable elements. In that case, the scan could possible be PD-simple. If, however, there are corporate or organizational logos, photos, or other types of copyrightable elements on the original print, then the print (not the scan) is what would likely be considered to be protected by copyright. A good place to ask about all of the above might be at c:COM:VPC since that mostly likely where any PD or freely licensed files should be uploaded.Finally, it might be possible for a photo to be uploaded as non-free content, but relevant policy on non-free use is quite restrictive as Ww2censor points out above. Non-free images of products are generally OK as long as WP:FREER isn't an issue and the image is being used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the product itself. Trying to use a non-free photo in other articles or in other ways might have a hard time meeting WP:NFCCP. FREER could be a problem if there are actually still some of these printers out and about (even in museums) because that would mean someone could actually take a photo of one and release it under a free license. I'm not sure about the Olympics scan, but it sounds like the scan itself would need to be the subject of sourced critical commentary in some way for its non-free use to meet WP:NFC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Creating a page in Wikipedia - Photo Uploading issue
I have been requested (allowed) to create a Wikipedia page for a well-known female corporate icon in Bangladesh and upload a couple of her pictures. But the software is not allowing them to upload these pictures.

Please help me with how I can do that.

Regards Sirajus Salekin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salekin62 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi . I'm not sure what you mean by the software is not allowing them to upload these pictures. Have you tried following the guidance given in Wikipedia:Image use policy? Are you trying to upload files to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons? It's not technically hard to upload a file to either Wikipedia or Commons, but the most important thing to do first is to figure out the copyright status of the file as explained here or here because whether files can be uploaded and how they can be used largely depends upon their copyright status. Finally, you also posted I have been requested (allowed) to create a Wikipedia page for a well-known female corporate icon above. If that's the case, then you probably should take a very close look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure for reference because those pages contain information which might also be relevant to your situation. You might also want to look at Wikipedia:Notability (people), Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing for reference: the first two are going to be what largely determines whether a Wikipedia article about this person can be written and the last two provide some information on ways being written about on Wikipedia isn't always such a great thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Odd copyright question
Hello! So I have a bit of an odd question regarding copyright. Now this is all theoretical (except for the image as the image does exist) but, say I have an image of a character that an artist made for me and they told me that I can use the image as much as I want as long as I give them credit and I want to use the image of Wikipedia. Would that count as being public domain or would that be some other type of copyright? As I said it's purely theoretical as, although the image I'm talking about does exist, I have no plans on using it on Wikipedia for the time being. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 21:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Being an artistic work copyright to someone else, we require their permission statement sent to the c:Commons:Volunteer Response Team, as found here c:Commons:Email templates/Consent, specifying the uploaded image url and exactly under what free copyright license the artist is releasing the work. Being made for you, they still own the copyright unless you have a work-for-hire contract, or they could legally transfer the copyright to you. In either case you can then release it under a free licence. Without a permission statement we cannot use the image. ww2censor (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright sounds good! As I said I'm not planning on using the image for the time being however I'll attempt to contact them about this if I ever want to use the image in the future. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 22:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You posted they told me that I can use the image as much as I want as long as I give them credit and I want to use the image of Wikipedia. above which may indicate you are misunderstanding something important about c:Commons:Licensing and WP:COPY. It's not enough for the artist to give you such permission; they have to agree to give anyone anywhere in the world the same permission. Moreover, it's not enough for the artist to give "for Wikipedia use only" permission; they have to agree to give anyone anywhere in the world permission to download the file at any time and use for any purpose (including commercial and derivative uses). If you upload such a image to Wikipedia or Commons under an acceptable license, then anyone can essentially do whatever they want with the image whenever they want as long as the comply with the terms of the license you choose, even if this means in a way that you don't approve of or benefit from. In addition, once a file has been released under such a license, your cannot change their mind at a later date and the file can continue to be re-used as long as the terms of its license are met. Of course, this assumes that the copyright license is valid and that there's no fraud or lying involved in which some other person is pretending to be the original copyright holder. So, you should understand and agree to all of this before uploading the image. Finally, public domain and Creative Commons aren't the same thing and it's important to understand the differences if you going to start uploading your own original creative work or asking others if you can upload theirs. A copyright holder who uploads their creative work under a public domain license is basically dontaing the image to the world as a whole and is waiving any claim of ownership or authorship over the work; so, they're not required to be given credit for their work because they basically no longer own it. On the other hand, a copyright holder who releases their work under a Creative Commons work still owns it, but is only making a version of it readily available for others to freely use as long as they comply with the terms of the license the work is released under. Public domain will give the copyright holder zero control of their work, whereas Creative Commons will allow them to retain a degree of control over the version of their work they make available depending upon the type of license they choose. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Woah I get it. Apologies if this sounds rather rude but it was purely hypothetical. I know that simply having someone say I have perms to use the image. For the time being I'm only planning on uploading images to Wikipedia that I took/created myself. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 01:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Oaxaca en la historia y en el mito
