Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2022/July

BC Ferries logo
I'm wondering if File:BC Ferries Logo.svg could be transferred to commons? I'm not well versed in copyright, but I noticed that File:GO Transit logo.svg is in commons and is the logo for GO Transit, a Canadian-based rail public transport company, and its logo is used in articles for stations, etc. Other than being a ferry company, BC Ferries is also a Canadian-based public transport company and there seems to be not too much fundamentally different. Thoughts? MuzikMachine (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Being a public transport company probably doesn't matter in a case like this, but being Canadian-based does since in order for a file to be acceptable for Commons it will need to be within the public domain in both the US (where the Commons servers are located) and in Canada (the country of first publication/origin). Generally, text only logos are considered to be too simple to be eligible for copyright protection based on the concept of threshold of originality (TOO). TOOs, however, can vary quite a bit from country to country and often it's additional elements that push something in copyrightable territory in one country that wouldn't be copyrightable in another. I think this would most like be public domain in the US per c:COM:TOO United States, but Canada might be different. Per c:COM:TOO Canada, the Canadian TOO is described as being similar to the US, but it's not exactly the same. As a Commonwealth country, some parts of Canadian copyright law might still resemble the UK's copyright law and the UK has a fairly low TOO. You might want to ask about this at c:COM:VPC to see what some Commons regulars think. It would be pointless to move the file if it's only going to end up deleted. Even if it's not OK for Commons, it could probably be relicensed as PD-ineligible-USonly if the consensus is that it's within the public domain in at least the US. This is often done for logos which are within the public domain in the US, but are not or might not be in their country of origin. This is sort of a "local" version of the PD-logo license that treats the file as being in the public domain for use on English Wikipedia only. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Old Newspaper Image
I am looking to add an image of the journalist John Segrue. I have searched far and wide and there are absolutely no other images of him available other than this one photo I managed to find whilst searching the British Newspaper Archives; there is no free equivalent.

For background, he died 80 years ago so there is also no possibility of a free equivalent being created.

The image in question is from a 1981 article in the Daily Mirror titled 'Honour for reporter who defied the Nazis.' Within this article, there is a sepia photograph of Segrue. It is not the best quality, but it is clear enough to easily identify the subject.

I am unsure of exactly who owns the copyright; the copyright of the article itself is owned by Reach plc, but I am not using anything else from the article other than the image. The image would have had to have been taken over 40 years before the release of the article, so it seems very unlikely that a photographer employed by the Daily Mirror took the photo (I should also add that Segrue never worked for the Mirror). The most likely scenario is that they approached Segrue's son for an image to use within the article (his son was a former Daily Mirror journalist). Given the amount of time that has passed, the photographer of the original photo is almost certainly deceased. Could Reach plc claim copyright on an image that they did not produce on the basis that they were the first to distribute said image? If that's the case, I understand that I cannot upload it to the Commons.

I have read the Non-free content page and this image does qualify for fair use. Should I just upload it on this basis instead? I feel having a photo of Segrue is important for the educational aspect of the article.

I would be grateful for any advice.

