Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2022/May

Are links to the Internet Archive for books in copyright copyright violations?
See the discussion at WP:ELN. Thanks. Open Library is relevant. Doug Weller talk 09:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * If it's books or media still in copyright and not being released by the copyright holder, then it's a clear violation of WP:COPYVIOEL. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The Internet Archive would claim these are cached copies that they are justified in keeping, following the precedent set by Google's book approach. As there are pending lawsuits whether this is true or not, we should still take caution for this (whereas linking to Google Book scans are fine due to the established clearance). --M asem  (t) 16:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * While we should instantly remove links to Library Genesis, we should keep all Internet Archive links until the WMF tells us to remove them. Making our articles harder to re-verify for our users out of copyright paranoia does not serve our mission. —Kusma (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Kusma are you suggesting we can use them for external links as well? Doug Weller  talk 16:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think "link in references only" versus "link wherever appropriate" is a huge difference from the copyright point of view. "Link in references only" is easily circumvented by citing some content from the book. I don't think I have ever linked to a copyrighted book without citing it, so perhaps I don't understand what is being asked. —Kusma (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

In either case, the actual legal concern for the WMF would be contributory copyright infringement, and I agree that there's not much difference (if any?) between linking in a reference versus and external link. Besides the COPYVIOEL guideline, there's also the more important WP:COPYLINK policy which applies to every link (including cited sources) and states "if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work."

So I need to take back part of my initial gut reaction since I hadn't looked far enough into the particular question at ELN when I said it's a clear violation, because you're right, it's not always clear. The issue with Internet Archive library is that users choose what to upload, so some of the stuff is certainly PD and okay, and some is not (recent movies, for example). The library loan stuff could be okay, for a similar reason to why Google Books is (and was, while their lawsuit was ongoing), but this might actually be a question that should escalate to the legal team if you're looking for a definitive answer. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I think that’s a good idea, not sure the best way to do it. I guess I could just email them but I don’t know if that would work. Doug Weller  talk 19:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Back in the day I'd just drop a note for MRG and she'd work her magic to contact whoever, but I've obviously been away for a while. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If the links are the problems and the sources cited are otherwise acceptable, then a "no-link" citation seems perfectly fine. Just provide as much information about the source as possible and leave it up to those who want to find out more to search online for it. I've linked to Google Books before in citations, but these are almost always convenience links and the via is used; in other words, the links are nice to have but not necessary. I also think it's hard to do anything about this right now as long as there are apparently still legal battles being fought out in the real world. Unless the WMF steps in and uniequivocally lays down the law that such sites aren't to be linked to, it seems like it's going to require a RFC to determine what to do projectwise. It's going to need to be an RFC that has lots of participants that probably is going to take some time and unlikely lead to a strong consensus as long as the real world stuff is unresolved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Marchjuly. Not sure if you noticed this is about adding it to The external leak section Doug  Weller  talk 06:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I assumed that part of the discussion involved citations, but apologize if that was incorrect. However, the basics of my post probably apply to ELs as well in that a RfC is probably going to be needed (absent a real world court case or some action taken directly by the WMF) to start universally prohibiting the use of such links; otherwise, there's always going to be disagreement and you may have different local consensus resulting from different talk page discussions. As pointed out above, the second paragraph of WP:COPYLINK begins with "However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." and that seems clear enough except there's likely going to be disagreement on the meaning of "you know or reasonably suspect". I could see it being argued that sites like the Internet Archives and Google Books should be OK to link to until someone of some real world authority decides that they're not. Personally, I can't really see there being much need to provide an EL for an online copy of a book since that seems to be a bit of overkill; maybe such links should be treated as YT videos are treated per WP:YT in that an official link to the book's publisher's site would be fine, but a link to anything else would require more scrutiny. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Mug Shots - Which States Copyright Them (if any)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#New_editor_w%2F_photo_to_add

The above link introduced a discussion on what states issue a copyright on mug shots. It would appear that this is rare, if not unknown, however, in the above discussion, it is pointed out that all public photographs taken by any public servant are copyrighted by default. The state government must specifically state that the photos are not copyrighted, according to that point of view.

