Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2022/November

adding images of artwork
Hello, my article Peter Kapschutschenko was just published but I want to add images of his artwork. I have images and permission from the museum that owns the artwork, but I don't have any contacts at the artist's estate. I also have my own photos of his public monuments but I understand they have to be 150 years old to publish. Any suggestions on the best way forward? never uploaded images before. Many thanks Djarmacost (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There is not much you can do because his work is copyright until 2077 and only his heirs could release his work freely. Being artistic works the photos would also have to be freely licenced. Also for sculptures, if they are in Ukraine or the USA, there is no freedom of panorama for such works, so unless his work is displayed in a country where FoP is allowed, you are out of luck. As a long shot, the only possibility you have would be if you can write about his artistic style supported by appropriate reliable sources, an image might then be uploaded under our strict non-free policy WP:NFCC so long as there was critical commentary prose about the piece being shown. ww2censor (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Adding an Image
Hi all,

I would like to upload an image for an article that I am helping with, but I do not know how to do it properly. All of the licenses and such are very confusing, and I don't understand them. It is a picture of a person (the subject of the article). I could probably get permission from the owner of the image if need be, but would anyone be able to help me with this process?

Thanks, Bearcan (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We have to get the image released under a free licence we accept, such as cc-by-sa-4.0 but others are shown here WP:CC-BY. Commercial and derivative restriction are not acceptable. See WP:COPYRIGHT and this page shows how they can provide permission their WP:CONSENT. The subject of the image is usually not the copyright holder and only the copyright holder can give their permission unless it was transferred by legal means. ww2censor (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Arabic Globe in Dresden
I got permission from a professor to post one of his images on a wikipedia page what I am working on. He gave me the citiation for the photo as well as the photo. what else do I need to do to upload it into my sandbox and after that onto the actual page? Catihill (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Please see Requesting copyright permission. That has the instructions for what needs to be done.  Please be sure that your professor understands that the image needs to be released under a free license. -- Whpq (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . There are a couple of things that you need to sort out with this image before you try to upload it.The first one is who is the creator of the image. Since you posted that you got permission from a professor to post one of his images, let's assume that the professor is the copyright holder of the image and the work is 100% his own creation. In that case, the permission giving you permission to use the image on Wikipedia isn't really sufficient for Wikipedia's purposes. Rather, what is need is for the professor to give his WP:CONSENT to release the image under a free license that basically allows anyone anywhere in the world to download the image from Wikipedia at any time and reuse it for pretty much any purpose (including commerical and derivative uses); in other words, there's no way to restrict the image's use to "Wikipedia only" or for "educational use only" under the types of free licenses that Wikipedia accepts. You need to explain this to the professor and make sure he understands what giving his CONSENT means because the types of free licenses that Wikipedia accepts are, for the most part, non-revocable, and the professor won't really be able to stop others from reusing his image as long as they're complying with the terms of the license the professor has chosen. Moreover, it will be the professor's responsibility, not Wikipedia's, to enforce the terms of the image's license. The next thing to determine is whether the image is 100% the professors own work. You've stated this is related to an "Arabic Globe in Dresden", but I'm not sure what that means. For example, suppose the professor went outside and photographed a sunset or painted an 100% original painting of a sunset; in either of those cases, the photo and the painting would be 100% the original work of the professor because a sunset in and of itself isn't eligible for copyright protection and the visual representation of the sunset is entirely based on the professor's own creative interpretation of what he saw. If, however, the sunset image created by the professor is based on or includes works created by someone else, then the copyright status of this other work also needs to be given consideration per WP:Derivative work. So, if the professor photographed the globe or painted a painting of the globe, then the copyright status of the globe itself probably needs to be considered if it was created by someone else. Now, it's quite possible that the globe is so old that whatever copyright it might have had has long since expired or the globe is so simple in design that it is considered to be in the public domain. On the other hand, if the globe is someone else's recent artistic creation, then that person might be able to claim copyright ownership over it and Wikipedia can't accept the professor's image without also getting the CONSENT of the globe's creator.So, if you can provide a little more information about the professor's image and the globe, it might be easier for someone to help you determine whether it can be uploaded to Wikipedia.  -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Does the File:U.S. Army Esports logo.png appear to be PD-USGov?
Does the U.S. Army Esports team logo appear to be PD-USGov? It was initially uploaded as fair use, but the question is if it's created by the U.S. Army as part of their official duties. I've initially retagged it, but I've reverted back just to stay safe, so I can discuss here. Also the current logo at i.e. official Twitter account may also be PD-USgov? Stylez995 (talk) 07:23, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Amtrak Media "handout" images
Hello, I was wondering the policy for handling "handout" images on company media relations websites, in this case Amtrak: https://media.amtrak.com/media-images/