QueenPuck (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . First, he died 80 years ago so there is also no possibility of a free equivalent being created is not really totally the case. Obviously, a new photo can't be taken of someone who has died, but that doesn't mean photo taken of the individual while they were alive cannot be created or found to serve as a free equivalent. Copyrights do not last forever and eventually all copyrighted works enter the public domain after some amount of time has passed. It might seem odd perhaps, but in some cases there might actually be more of a chance of finding a free photo of someone who died a long time ago, then there is of someone who died quite recently. For example, photos first published in the US prior to 1927 are considered to be within the public domain under US copyright law. Similarly, photos first published overseas by non-US citizens or US citizens living abroad prior to 1927 are also, with some exceptions, considered to be within the public domain under US copyright law. Since Segrue was born in 1884, he would've been in his 40s around 1927; so, if you can find a photo of him that was first published prior to 1927, then there's a good chance that such a photo would be in the public domain by now. Even if it's not as good of a photo as the one you've already found, it would most likely preclude the use of any non-free photo of Segrue as long as it's capable of serving the same encyclopedic purpose of primary identification.Now having posted that, non-free images of deceased persons do tend to be considered an acceptable type of non-free use per item 10 of WP:NFCI when they're used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the person themselves. Other types of non-free uses or uses in other articles tend to be much harder to justify, but a non-free image of Segrue should be OK to use in the main infobox of John Segrue as long as there are no issues with WP:FREER. If you've done a reasonable search for a free equivalent to use instead of a non-free one and came up empty, then just briefly explain your efforts in the non-free use rationale you provide for the image. You can use the template Non-free biog pic for the copyright license and the template Non-free use rationale biog for the non-free use rationale. If you want to further clarify the efforts you made to try and find a free equivalent image for the benefit of others, then you can do so on the file's talk page. As for the photo used by the Daily Mirror, unless you're able to clarify its provenance, it's going to be hard to treat any such photo as anything but non-free. If you can somehow find another instance of publication of the photo (maybe try TinEye), then perhaps that might help clarify things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your detailed reply. I have uploaded the image under fair use using the templates you provided and have also added a note to the talk page, as you suggested. I used TinEye but there is no other instance of this photo being published on the internet. It could, of course, have been used in another old newspaper article, but I don't believe there is a way to search through them using images.
 * If you have a spare moment and wouldn't mind checking the image: File:Johnsegrue.jpg
 * I think I have followed all guidelines and have made it as small as possible, whilst still being able to clearly identify the subject.
 * QueenPuck (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair use and non-free use are technically not the same thing when it comes to Wikipedia; so, try to keep that in mind for future reference. Since you had to download the file before uploading it to Wikipedia, I'm assuming there was some link involved and adding that to the source parameter in the non-free use rationale might help; even if the link requires some kind of password or payment to access, it still might be helpful. In addition, as I tried to explain above, being deceased doesn't mean that a free equivalent cannot be created; so, perhaps adding the replaceability parameter to the non-free use rationale and then adding a little about the efforts you made to try and find such a free equivalent might also be helpful. Other than that it looks OK in that it has a copyright license and it has a non-free use rationale, which means it's unlikely going to get flagged for speedy deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Marchjuly : I couldn't figure out how to get rid of the "The subject of this image is deceased so creation of a free replacement would be impossible" line, but then I realised it was the default when using that template so I switched it to a non-specific template. I have also added an archived link to the search page on the British Newspaper Archives so anyone can see where I got the image from, regardless of whether they are subscribed. Thank you again for your help; I have never uploaded anything to Wikipedia before and the whole process is a little overwhelming for a newbie!
 * QueenPuck (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Sports club logo
Hi, re File:BC Žalgiris logo.svg removed from FK Kauno Žalgiris (futsal) - what should be correct license for club logo? Wolfmartyn (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . The file wasn't removed by the bot from that article for not having a proper copyright license; it was removed because there wasn't a separate, specific non-free use rationale for that particular use on the file's page. Each non-free file is bascially required to have two things: a non-free copyright license and a non-free use rationale. In many cases, this means one of each; however, in cases where a non-free file is being used in multiple ways (e.g. used in different articles, used in different ways in the same article), then it needs to have a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use in order to comply with non-free content use criterion #10c. The same copyright license typically is OK for all uses of a non-free file, but the same non-free use rationale is almost always not. So, if you feel the non-free use of the file in the article about the futsal team satisfies all ten non-free content use criteria, then you're going to need to add a non-free use rationale to the file's page explaining way. Adding the missing rationale should stop the bot from removing the file, but providing a rationale is only WP:JUSTONE or the ten criteria and someone may still challenge the file's non-free use if they feel it fails one of the other remaining criteria. For reference, when it comes to sports team logos, the non-free use of the main team logo tends to be limited to the "parent" teams and not allowed for "child" teams per item 17 of WP:NFC. I'm not sure how that applies to futsal teams and how they relate to other teams run by the same organization, but it's something you're going to need to consider if you decide to try and add a non-free use rationale to the file's page for that particular use. A logo specific to the futsal team (if one exists) would be much better and much easier to justify per relevant Wikipedia policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Question about book cover
I create book articles quite often on Wikipedia. I'm considering uploading a book cover for His Name Is George Floyd, a bio of George Floyd. Looking at the cover, do you believe I could export this to the Commons based on how simple the design is? ie is it eligible for copyright or is it too simple? Thank you. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . The cover art is quite simple enough and I think it probably would be OK to upload to Commons since it does (in my opinion) fall below the c:COM:TOO United States under US copyright law. You might, however, want to ask at c:COM:VPC to see what some others might think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Franck Report
My plan is to transcript it for wikisource. It was mostly published May 1945. Does it fall under c:Template:PD-USGov? Habitator terrae (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . You might want to ask about this at Wikisource:Copyright discussions or maybe possibly even at c:COM:VPC (if you think a scan of the entire document itself can be uploaded to Commons). One thing that might possibly an issue is that the Franck Report appears to be a document sent to the Secretary of War and it's not clear (at least to me) whether those who created and signed it were employees of the US government at the time. PD-USGov requires that works be created by employees of the US government as part of their official duties for such works to be PD. Works created by private citizens or even government employees privately in their free time don't seem to be covered by such a license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Non-free album cover license tagging
Hi, I uploaded a non-free album cover (File:Luude & Mattafix - Big City Life.png) and got a message about not having a copyright tag, but I'm a bit confused because I've uploaded numerous other album covers the same way (through the Upload/Non-free album cover form) without problems. For example, I uploaded File:Bailey Zimmerman - Rock and a Hard Place.png a few weeks ago and its file page looks the same, so I don't see why one tripped the bot but the other didn't. Has something changed? Exallonyx (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . Non-free files require two things per WP:NFC: (1) a file copyright license (or tag) and (2) a non-free use rationale (separate and specific to each use of the file). Failing to provide one or the other typically leads to the file being tagged for speedy deletion per either WP:F4 or WP:f6. In case of these files, it looks like you provided (2) for each file, but failed to provide (1). For album covers, the license Non-free album cover is generally used; so, I've gone ahead an added such a license to each of these files. I'm not sure why one file got flagged by a bot and the other didn't. If you really want to know, perhaps the thing to do would be to ask the user who runs the bot. I'm also not sure why the copyright license wasn't added if you used the Upload Wizard; I'd imagine one should've been added if you followed all of the steps, but you might want to ask about that at Wikipedia talk:Upload. The only thing I can suggest is that you check your non-free uploads after the fact to make sure they have both (1) and (2). In almost all cases, you only need one copyright license for a non-free file, but you will need a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each individual use of the file. If either (1) or (2) are missing, you will need to manually add it to the file's page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation! I had thought the rationale template covered both bases, since I hadn't had any problems with it until now. Looking over the form, I think I just hadn't noticed the licensing dropdown, somehow. I'll make sure to use it in the future and I'll go back and add the license to my previous uploads. Exallonyx (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Fair use on new pages
I would like to use Megumu Sagisawa.jpeg and Yūsaku Matsuda (1949–1989).png for the Koreans in Japan page. It has already been determined that the two photos can be used for fair use on wiki, as seen in the Megumu Sagisawa and Yūsaku Matsuda pages. Can somebody please tell me how I can use the same picture for the Koreans in Japan page? Thanks. ParallaxVision222 (talk) 04:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . While non-free photos of deceased persons are often allowed for primary identification purposes in the main infoboxes or at the tops of stand-alone Wikipedia articles about such people, the use of the same photo in other ways or in other articles is much harder to justify. The use of such photo in broader much general articles only indirectly related to the subject of the photo is pretty much never allowed since such non-free use almost always tend to be more WP:DECORATIVE than not and in almost all cases simply linking back the the stand-alone article about the person in question is considered a sufficient alternative to an additional non-free use per WP:FREER. The article Koreans in Japan already contains a number of freely licensed images in Koreans in Japan and I don't see how you'd be able to justify adding two non-free ones to that particular gallery per WP:NFG. Of course, if you disagree with my assessment, then you're free to start a discussion at WP:FFD or ask about it a WT:NFCC to see if you can establish a WP:CONSENSUS in favor of doing so, but (once again) I don't think you're going to have much luck in doing so. The way you're trying to use those two photos in that article is something that has pretty much never been considered policy compliant and I don't think the situation has recently changed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks your reply. I agree that it is mostly decorative and doesn't meet the requirements. ParallaxVision222 (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Historical images passed off as "own work"
The image recently put in the infobox of Mikhail Tal is File:Misha._jpg.jpg. This was uploaded to wikimedia as "own work", but is from 1959.