There is a list, on a website that serves reporters (https://www.rcfp.org/open-government-sections/11-mugshots/), called 'The Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press' that shows each state's policy on mug shots along with legal references and statutes.

The end of the above discussion temporarily resolved the question by referring it here, and so, which states release photos (mug shots specifically) into the public and then copyright them? It is tempting to say none of them do, and that the states are similar to the federal government; Wikipedia says that any mug shots produced by the federal government are public domain. At the above website, in this list of states, most of the states listed show that their mug shots are publicly available for reporters to publish. The remainder of the states are either agnostic on this, having no legal references on the topic (according to this list on this website), which probably means that they are copyrighted by default? The other states that remain, have various statements and rules explaining on how mug shots are restricted from the public. So a list could possibly be compiled from this site as to whether those particular states have policies showing that mug shots are in the public domain. That list would be verifiable.

Which states clearly lay out that their mug shots are publishable; is this reporter's committee website reliable; can a list be compiled for editors to refer to when this question comes up?

69.112.128.218 (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi IP 69.112.128.218. There’s a difference between something being “publicly available” (i.e. “part of the public record”) and something being “free from copyright” (i.e. within the public domain “public domain”). The link you’ve provided above seems to be primarily for the former and not whether mug shots are free from copyright protection. As far as I know, only California and Florida have statutes currently in place which state that works created by state government employees as part of their official duties fall within the public domain as explained WP:PD. Copyright status, however, is only one of many important things to be considered before using mug shots in Wikipedia articles as explained in WP:MUGSHOT and WP:BLPCRIME. Finally, it’s best to assume these days all photos pretty much taken anywhere in the world are copyrighted by default unless it clearly states so otherwise. In the US, for example, visible copyright notices stopped being required on March 1, 1989. For some older US photos, a notice or a notice plus a renewal of copyright was required, but that’s no longer the case. Copyright laws of other countries may differ, but it’s best to assume copyright protection and work to prove the contrary, at least if you want to upload mug shots to Wikipedia or Commons. — Marchjuly (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Where to get Public Domain or similar license for satellite images for geographic areas?
Are there sources for satellite imagery, preferably that can show geographic areas worldwide, similar this one that are released as public domain or any image license that are compatible with en.wiki? If so, what are the fair use/public domain image tags that we use for those? -- Lenticel ( talk ) 03:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

File:Holiday Corporation Logo - 1985-1990.jpg: PD or not to PD.
File:Holiday Corporation Logo - 1985-1990.jpg is currently licensed as non-free content and being used in Holiday Inn. Is this logotoo complex to be relicensed as either PD-logo or PD-ineligible-USonly? It looks as if the company was American owned up until 1988 when it was bought by a UK company. This logo apparently was used from 1985 to 1990 so I'm not sure whether that means c:COM:TOO United Kingdom also needs to be applied. If this logo is otherwise simple enough to be PD in the US per c:COM:TOO United States, then maybe "PD-inelgible-USonly" is OK for local use on English Wikipedia. If the file needs to remain licensed at non-free content, then its current use seems to fail WP:NFCCP per WP:NFC and WP:NFG. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Copyright for a book cover
Hi, I am writing an article about a short story called 'Media Naranja' (Orange Half). I would like use the cover of the short story book it comes from, which has an orange half on the cover, as an image in the article. The book is freely available in PDF form at this link and its first page is the cover photo I would like to use. Can I use an image of this cover freely in my article without permission? (Many articles about movies seem to use their posters and I don't image they always get permission.) If not, how might I go about figuring out who to contact? Any response would be greatly appreciated.

Potentially relevant info:

The PDF is hosted on clubdelphos.org

The publisher of the book is Seix Barral

The designer of the cover is Josep Bagà Associats

The designer's website has a page of work done for Seix Barral, but this particular cover does not appear on it.