At Draft:Oaxaca en la historia y en el mito, the creator of the draft has taken photographs of the mural (painted 1978-80) the draft is about, and used those photographs in the draft. Is this permitted? David notMD (talk) 14:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi . It looks like all of these photos were uploaded to Commons which means any problems with them are going to need to be resolved over on Commons. From a Wikipedia standpoint, there's no problem with using Commons images in drafts; non-free content, however, cannot be used in drafts per WP:DRAFTS. If Commons can't keep them because of some reason (e.g. c:COM:CB, c:COM:FAIR, c:COM:DW or c:COM:Own work) and someone tries to re-upload them as non-free content, then there probably would be issues that would need to be resolved per WP:NFCC, WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC before any of them would be deemed OK to be used. I apologize for giving you just a vanilla answer at the moment, but I'm in a bit of a rush. If someone else doesn't go into a bit more detail, you might also want to ask at c:COM:VPC since that's where you'll find Commons editors who might know about this as well. Since the mural appears to be located in Mexico, c:COM:MEXICO (particularly c:COM:FOP Mexico) may also be helpful. It's likely going to depend as to whether the mural itself is eligible for copyright protection and that often depends upon the copyright laws of the country of origin. In the US, for example, 2D works of art (even publically displayed ones) usually cannot be freely photographed per c:COM:FOP United States unless the original work was created prior to 1978. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oy! I will mention to the creating editor that there may be a copyright issue in play. Mexico may allow freedom of panorama. David notMD (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I took a closer look at some of the images and there might be some problems with them unrelated to the copyright status of the mural per c:COM:Own work and c:COM:VRT with respect to photos themselves. If the uploader didn't take these photos themselves, they can't claim them as their "own work". Depending on the copyright status of the mural, each file might need to have two copyright licenses: one for the photo and one for the mural. If the mural is considered to be public domain, then perhaps a single license for the photo would suffice. Regardless, the photos are going to be considered copyright-protected in their own right and they cannot be uploaded without a way to formally verify the copyright holder's c:COM:CONSENT per c:COM:VRT. One of the files states "Image provided to Brooke Broadbent by Rina Lazo, the daughter of Arturo Garcia Bustos with permission to share", which implies (at least to me) that this photo might not have been taken by the uploader. If that's the case, then the CONSENT of whomever did take the photo is going to be needed. Verbal consent is insufficient and simply saying you've been given permission "to share" is too vague and could be interpreted in all kinds of ways including some which might be too restrictive for Commons. Many people uploading files to Commons simply chose "own work" as default without realizing what that means and in it looks like that might be an issue for all these files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that the first image "Arturo Garcia Bustos painting the mural..." is problematic. The others, of the mural, appear to have been taken over period 7-15 Nov 2021 by the editor who created the draft, which matches the dates the photos of the mural have been added to the draft. David notMD (talk) 03:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * One of the mural photos has been nominated for deletion at Commons, with understanding that a decision would apply to the rest. David notMD (talk) 03:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Copyright Status of File:Craig Kellman.jpg and how to add Copyright information
So I am new to editing Wikipedia pages, and recently made an article with a picture of Kellman from an interview that I found, link to that article here. This is the file in question, File:Craig Kellman.jpg. I'm not sure how I would go about finding and adding the copyright information to the source of the photo, or if I even can. RaijinGuardian (talk) 04:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The copyright holder of a photo is generally considered to be the photographer who took the photo; so, unless you took the photo yourself, it's copyright holder is going to the photographer who took it. Moreover, it's going to be assumed to be protected by copyright as explained here which means you're not going to be able to upload it to Wikipedia without the WP:CONSENT of the copyright holder. Are you connected to Draft:Craig Kellman in any way? If you are or know someone who is, then you can ask him or his representatives to identify who took the photo. My guess is that either he or his representatives provided the photo for that interview or the interviewer took it themselves. Once you know that, you can ask that person for their permission to upload the photo to Wikipedia. If nobody knows who took the photo, then there will be no way to verify copyright holder consent and the photo will need to be deleted. Just do nothing and it will be deleted in about a week. Finally, since Kellman is still living, the only types of photos of him that are going to be OK to use are freely-licensed ones as explained here and here because non-free images of still living persons are pretty much never allowed per relevant Wikipedia policy. This means you're either going to have to take a photo of him yourself or find someone who has already photographed him or is willing to photograph him and who is willing to give their CONSENT for their photo to be uploaded to Wikipedia. In either of these cases, you should upload the photo to Wikimedia Commons and follow the guidance given at c:COM:VRT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Check this out
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for upload § William Shatner NS-18 personal mission patch. Gpkp  [ u • t • c ] 16:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Africa Center for Strategic Studies
Can I use images from the Africa Center for Strategic Studies? They are a part of the U.S. Department of Defense and usually, Government pictures or infographics are in the Public Domain but I just want to make sure. Here is the image I want to use .--Garmin21 (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * , they don't state anything about image copyright on their website, but I did find a link to their Flickr account. On that, it looks like almost all of the images are claimed "all rights reserved". So I think this is probably an organization closely affiliated with the DoD rather than an actual subsidiary of it, and therefore they would be able to claim copyright on their photographs. So it looks like these cannot be safely assumed to be in the public domain. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification.--Garmin21 (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Is File:TextEdit 1.16 screenshot.png actually non-free?
File:TextEdit 1.16 screenshot.png is currently hosted locally as a fair-use non-free image, using Non-free software screenshot. However, TextEdit, the software displayed, is free software (under a 3-clause BSD license); the only possibly-problematic element of the image is the macOS window title bar, but this is both de minimis and so simple as to very likely fail to reach the threshold of originality necessary for copyright to attach in the first place. Could this file be retagged with Free screenshot (and a better-quality version uploaded, if available)? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 18:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