Likewise for the image recently put in the infobox of Garry Kasparov. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The other files uploaded from the same account don't look like "own works" either. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * People often claim "own work" for any old thing to the point of being comical. -- Green  C  17:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, "own work" very often means "I took the photo", "I scanned the book" or just "I uploaded this". In fairness the Commons wizard etc does a very poor job explaining what it should mean, & I'm sure in the vast majoprity of cases it is a sincere mistake. Johnbod (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Image om PaJaMa
Why may this image be used in this article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_French -  but not in the article PaJaMa - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PaJaMa - Jonnmann (talk) 09:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . The answer I gave above in sort of applies here as well. Bascially, non-free images of deceased individuals tend to only be allowed when the image is used for primary identification purposes at the tops of or in the main infoboxes of stand-alone articles about such people as long as there are no other issues with the image's non-free use. Trying to use the same image in other articles or other ways tends to be much harder to justify and often is not considered appropriate per WP:FREER and WP:NFC. PaJaMa seems to be more about a "collective" of individuals than any one individual per se; so, it would seem hard to justify the non-free use of individual in that article simply to show what they looked like. If there's an image of all the members of PaJaMa together taken during the period the collective was active, then that might be easier to try and justify, but even then FREER and NFC#CS might be still hard to meet. If you can find any freely-licensed or public domain images of the members of PaJaMa somewhere (perhaps check Wikimedia Commons), then those could be added to the article since their use is not subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Copyright in 1781 images in 1922 book digitised in 2009
If a book is on Internet Archive, uploaded in 2009, but was published in 1922, and contains images made in 1781, what is their copyright status? I've uploaded one image under "Fair use as a historical portrait" (File:Eleonore von Raab silhouette.png) but wasn't sure about it. The book is here. Any thoughts? I'm not clear whether someone has copyright in the digitised version of the book as such, and couldn't find much help on Internet Archive itself. Pam D  23:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Under US copyright law, an image originally published either in 1781 or in 1922 is now in the public domain because copyright has expired. Digitizing a public domain work does not create a new copyright. Cullen328 (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks: I'd forgotten that last fact. I'll load the image into Commons instead. Pam  D  05:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)