Hola soy Hunter (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . Since the cover art is likely protected by copyright and that copyright is held by the book's publisher, the cover's designer, the book's author or some combination of the three, there are two possibilities here in my opinion.Possibility #1 would be to contact the copyright holder of the cover (as explained in WP:PERMISSION) and ask them to give their WP:CONSENT for the cover to be uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons under a free license that the Wikimedia Foundation accepts. If the copyright holder agrees to do this, it will make the file you upload so much easier for you and anyone else to use on not only English Wikipedia, but also on any of the non-English Wikipedias and any other Wikimedia Foundation website. Obviously, this would be the best thing for you and Wikipedia, but probably not the best thing for the cover's copyright holder since there's no way to limit the file's use to only English Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia Foundation website. Other would be able to download the file and reuse it as long as they comply with the terms of the license the copyright holder has chosen as explained in WP:REUSE. Such reuses might even be in a way the copyright holder doesn't like.Possibility #2 would be to upload the file locally as non-free content to English Wikipedia for use only on English Wikipedia. Most images of book covers you see used in Wikipedia article are uploaded this way per item 1 of WP:NFCI. The use of non-free content, however, is quite restrictive since Wikipedia's non-free content use policy has been set up to limit the use of such content as much as possible. So, for example, you probably could use the cover for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the book itself, but it would be much harder to justify using the cover in other articles or in other ways as explained in WP:NFC. You don't need the copyright holder's permission to do this, but you will need to make sure that the way you want to use the file satisfies all ten non-free content use criteria; if even one of the ten criteria is not met, the use is not going to be considered valid. If you decide to upload the cover as non-free content, you should try to find an official link for the copyright holder or some other type of reliable that shows the cover and use that as the source to avoid problems with WP:NFC and only upload the file when there's actually a valid use for it in an existing article since non-free content can only be used in articles. In other words, if you're working on a draft for an article about the book, wait until the draft has been accepted as an article before uploading the cover art; if you try to use non-free content in a draft, it will be removed per WP:DRAFTS. -- Marchjuly (talk)
 * Marchjuly, thank you for the quick and throughout response. Based on what you've said, I believe it makes sense for me to pursue Possibility #2 and use the image as Non-Free content. As you suggested, I'll wait to put in in the article until I get it accepted. As a quick clarification, I am writing this article for Spanish Wikipedia at the moment, not English. That wouldn't change anything, would it?
 * Hola soy Hunter (talk) 09:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that changes everything since all of the information I've given you about non-free content only applies to English Wikipedia. You can't use a file uploaded locally to English Wikipedia on any other Wikipedia or Wikimedia Foundation website. You would need to upload the file either to Wikimedia Commons Spanish Wikipedia. Wikimedia Commons doesn't accept non-free content of any type per c:COM:FAIR. I don't know whether Spanish Wikipedia does, but even if it does its policies may be different from English Wikipedia's; so, you will need to ask about that on Spanish Wikipedia or check at meta:NFC. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

NFC -- Image of art for art exhibition articles
Kinda new to the Wikipedia non-free content rules, would love some clarity/guidance if anyone has any. I've uploaded several images of works of art to be used in articles about the works and the artists (non-free content with fair-use guidelines met and shown), but there is no clear standard on the use of these kinds of images for articles about art exhibitions that the work was featured in. I added several such images to Afro-Atlantic Histories, thinking it made sense to include images of key works from the exhibition, but I just noticed that the article was flagged in Database reports/Pages containing an unusually high number of non-free files. Should I not include these images, do you think they cross the threshold of over-use? Happy to adjust and stick to uploading eligible images of key works for artist biographies and articles about specific works if this isn't in line with policy. Definitely not trying to break any rules in my quest to make Wikipedia's coverage of art more visual :) Thanks! 19h00s (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, exhibitions of art should narrowly use only a few key non-free images of representative art, as best to give an idea of the breadth of the works included. You should try to see what works are explicitly mentioned as part of the exhibit in part of what is being represented. You can still list out other notable art pieces are present, and can include free images, etc. --M asem (t) 17:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Went ahead and took off all the non-free images of works not referenced in quotes by critics/curators in the article. Appreciate the help :) 19h00s (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

NFC - Licensing/Attribution for images of copyrighted 2D art
Quick question about licensing and attribution for non-free images of 2D art. When uploading a fair use image of copyrighted 2-dimensional art (painting, print, etc.) that I took myself in the United States, should I include a license for the photograph itself? (I license all my photographs using CC BY 4.0) Per US copyright law, taking a photograph of 2D art does not create a new copyright, so technically I can't create a license for photographs I've taken of someone else's 2D artwork, correct?