photo credits
HI, I'm new to all of this. I have a photo from a newspaper that I included in my article. I have since contacted the newspaper and have permission to use this photo. How do I proceed? I have no idea how to edit this photo to include permissions. ThanksDavisHayden (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is presumably about File:OB-peoplesfoodstore-1972.jpg. The newspaper needs to contact WP:VRT. If the newspaper can present valid permission to the VRT agent the agent will update the file description. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That being said, lots of US newspapers never registered/renewed their copyrights so if it was taken by a photographer who worked for the newspaper it could be in the public domain anyway. If the photo was taken by anyone else we'll need permission from the photographer (or their heirs), who would have to contact VRT. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Football Logos
Hi,

I have seen that recently many of the national team logos have been taken down using the JJMC89 bot and wanted to know whether this was accurate as the football teams use the same badges as the Football Associations and are the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the entity in question, not used elsewhere in the articles.

Is there something that I'd need to edit / show in order for these not to be removed in future?

Thanks,

Felixsv7 (talk) 12:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you tried asking about this? Non-free content use isn't automatic in that there are ten specific non-free content use criteria that need to be satisfied for each use of a non-free file. This means that it might be acceptable to use a non-free file in a particular article or in a particular way, but that additional uses of the same file in other articles or in other ways may not considered OK. JJMC89 bot tends to remove files that either don't have the non-free use rationale required by WP:NFCC or which are being used outside of the WP:MAINSPACE per WP:NFCC; moreover, the bot usually leaves an edit summary explaining why it removed a file. If the edit summary contains a link to WP:NFC, then the bot has removed the file for lacking a rationale for the use in question. In such a case, you have to self-assess whether a valid non-free use rationale can be written for the way you want to use the file; if you believe it can, then adding the missing rationale to the file's page should stop the bot. You should understand, though, that adding a missing rationale will stop the bot, but it won't automatically mean the non-free use in question is policy compliant as explained in WP:JUSTONE. Another editor can still challenge the validity of rationale and the file's use. In general, when it comes to national team logos, it's generally considered OK to use the logo in the article about the national federation itself, but not necessarily OK to use the logo in articles about individual national teams. This is because of item 17 of WP:NFC in which the national federation is often considered the parent entity and the national team a child entity. Logos specific to a team per se tend to be preferred over simply using the same federation logo in multiple articles. There might be some disagreement on this and there may be certain cases where it's deemed OK to use such a logo in a team article, but the consensus over the years has been it's usually not. You can try asking about this at WT:NFCC if you'd like more clarification since that's the generally the best place to discuss Wikipedia's non-free content use policy.Finally, before you add any rationales to non-free file pages or non-free file pages to articles, it's usually a good idea to see whether there's anything on either the file's page or its talk page indicating why the file might not be being used in certain articles. Sometimes a file has been previously discussed somewhere like WP:NFCR or WP:FFD and a consensus was established to only use the file in a certain way or in certain articles. If that's the case, you can't simply ignore the consensus (even if it's from a long time ago), but instead will have to establish a new consensus regarding the file's use. The best way to go about that is to first discuss things with the administrator who closed the relevant discussion and ask them what you need to do to go about establishing a new consensus. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Wow, thanks for the response! I'll contact JJMC89 as I obviously should have initially! Thanks again Felixsv7 (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Just to follow up on this, could you tell me which of these two examples is using Fair use properly (I did re-read your explanation but the complexities of image rights seem beyond me):