Here is the policy they post:
 * For any photographs, videos, news releases, and other posted Materials designated as “FOR MEDIA USE – SUBJECT TO LICENSE TERMS” (the “Licensed Materials”), subject to the terms of this Agreement, Amtrak grants you a limited, non-exclusive, royalty-free license and right to use, copy, republish, post and distribute the Licensed Materials provided that you: (a) include any proprietary and attribution notices of the Licensed Materials; (b) do not alter the Licensed Materials; and (c) use of the Licensed Materials is limited to media purposes. Except as provided herein, Amtrak and/or its licensors retain any and all rights, titles and interests in and to the Licensed Materials.

My guess is that this doesn't pass the threshold for a free enough license to be used on Wikipedia, but wanted to double check with editors more experienced in this area. Thanks in advance. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 02:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Why did my flags with seals on them don't comply with criteria 3a?
Hello, I would like to ask as to why some of my flags which I labeled as non-free due to the inclusion of the seal, were labeled by a bot as non-compliant with non-free criteria 3a? How come some of mine are labeled like this while others are not? such as the flag and seal of Somerton, Arizona, which does not have a rationale of any detail at all. I would also like to mention why the Hinton seal doesn't meet criteria 3a because of the logo, which uses the seal on it, how does THAT work? What should I use to state that these use the seal without breaking criteria 3a? Advice would be greatly appreciated.

Here are the files File:Flag of Pike County, Kentucky.svg File:Flag of Rich Township, Illinois.svg File:Flag of Sykesville, Maryland.svg file:Flag of Westernport, Maryland.svg File:Seal of Hinton, West Virginia.svg Frank Zigler (talk) 15:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * When the flag image is pretty much an exact replica of the seal image, then including both fail "minimal use" of NFCC#3a - we don't need both the flag and seal showing the same thing. And if we can use an image like Hinton's logo over the seal that otherwise contains the seal image, we want to go with the more complex image. M asem  (t) 15:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, how come Somerton, Arizona's flag and seal which both show the same thing is exempted from this? Frank Zigler (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't, the flag/seal has the same problem that we only need one of those. M asem (t) 16:40, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, Also I would like to ask if what Jack Ryan Morris has done with the flag and seal of Joliet is okay? Where he made the seal non-free, but the flag as free media. Is this a loophole around criteria 3a? Frank Zigler (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . There's no loop hole and the Commons file (i.e. the flag file c:File:Flag of Joliet, Illinois.svg) has since been deleted by a Commons administrator as a copyright violation. You will have to ask the person who uploaded the file why they did what they did to be sure, but it could've just been a misunderstanding of how copyright works. Lots of files get uploaded to Commons each day and quite a number of them will eventually end up deleted for licensing related issues. Since there's no vetting of uploads, it can sometimes take a while to find them. Often, it takes someone such as yourself asking questions like you did above to bring such files to the attention of others. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So, I can't even upload flags which are just seals on a bed sheet? How come Tacoma, Washington is allowed, do I need to go on about how stupid this criteria 3a feels when it comes to local insignia. It is, it really freaking is. Tell me, what is the real reason with criteria 3a, and why is this being used on against flags with seals on them, just why? I do not feel like breaking the rules just so I can represent a city that wants people to know their flag exists, and some people from those places probably want to know as well and they want the easy answer on where to find it, Wikipedia. Is this the "free" encyclopedia that was envisioned? I used to do what he did, and I made this account so I can learn and respect the copyright of these flags. I probably am making no points right now, right? Frank Zigler (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * WP's goal is to be a freely distributable encyclopedia, and thus we want to minimize how many non-free images that are used. That includes using two or more images that essentially represent the same thing, just because one is a seal and one is a flag, for example. M asem (t) 00:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * explain why Tacoma, Washington is exempted from this, explain it. Also I will not stop uploading those seal on a bedsheet flags. I don't oppose criteria 3a on every level, but when it comes to municipal seals or flags, I don't care if they mean the same thing, They are both equally important to the community, they still create pride for those communities, and what I think this does is suppress that. I look at it in the perspective of the community and it's people. I believe it should be exempted, at least I respect copyright of these seals and flags and didn't upload them on commons. Frank Zigler (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Since non-free content also isn't vetted before it's uploaded, problems with such files often aren't noticed until someone mentions them in some discussion. The Tacoma files aren't exempt; it's that nobody familiar with the relevant policy seems to have noticed them before as explained in WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED or WP:OTHERIMAGE. Even though the files are slightly different, there are still WP:NFCC concerns that would probably be a good idea to discuss at WP:FFD. As for how important these files might be to their respective communities, that might be true in a sense, but it's not really relevant to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. If you feel an exception should be made to NFCC#3a for this type of non-free use, you can propose such a thing at WT:NFCC to see whether a WP:CONSENSUS can be established in favor of doing so, but you can't really "declare" such an exception yourself with edit summaries like this or posts like the above. Eventually an approach such as that is going to be seen as WP:DISRUPTIVE and will probably lead to your account being blocked. NFCC#3a has been similarly applied to other types of non-free files in the past for basically the reasons given by Masem above for quite a long time now; so, I think it you're going to have difficultly carving out an exception for just these types of files. You can try of course, but you should do that on the talk page of the relevant policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