Another example - when uploading a photograph of copyrighted 2D art, freely-licensed by the photographer, sourced from Flickr, should I include the license that the photographer included on their Flickr upload? Again, per US copyright law a new copyright was not created when the photographer took the photo, so technically they can't create a license.

Two examples:
 * Photo I took myself: Who's Afraid of Aunt Jemima? (1983)
 * Photo sourced from Flickr: The American People Series #20: Die (1967)

Am I understanding the law correctly here, and do I need to include the photograph license when uploading these kinds of images to Wikipedia? I always do with Flickr uploads, but I'm unsure what do with my own -- figured I'd ask for clarification.

Thanks! 19h00s (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, you should include the original license of the flat art as well as your own (presumably CC or PD) license on the photo, though for 2D art in the use, any mechanical recreation really doesn't get new copyright. --M asem (t) 03:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification! A follow-up: when a non-free image is uploaded directly to Wikipedia, the media viewer doesn't format the license preview correctly, at least in my view. For example, when you view The American People Series #20: Die (1967) in the media viewer, as most users will do when clicking on the image from an article, the media viewer displays the license for the photograph'' in the bottom right of the screen, as opposed to the fair use label. Shouldn't the fair use label be the default as it's an image of art that shouldn't be used beyond Wikipedia? I might be overthinking this, but it feels like the fair use label should take precedent over the photograph license when dealing with copyrighted art. 19h00s (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a known issue, see this bug report. media viewer grabs the most permissive license it sees, which is known to be a problem for crediting photos of copyrighted art. Technically you are still fine but optionally if you want to clear it, you could spell out your CC photograph licensing without the template and that should fix it for now, but I think that we always resort to the File page as being proper licensing rights, not what the brief blurb on Media Viewer gives. --M asem (t) 15:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, good to know it's already been flagged. Thank you for the help, appreciate the explanation :) 19h00s (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's ultimately the responsibility of the person wanting to reuse Wikipedia content (including images) to make sure they do so in compliance with relevant laws. Because of the way Wikipedia has been set, it can be a crap shoot as to whether any information found on any Wikipedia page is correct at any given point in time, and this is why there are things such as WP:WPNOTRS, WP:General disclaimer and WP:REUSE, c:COM:REUSE and even c:COM:NCR. Most people uploading files do so in good faith under the license they think is most appropriate, but mistakes are sometimes (often?) made because there's no formal vetting or otherwise WMF approval of content prior to upload. Those assessing files after the fact are volunteers as well who can also make good-faith mistakes. The best thing that can be hoped for is there's enough information provided on a file's page to point someone wanting to reuse a file in the right direction to find out whatever more they need to find out. So, it's not that you're really overthinking anything here; it's just that Wikipedia can't really think for others when it comes to stuff like this.As for your original question, as points out and as explained in c:COM:2D copying, a 2D slavish reproduction of a copyrighted work 2D work of art is generally not deemed sufficient to generate a new copyright for the reproduction itself. There are cases where a 3D frame of other element might be eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:PD-Art, but in many cases it's easy to just crop the frame out. So, if you yourself are photographing non-free 2D artwork, just crop out any frames, plaques, etc. before uploading the file. With respect to other photos, things are likely more complicated because you may actually have to crop a photo taken by someone else to avoid having to deal with multiple copyright eligible elements created by different people. That seems like it can a bit of an issue if the photo is not released under a "free" license that not only allows cropping but is also acceptable for Wikipedia possible. Similarly, trying to add separate licenses for each copyrightable element might also create WP:FREER issues since someone could most likely take a free photo of the work itself without any of the additional copyright eligible elements. In such a cases, it wouldn't necessary be a "free" versus "non-free" argument, but rather an argument involving different degrees of non-freeness. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