 * File:Seychelles Football Federation.png
 * File:FF Comoros (logo).png


 * Could I add a rationale for the national team to bypass the bot or is it unacceptable to have multiple pages displaying the same non-free image? (Again, I'm sorry as you've already explained this in incredible detail, I'm just reaching for examples to clarify in my head). Felixsv7 (talk) 14:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A non-free file is required to be used in at least one article per WP:NFCC, but that doesn't necessarily mean the same non-free file cannot be used in multiple articles or in multuple ways. Each use of a non-free file is, however, required to meet all ten WP:NFCCP; it's, therefore, quite often the case where a non-free file is considered OK to use in one particular article or in one particular way, but not in other articles or in other ways as explained in WP:OTHERIMAGE. As I posted above, that particular bot removes files that are lacking non-free use rationales for articles where the files are being used; so, adding the missing rationale will stop the bot from removing the file. Adding a rationale, however, doesn't make a particular non-free use automatically compliant per WP:JUSTONE and the non-free use in question can be challenged and the file subsequently removed if its use is deemed to not meet all of the NFCCP. With respect to the two files you mentioned above, the Comoros one seems to be being used in accordance with relevant policy, but the Seychelles one might not be based upon how item #17 has been applied to similar national team logo use in over the years. The current consensus is that such logos are generally only considered OK to use in articles about parent entities and not articles about child entities, but often it takes a formal discussion at WP:FFD (or previously WP:NFCR) regarding an individual file to figure out which is which. Some feel that the primary (i.e. parent) entity is such cases is the national federation and that all of the individual national teams are child entities, whereas others feel that the federation plus the main men's and women's teams are the parent entities and all the other remaining national teams (e.g. B teams, reserve teams, Under-XX teams, youth teams, etc.) are child entities or others who feel that it's OK use the logos in all national team articles regardless. That is why I suggest you carefully take a look at the file page and file talk page of any non-free files you want to add to article because there will usually be some indication whether it has been previously discussed at FFD or NFCR and it's not being used in certain articles because a consensus was established not to do so. If you don't find any such indication and you want to try adding the file to an article because you think said use satisfies relevant policy, then you can; just understand that someone else may disagree with your assessment and start a discussion about the file's use at FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Permission granted for newspaper and magazine reproduction
I tried to use an existing image uploaded of Gene Wilder here as  for the 1971 film article but was informed by a "system bot" it was single use for one article only for copyright reasons. Therefore as an alternative photo, I would like to use a cropped version of a full "Paramount Pictures promotional" version. My questions are:

1. Is this photo in the public domain as it has a Paramount Pictures logo and their copyright expired in 1977 for the film (but rights sold to Warner Bros)?

2. The information also says:


 * Copyright © 1971 by Wolper Pictures, Ltd. and The Quaker Oats Company. All rights reserved. Permission granted for newspaper and magazine reproduction.

Does this "permission granted" allow use on Wikipedia?

If none of the above applies, I would be grateful if someone could upload; or instruct me on how to upload with the correct copyright info required for this new image, as I'm not familiar with the process. This will help illustrate the "Casting section" for the 1971 film.