ballot?
So, I just got my mail-in ballot for the 2022 Alaska's at-large congressional district special election, and it's the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen on a ballot. There's 40+ names, all running for the same position. I thought an image of it might enhance the article but I'm not sure a claim of fair use would be accepted so I haven't uploaded one yet. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beeblebrox (talk • contribs) 22:26, 09 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If the ballot was produced by an employee of the US Federal Government, then it could possibly be within the public domain per WP:PD. If it was produced at the state level, then it would depend upon how the state deals with the copyright status of works produced by it employees. If the ballot contains logos or other imagery, then these might be considered copyrightable in their own right. Even if it's only text, the combination of everything on the ballot (including the order of the names and other formating stuff) might be considered eligible for copyright (see WP:CLIST) as whole even if individually they're not eligible as words. Whether you could use this as non-free content largely depends on whether it appearance is something that's receiving critical commentary in reliable sources. If there was a stand-alone article created about the ballot itself, then perhaps an image of it would be OK for the main infobox. Trying to use it in other ways or in other articles might be harder to justify per WP:NFC, WP:DECORATIVE, and even MOS:TEXTASIMAGES. Being the most ridiculous ballot you've seen isn't really going to be a valid justification for non-free use and would likely be WP:OR; if, however, established media organizations start covering how ridiculous it is or how cotroversial it is or how anything it is, then maybe an argument for non-free use could be made in support of content about the ballot in some article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There's been coverage of how nuts it is that so many people are running, it's our first go-round with a new voting system with open primaries, and our first chance at a new representative in almost 50 years. 51 candidates, including a guy from North Pole who legally changed his name to Santa Claus. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It might be a crazy election and there may be coverage to that effect, but that's not necessarily coverage of the ballot's appearance itself. I think the WP:NFC threshold could be hard to reach with respect to non-free use such as this. Adding an image of the ballot to the article might add some encyclopedic value, but will it be a significant enough improvement so that omitting the image would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the content about the election. If you just want to use the ballot to show that there were lots of candidates in the election, then the reader (in my opinion) doesn't need to see the actual ballot to understand that per WP:FREER. Same goes for trying to show the ballot contains the name of a candidate who legally changed his name to Santa Claus. An image of the ballot doesn't really need to be seen (at least in my opinion) be seen to understand those types of things as explained in WP:THOUSANDWORDS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to add that the copyright status of the ballot might also depend on whether the ballot was created by a private company that was contracted to provide the ballots and other election-related equipment. This article may not be related to this particular election, but it does seem that there's been some outsourcing taking place in recent US elections which might also affect the copyright status of a ballot. So, if the ballot for this particular election has a copyright statement on it, then perhaps that might impact whether or how it can be uploaded and used on Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly certain the state prints the ballots, there's no indication otherwise on the ballot itself, To be clear though, the reason i asked is that I expected the answer would be "probably not" and didn't want to bother going through the whole FUR process if it was just going to be deleted, so thanks for the detailed replies. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Pretty much all assessment of non-free content takes place after someone has uploaded it and started using on some page. Certain WP:NFCCP like WP:NFCC, WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC can be easy to assess, but others like WP:NFCC often take some disucssion to sort things out. Opinions can vary (sometimes quite a bit) when it comes to such discussions, and basically it's a roll of the dice as to whether any file uploaded is going to end up being deleted or not used for some reason or another. If you feel that the way you want to use the ballot image meets WP:NFC, then perhaps others will agree with you if the file's non-free use is eventually challenged. The things I've mentioned above are reasons why non-free files sometimes end up deleted, but they may not apply to this particular image and how it's going to be used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

EU country copyright on court rulings/laws
Not media specific, but since a lot of copyright-knowledgeable editors watch this page: Anyone with knowledgeable input on the copyright status of EU legislative and judicial documents would be greatly appreciated at Talk:Reverse Discrimination (EU Law). I figure any actual conversation would be better kept not here since it's not really about images/media. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

PD-TXGov
I've started a discussion about c:Template:PD-TXGov over at c:COM:VPC and input from editors familiar with US state copyright laws would be really appreciated. If it turns out that this license is OK for Commons, WP:PD might need to be updated. It might also mean that some non-free files uploaded locally to Wikipedia could be converted to PD and moved to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