Cropped version. Here

Full 1971 promotional version. Here

Thanks --GloMonsterTalk 16:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the answer to Question #1 because it's not clear what you're asking? Are you asking whether the photo is still protected by copyright or whether the Paramount logo is still protected by copyright? I'm guessing that it's the former and if so, then I don't think the copyright of the logo has anything to do with the copyright of the photo. I believe photos taken prior to March 1, 1978, were required to have a visible copyright notice (either on the front or back of the photo) for them to be considered to be protected by copyright. Photos without such a notice are often uploaded under a license of PD-US-no notice, but it can sometimes be tricky to establish such a thing. Generally, something showing that the photo was originally published without the notice (e.g. images of a full uncropped version of the photo or images of the front and back of the photo) are needed. Since the photos found on many websites often crop or otherwise modify photos to fit them in with other content on the website, it can be hard to sort things out. Since you're able to provide a full-uncropped version of the photo with a clear copyright notice, then I think that what is needed is to follow c:COM:HIRTLE and treat this as a photo published from 1964 through 1977 with a notice. If that's the case, then it seems this photo will fall into the public domain 95 years after first published. As for your second question Permission granted for newspaper and magazine reproduction seems to be too restrictive of a license for Wikipedia and Commons' purposes based upon what's written in WP:COPY and c:COM:L. The only types of free licenses that Wikipedia or Commons accepts are basically ones which allow anyone anywhere in the world to download a hosted file at any time for any purpose (including commercial and derivative re-use); so, the permission being granted by Paramount seems too restrictive in my opinion. Perhaps someone else will feel differently or you can try asking over at c:COM:VPC because that's where the photo probably should be uploaded if you feel a free license can be used here. Finally, the bot removed the file per WP:NFC because it was lacking a non-free use rationale for the article about the film. A non-free file needs to satisfy all ten of the criteria listed in WP:NFCCP each time it's used and one of these is criterion #10c. You can probably stop the bot from removing the file by adding the required missing rationale to the file's page, but I think it would be rather hard to justify any non-free image of Wilder as Wonka in Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory per WP:FREER, WP:NFC and item 6 of WP:NFC. Wikipedia is already hosting one non-free image of Wilder as Wonka which means there's no need for two per criterion #3a; moreover, there's a stand-alone article about Willie Wonka where an image of how Wilder look as Wonka can be seen. Because of the latter, it seems a bit hard to justify another use of the same file in the article about the film itself. This, of course, is just my opinion and perhaps some others might feel different. In general, adding a missing rationale to a file's page will stop the bot from removing it, but that doesn't make a particular use policy compliant per WP:JUSTONE. Another editor could challenge any rationale you add if they feel the use doesn't meet all ten criteria. You could try asking about this formally at WP:FFD or informally at WT:NFCC if nobody else responds here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this helpful information. I think you've established that this photo is not public domain. My understanding is that I can still use the image as it falls under the fair use rationale criterion using the Template:Non-free promotional tag, because the subject is deceased, and the image of them as "Willy Wonka" is unrepeatable with a free image for illustration and commentary. It will also be single use for the 1971 film article and will not be the same file.  Am I correct? --<b style="text-shadow: lime 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; color: limegreen">Glo</b><b style="text-shadow: blue 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; color: darkblue">Monster</b><b style="font-size: 5pt; color: maroon">Talk</b> 19:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As I wrote at the end of my previous post, I don’t think the uploading of another non-free image of Gene Wilder as Wonka can be justified for use in any article including the one about the film. There’s already one non-free image of Willy Wonka being used in Willy Wonka and Wikipedia doesn’t need two such files even if they are different images and used in different articles. A non-free file needs to be used in at least one article per non-free content use criterion #7, but that doesn’t mean it can only be used in one article. A non-free file may be used in more than one article or in more than one way as long as the additional uses satisfy all ten non-free content use criteria; since, however, one non-free use is already considered an exception to WP:COPY, additional uses become much much harder to justify and In my opinion I don’t think adding a non-free image of Wilder as Wonka to the casting section if the movie would be justified. Others might feel differently, but I think both item 6 of WP:NFC and WP:NFC make it pretty hard to justify such a use. As for Wilder being dead, that would only be relevant if you wanted to use an image of Wilder as Wonka for primary identification purposes in Gene Wilder; it’s not really relevant to such a file’s use in the movie article. Finally, sometimes you can find photos (even signed ones) of actors, athletes and other famous people being sold online on sites like eBay. If you can find one of Wilder as Wonka that isn’t cropped and shows the front and back, then perhaps that would be OK to upload to Commons as PD-US-no notice if there’s no visible copyright notice. Such an image would not be subject to WP:NFCC and would, thus, be way more easier to use. It would also make the current non-free image of Wilder as Wonka no longer needed per WP:FREER. I’ve seen PR-type photos uploaded to Commons as such and you might find some specific examples of this type of thing buried somewhere within c:Category:PD US no notice. — 22:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A better category to check might be c:Category:Advertising photographs. You might find files it that category which are publicity photos like File:Blue Oyster Cult 1977 publicity photo.jpg and File:Linda Harrison Dennis Cole Brackens World 1969.jpg in which the description provides a way to verify whether the photo was marked with a copyright notice. If you can find something like these for Wilder as Wonka somewhere online, then it probably would be OK to upload to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional info. This is very helpful. I appreciate your time on this. It also means I have more follow-ups on your earlier post.

1. - I don’t think the uploading of another non-free image of Gene Wilder as Wonka can be justified for use in any article including the one about the film. There’s already one non-free image of Willy Wonka being used in Willy Wonka and Wikipedia doesn’t need two such files even if they are different images and used in different articles. A non-free file needs to be used in at least one article per non-free content use criterion #7. Maybe I missed it, but there is nothing in the guidance that says separate articles should not have different files of different non-free images of the same subject. They're not two different files with the same image, then it would be a violation of WP:COPY. Titanic (1997 film) has two different non-free images of the same subject (i.e. RMS Titanic) in the same article.

2. - In my opinion I don’t think adding a non-free image of Wilder as Wonka to the casting section if the movie would be justified. Others might feel differently, but I think both item 6 of WP:NFC and WP:NFC make it pretty hard to justify such a use. Please clarify what it is you think is going to be contextualised with the Wilder as Wonka image that doesn't justify its inclusion in the 1971 film article. Also it says in item 6 - "if the image has its own article". This is not the case. The Willy Wonka article is about the character; not the actor playing the character. See the next paragraph 3.