PD-ineligible-USonly?
Any opinions on whether is OK to relicense File:SportsShoesLogo.png as PD-ineligible-USonly? The file is currently being used in Bruce Bannister and there's really no justification for that type of non-free use per WP:DECORATIVE. Since the logo appears to be for a UK wesbite, it likely isn't PD-logo in the UK per c:COM:TOO United Kingdom; it does, however, seem simple enough to be "PD-logo" in the US. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This probably would be public domain in the US, so you could tag this PD-ineligible-USonly.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I re-arranged your response a bit since Harry12555's question wasn't mistakenly added to my thread. The two questions aren't related. Harry12555 seems to be asking about File:Nepisiguit Bay Coastline.png which has been proposed for deletion by . -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Picture from Government of Canada website
I m not 100% sure what you mean. The picture is from the Governement of Canada web site and they wave any copy right concerns. Can you give me more information and I am new doing this, thanks in advance for any help Harry12555 (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And Harry12555, where are you seeing this on a Canadian government website? Are you talking about ? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is the link where I got the picture, you will see          "licence: open governement licence-canada" Harry12555 (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . If you're asking about File:Nepisiguit Bay Coastline.png, then the reason it has been proposed for deletion is because it's redundant to c:File:Nepisiguit Bay coastline.png found on Commons. Since there's no real need to have two uploads of the what looks to be exactly same file, the local one you subsequently uploaded to Wikipedia will be deleted. I'm not sure why you basically uploaded the same file to Wikipedia a few minutes after you uploaded it to Commons, but the only real difference appears to be in the file name ("coastline" vs. "Coastline") and the file's size. If you want to upload a larger verion to Commons, just go to that file's page and click "Upload a new version of this file". Maybe uploading the same file twice was just made a mistake and that's OK; if, however, the files are different in some other important way, please clarify what that difference is so that someone can help you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I had trouble with the size of the image. I tried to enlarge a second version using paint and I uploaded the result.  I didn't think to use   upload a new version of this file.   I will do that next time, thanks for the help.  I tried to delete one of the pictures but was unable.  I see only certain members can do that and i beleive only certain members can do that.  I assume they will go ahead and do it shorty Harry12555 (talk) 01:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Any user can nominate, tag or propose a file for deletion, but only an administrator can actually delete the file. Techincally, such a file isn't being deleted but rather only hidden from public view and can't be used any longer. Any user, however, can remove a file from a Wikipedia page, but it's still there for others to see and use. Since Commons and Wikipedia are separate projects, issues with Commons files used on Wikipedia will need to be resolved on Commons according to Commons' policies and guidelines. If you or another user doesn't contest the proposed deletion tag added to the local file, it will be most likely be deleted by a Wikipedia administrator after seven days have passed. If someone WP:DEPRODs the file (i.e. contests the proposed deletion), the file will likely need to nominated for deletion at WP:FFD. Sometimes redundant files like this are eligible for speedy deletion per WP:F8, but (who proposed the file for deletion) probably felt F8 didn't apply in this particular case because the two versions were just different enough. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * F8 doesn't apply because the Commons image has a lower resolution.  If you want to use a higher resolution image, you can simply upload it as a new version on Commons.  Somewhere on the Commons file page should be a link with the text "Upload a new version of this file".  I'll note that what you did was upscaled the image, and to me it doesn't look as good as the original image on Commons.  There is also that orangey brown overlay that makes both images a bit hard to read.  You might be able to get somebody to help you create a map on Commons.  I've never requested a map, but please see this.  Somebody might be able to create a nice clear map for your article. -- Whpq (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thats great information you provided, thanks. I'll look at both options.  I didn't know I could make my own map here.  The clearer map would be the better option.  Now I also know I can upload it as a replacement Harry12555 (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I replaced the image with the original higher resolution one. Thanks.  I will be requesting a map/help, still reading up on it Harry12555 (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Is this image OK?
File:Sir William Turner Walton.jpg. Not sure if an image not free in the US is OK for Wikipedia.  Tim riley  talk   19:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * If it's not free in the US then we can use it in limited circumstances: it has to meet our non-free content policies and guidelines. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi There's a c:Template:Not-PD-US-URAA template on that file's page that states the files uploaded under such a license are currently being reviewed. The template gives instructions that can be followed when there are questions about the file.  Although the template states "New files should not be uploaded with this tag, or they will be deleted", it doesn't give a brightline date as to when a file is considered to be "new". The template was created in May 2007, and this file was uploaded in 2018; so, perhaps that means it's "new" in the context of the template. You might want to ask about at c:COM:VPC to see what others think, or you could start a c:COM:DR to see whether the file needs to be deleted from Commons. FWIW, this file is being used in a number of Wikipedia articles, but it's likely its non-free use could be justified in William Walton; even in that case, though, WP:FREER would have to be shown to have been met. The image is technically OK to use as long as it remains on Commons, but any concerns about its licensing will need to be resolved on Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Color and PD-textlogo
Are images such as File:Life 96-5 logo.png in the public domain per PD-textlogo? They are comprised of simple geometric shapes, but I am unsure if the gradient pushes the work above the threshold of originality. Thanks! HouseBlastertalk 16:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Simple gradients like that would not qualify for threshold of originality in the US, so that can be marked PD. --M asem (t) 16:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