3. - You also need to clarify why you think the Gene Wilder image in the Willy Wonka article is more justified for that article than the 1971 film article. Gene Wilder is not the only "Willy Wonka" in that article. There are also non-free images of the book version and the Johnny Depp version, amongst other Wonka iterations that could have been used. The creator of the Wonka character, author Roald Dahl, didn't approve of Wilder's casting and disowned the film, so I'm not sure why Wilder's photo is being used as the main image rather than an illustration of the character approved by the Dahl.

4.- Regarding your most recent post, you say there's been a precedent for publicity photos in the public domain. Just to be clear, we know the Gene Wilder as Wonka headshot is a publicity photo and has got clear copyright markings as defined by the United States Copyright Office page 2, therefore can't be public domain. However, publicity photos can be used if there are no copyright markings on the front and back of the original publicity handouts. Doing a search I've found many "authenticated" signed publicity photos of the "front" but none showing the "back". I managed to find a couple of photos of Wilder as Wonka online which are similarly displayed to the examples you gave. They're not close up headshots. Please see the examples below. I'd be grateful if you could let me know if they're viable.

Wonka press photo 1

Wonka press photo 2

Thanks --<b style="text-shadow: lime 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; color: limegreen">Glo</b><b style="text-shadow: blue 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; color: darkblue">Monster</b><b style="font-size: 5pt; color: maroon">Talk</b> 22:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Why would the copyright for the film have expired in 1977? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The film was financed by the Quaker Oats Company and produced by Wolper Pictures, Ltd. Paramount Pictures were sold the rights to the film for a specific period of time. In 1977, when those rights expired, Paramount declined to renew. --<b style="text-shadow: lime 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; color: limegreen">Glo</b><b style="text-shadow: blue 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; color: darkblue">Monster</b><b style="font-size: 5pt; color: maroon">Talk</b> 06:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * in that case Paramount probably obtained a (possibly exclusive but that doesn't matter) license/publishing deal while the copyright remained with whoever they bought it from. (presumably the Quaker Oats Company as Wolper Pictures, Ltd. would have probably made it as a work for hire, but I'm speculating here) After that deal expires nothing changes. Assuming the film was published with a copyright notice it won't expire until 2067. There is a possibility (as for all US films from that era) that there was a trailer that was published before the full movie was published, and copyright notices were not always included in trailers. You'd have to track down an unmodified trailer from that time though. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Original theatrical trailer here. It has the copyright marking at the end.  It doesn't appear to be modified.  Though the lettering design appears to be different compared to end credits; where the credit typeface is drop shadow and the copyright notice is not.  If you are an expert/more experienced on this subject, you may be able to give it better scrutiny than me. Thank you for providing a potential option. --<b style="text-shadow: lime 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; color: limegreen">Glo</b><b style="text-shadow: blue 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; color: darkblue">Monster</b><b style="font-size: 5pt; color: maroon">Talk</b> 12:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * it's a film from before the digital age, titles were inserted differently back then. The text overlay moves about a bit, and that includes the copyright notice, proving it wasn't added after the fact. The moving about can be observed more easily in which is sharper. The sharper version has many other issues, it's possibly pan and scan and some scenes are stretched so the version you had linked is much closer to the original and better to look for copyright notices as those get cropped sometimes. The sharper version makes it easier to see the credits moving about though. If I had to guess they finished the trailer, showed it to their legal team and the legal team said "add a copyright notice and throw in an ® for Technicolor while you're at it, pronto!" and the production team rushed (hence no drop shadow) to add that before releasing the trailer. But that's 100% speculation. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Appreciate the analysis. Agreed. However, I think it was done on the graphic artist's day off! 😉 --<b style="text-shadow: lime 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; color: limegreen">Glo</b><b style="text-shadow: blue 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; color: darkblue">Monster</b><b style="font-size: 5pt; color: maroon">Talk</b> 14:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to answer you're questions any better than I've already done, but I'll try even though I'm afraid its going to be another wall of text for you and others to try and read.
 * Wikipedia's non-free content use policy asks us to try an minimize non-free use as much as possible. This means (per my understanding) that the same non-free images may be used in multiple articles or in multiple way, but that each use of the file needs to comply with all ten of the non-free content use criteria. So, a file might be OK to use in one way or in one article, but not in other ways or in other articles. This also means (per my understanding) that multiple non-free images of essentially the same thing are not really needed in cases where one single can basically serve the same encyclopedic purpose. So, two non-free images of Wilder as Wonka aren't needed if one single image can do the job of both. If the current image used in the Wonka article is not deemed to be policy compliant for use in the film article, then pretty much any other non-free image of Wonka uploaded for use in the film article is also not going to be considered compliant. It may not specifically say this in the relevant policy, but I believe that is how the policy has been applied over the years. This is, of course, my opinion and you can ask others for theirs at WT:NFCC if you want. As for the two non-free images in the Titanic article, they seem to be being used in accordance with WP:FILMNFI and WP:NFC in that they are used to discuss specific scenes and filming techniques that are critically discussed in that particular article; however, that is just a rough assessment on my part and again others might feel differently. If you think those particular images do not meet relevant policy, then you can start a discussion about them at FFD. Be advised though that trying to somehow justify the use of two non-free images of Wonka because there are two non-free images of the Titanic being used is, to be honest, not likely going to get you very far as explained in WP:OTHERIMAGE. Such comparisons can sometimes be helpful, but often they aren't and it's better to focus on why you think the file you want to use meets relevant policy as opposed to trying to point out that other files being used in what seems to be a similar way because sometimes it turns out they shouldn't be being used in that way at all.
 * I'm sorry, but I don't follow your reasoning here. The Willie Wonka article is about the character the Wilder portrayed in the film and the whole point of you wanting to add the image of Wilder as Wonka to the film article is because he portrayed the character in that particular film. If you simply want to add a photo of Wilder as Wilder, then there are some freely licensed ones of him available on Commons. I think I've already given my opinion on using a non-free image of Wilder in the casting section and not sure what more there is to clarify. The onus is upon those wanting to use non-free content in particular way to establish a consensus for doing so per WP:NFCCE. If you don't agree with my assessment, then that's fine and perhaps others won't as well. If you want to use the current image of Wilder as Wonka in the film article, then it's up to you to provide a separate and specific rationale explaining why. If others disagree with your assessment, then they can challenge the rationale either by tagging the file with di-disputed fair use rationale or seeking further discussion at WP:FFD. Then, it will be up to you to establish a consensus that it is. Generally, the person wanting to use non-free content is going to need to somehow demonstrate that adding such content is going to significantly improve the reader's understanding of what's written in the article to the degree that omitting the content would be detrimental to that understanding. I don't see how adding a publicity photo of Wilder as Wonka improves the reader's understanding of that section to such a degree. It's nice perhaps, but I don't think not seeing such an image is going to be detrimental to the reader's understanding of what's written in that particular section. Once again, this is just my opinion and others might disagree.
 * If you feel the image of Wilder as Wonka is not really appropriate for the infobox of the article about the character, then that's something you should discuss on that article's talk page. Perhaps others will agree with you. Generally, non-free images of fictional characters are allowed to be used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox of stand-alone articles about such guess. My guess is that someone felt that Wilder is the best known visual representation of Wonka as a character; so, they decided to use that particular image in the infobox. If you feel it should be some other image, then try asking about that on the article's talk page to what others think.
 * The two images you found seem promising as free equivalents. I think you should try asking about them over at c:COM:VPC because that's where they should be uploaded if they are actually PD-US-no notice. I couldn't find a visible copyright notice, but I might be missing it. There might be an issue with the watermarks per c:COM:Watermarks, but perhaps someone can figure out a way to sort that out if the images are otherwise considered OK for Commons, or someone might be able to find cleaner versions of the photos that could be uploaded instead.
 * Finally, I've posted a lot (probably too much) in this thread already; so, I'm going to stop here to let others jump in if they want. I'll add a Please see template to WT:NFCC to let others who often work with non-free files know about this discussion. Perhaps, they will be able to bring a different perspective to this discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for your explanation. However, you've made assumptions about me which are wrong. Editors are are welcome to challenge me once I've made an edit. However, as you say, it's your opinion i.e. your POV, and I can choose to ignore those opinions about me and my editing. I'm here for the helpful factual advice that you've also provided for which I appreciate and am grateful. --<b style="text-shadow: lime 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; color: limegreen">Glo</b><b style="text-shadow: blue 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; color: darkblue">Monster</b><b style="font-size: 5pt; color: maroon">Talk</b> 06:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologize if my last post came off as somewhat snarky. I wasn't trying to paint you in a bad light or make any negative assumptions about you as an editor; I'm just not sure I can answer you questions any better than I've already tried to do. I didn't mention this before, but there are actually two non-free images of Wilder as Wonka already being used in the film article: one in the movie poster and one in the cast photo. They might not show Wilder as clearly as a the PR photo you would like to use perhaps, but they seem sufficient in combination with the one being used in the article about the Wonka character to give the reader some idea as to how Wilder looked in the film. Again, this is just my opinion and others may feel differently. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * you noticed yourself that you probably posted too much. May I suggest trying to be a bit more concise in the future? Such long posts are sometimes packed with information (so I'm not saying nobody should ever make a long post), but the ones above have a fair bit of repeating sentences. I otherwise do appreciate your input. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Coins at Wikimedia Commons
Image of coins on Wikimedia Commons may be allowed by the law of the country's constitution, but could the source of the image be an online store? If not, is it forbidden to upload such images to Wikimedia Commons? Only on Wikipedia? And what about them? The file is free, but it is forbidden to export to Wikimedia Commons? Jolf Staler (talk) 10:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , an image file should tell you exactly what the source was in its description. Do you have a particular example in mind? Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , no, I'm talking about all the images of coins and banknotes. If the official website of the State Bank does not have a scan of banknotes / coins, but only their photos from afar, at an angle, but in online stores it is their scan. Can I specify an online store as a source? Jolf Staler (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's why I'm asking for what in particular you're looking to do that with. Generally speaking, under US law at least, a faithful reproduction of two-dimensional artwork such as a scan or photograph is not eligible for copyright of its own, so if the source material for the scan/copyright was public domain, the reproduction of it is as well. However, while in the US standard coin and currency designs are automatically public domain as works produced by the US federal government, that is not necessarily true elsewhere and some currency designs are under copyright. Without knowing what exactly you're asking about, it's pretty difficult to give any kind of real answer. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Take this file for example. ECB allows this file to be used. But, if it is a scan in an online store, he scanned it. Does it mean that the rights to distribute this file belong to the online store, not the ECB, or is it ECB anyway? If to the Central Bank, then can I download files with a license from ECB without further deletion? Jolf Staler (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not certain, as Europe's copyright laws can be a little squirrelly, so "public domain in the source country" (if the store is European) could be a sticking point there, and it looks like some images on European coins actually are subject to copyright, so you'd need to check individually. Regardless, if ECB has it available under a free license, why not use an image directly from them and avoid the whole issue of whether some third party has a separate copyright? Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I repeat once again that the euro is just an example. Well, if there is no scan of coins on the official website of the National Bank, but only their photos from afar, at an angle, but in online stores there is a scan of them. Can I specify an online store as a source? Moreover, the bank will have the right to the image on the coin under someone else's authorship, because this is work for hire (take at least those comics: the author of the character is a person, but this is work for hire and the rights of the publishing house). An online store won't be that famous. If you really need to indicate only the official source (the website of the National Bank), can I upload a free file with the source to Wikipedia - an online store? Or with such a source only non-free will work? Jolf Staler (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In addition: coins are considered 3D-objects so photos of coins always need a free license. (in addition to the coin design needing to be in the public domain) Perhaps can help if you have more questions.  — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * (I swear I read that as Donald Trump for half a beat, and was scratching my head.) I'm not aware of any decision regarding coins being considered "3D", do you know where that happened? That case would be an interesting read. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:22, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * c:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 02:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