File:Patriarch_Alexy_I.jpg
Hello ,

Following image of Patriarch Alexy File:Patriarch_Alexy_I.jpg I have uploaded, it is derivative work: colorization done by me with My Heritage coloring photo option on grayscale picture I have made from original photo from my family archive, but do not know which would be best  copyright tag for it.

Probable dates for original photo might be from between February 1945 till April 1970 in USSR or other countries he was visiting.

I have done research on attribution, but could not find any particularly matching photo portraits to attribute authorship.

Regards ~

EgorovaSvetlana (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . The file you're asking about was uploaded to Commons which means that any issues related to it are going to need to be resolved over at Commons. I can say that I don't think it's clear that colorizing old photos automatically means a derivative work has been created per c:Commons:Colorization. Even if your colorized version is eligible for copyright protection, the copyright status of the original photo itself would also need to be considered. The more information you can provide about the provenance of the original photo, the better the chance there is of sorting out its copyright status. Commons policy requires that the files it host are freely licensed or within the public domain in the United States and also in the country of first publication; so, it's going to be quite hard for Commons to keep your version per c:Commons:Precautionary principle if no specific information about the original photo can be found. If you can determine who took the photo, when in was taken and when it was first published, then most like the best that can be assumed is that it's an anonymous unpublished work. Under US copyirght law (see c:Commons:Hirtle chart) are considered to be protected by copyright for a 120 years after creation. Based on the dates you've given above, that would mean the earliest the original photo would enter the public domain is in 2066. Of course, this is just a guesstimate based on what little information you've provided above, and you might want to try asking about this over at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright to see what others might think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you for your response EgorovaSvetlana (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I see you've already asked about this at c:COM:VPC and have received a response. It would probably best to keep any addition discussion you have about the photo there so as to avoid a confusion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ok, thank you EgorovaSvetlana (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

picture from a Canada government map site
Trying to answer the copyright question on image upload. The image in question from a canadian government web site, open government license license https://open.canada.ca/en/open-government-licence-canada. I am new here, can someone help me out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry12555 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It appears you have uploaded the same image under two names File:Nepisiguit Bay Coastline.png and commons:File:Nepisiguit Bay coastline.png. So one can be deleted. Not a copyright issue. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I uploaded a second version, I was testing a different size. Yes it can be deleted, I don't see where I can delete it Harry12555 (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * you can tag one for deletion by editing the page and adding db-author at the top. Mojoworker (talk) 02:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I uploaded another map to replace the orignal, resolution was better.  I understand extra files would be deleted in a few days unless I oppose.  I thought I would just let it get deleted rather then doing anything else, concerned I make make comments on the wrong file.  I do understand how to avoide this when uploading pictures Harry12555 (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Hebrew logos
Any opinions on whether Hebrew text-only logos are OK as PD-logo per c:COM:TOO Israel? Some non-English scripts are sometimes considered to be creative enough to be eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:FONT and Intellectual property protection of typefaces, but not sure whether that would be the case here. The logo itself looks quite simple and may be PD-ineligible-USonly if it's considered copyrightable in Israel. If it needs to be treated as non-free, then it's current use is probably not WP:NFCC compliant. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)