2022 Brazilian general election
It seems to me that the non-free logos on this page (File:Brazilian Democratic Movement logo.svg and File:Logo of Avante (Ecuador).png) are not justified under item 8 of the WP:NFCC. Separately, I have some doubts about the acceptability of some of them that are in Commons, in particular File:UP Flag2.svg says it is "own work based on (a couple of links)" and File:Brasil 35 (Partido) - Logo.png, which says it is released under CC-BY-SA 4.0, but give no reason to think that the uploader has the right to license it. (I realise that this second question should be pursued at Commons, but I wondered if I'm missing something.) --ColinFine (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have raised a question about some of the logos on Commons at C:C:Village pump/Copyright. --ColinFine (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The two non-free you mentioned above are lacking non-free rationales for that particular article; so, they currently don't comply with WP:NFCC and can be removed for that reason alone. If you or another editor doesn't do so, a bot should remove them in a day or so like was done here a few days ago. The bot will keep removing the files as long as they keep being added with the required rationales. At some point, someone could add rationales for their use in the article to the respective file pages, but I feel it would be very hard to justify such a use per NFCC#8, WP:NFTABLE and MOS:LOGO. Adding the rationales would stop the bot, but someone could still challenge the respective uses per WP:JUSTONE. Things might then need to be resolved a FFD to see what others think.Finally, sometimes a logo file might not be acceptable for Commons because it's not "PD-logo" in both it's country or origin, but it might be OK uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as PD-ineligible-USonly because it's considered to be "PD-logo" in the US. The two files you mentioned above might actually be OK to convert to "PD-ineligible-USonly" based upon c:COM:TOO United States. It might be close, but they just might be simple enough. Perhaps others can comment on that, but if that's the case, then they their use on Wikipedia would no longer be subject to WP:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: File:Logo of Avante (Ecuador).png has been move to File:Logo of Avante (Brazil).png, per request.  -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 03:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)