three colored bars are non-free media? or is the bot wrong?
I am referring to this edit by User:JJMC89 bot. I think the problem is just that the image is mislabeled as non-free, but i have had no experience with this bot before, so I did as the bot said and ask here. In my opinion this flag is far below the Threshold of originality and thus public domain. The funny thing is, the bot was triggered by me replacing (wrong flag) with  (correct flag). I think everyone with any sense will agree that either both or none are "non-free media". But again, please enlighten me as to how the bot works and how to proceed. --Lommes (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The bot cannot determine if an image is too simple to pass the threshold of originality test, it is only going by the nonfree upload. That can be fixed by uploading the image with a free license and very much at commons. M asem (t) 20:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi . The bot isn't wrong because it is only assessing whether the file you added is complying with WP:NFCC with the respect to the article you want to use the file in. The bot isn't capable you looking at the file and assessing whether it has been mistakenly licensed as non-free content. You can do such a thing because you're capable of looking at something like this and something like threshold of originality to see whether this needs to be treated as non-free content. The file was originally uploaded back in 2005 and maybe back then there was less of a familiarity with things such as this. The uploader might just assumed the file needed to be non-free because they didn't know better or weren't presented with many other options for a license. Then, over the years, others never really assessed the file. In cases like this, you can be WO:BOLD and convert the file to a more appropriate license if you confidently feel it's current license is incorrect. If converting from non-free to PD, you should replace the current license with a PD or otherwise free one and then replace the non-free use rationale with information. If converting from a free or PD license to a non-free one, you should replace the license and also make sure to provide a separate specific non-free use rationale for each of the file's uses. This can be tricky since a file may be used in many articles or outside of the mainspace if incorrectly licensed as PD, but may only have one or maybe two valid uses if correctly licensed as non-free. Finally, for future reference, displaying non-free files on talk pages isn't allowed per WP:NFCC and WP:TPG; so, the bot will also remove the file from your above post if it remains licensed as non-free. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ok, thanks. i assumed that was the case, just wanted to make sure, as i had never encountered that bot (or if i did it was oodles of years ago.). I changed the license. Cheers! --Lommes (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Photo of HMS Nordland
This photo of HMS Nordland is claimed to be licenced under a non-commercial licence. But this webpage gives the photographer as an "Official Royal Navy Photographer". Does that mean the image is in the Public Domain as a Crown Copyright Expired image? Photograph was taken in the period 1940–48. Mjroots (talk) 13:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Never mind, it's HMS Assiduous and is at Commons - File:HMS Assiduous FL16828.jpg. Mjroots (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Copyrighted poem on user page
The user page of User:優花 1.1 consists of a short, copyrighted poem. I'm not sure whether it is short enough to count as a quote, or should be removed as a copyvio, seeing as it is in userspace. Paradoctor (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The poem would be big enough for copyright to apply. However is it owned by 優花 1.1? And who is Catherine Munro? Userspace will have the same restrictions as articles for copyright infringements. But fair use may not be permitted in userspace. I think the author is User:CatherineMunro and that she has released the poem under CC-BY-SA-3.0 license. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Didn't see that one coming. Nice. I'll add a link for attribution, that should settle things. Thanks. Paradoctor (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Fair usage criteria help
Article: Baba Yogendra Image: link I'm trying to upload the file as fair usage, but couldn't figure out which fair usage criteria to select. I've tried searching for CC-BY videos on YouTube but results weren't satisfactory (some videos seem to be copying images). Could someone help me with the fair usage criteria for the image in that link? Thanks for your help! — DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * A free file is available on Commons. See File:The Vice President, Shri M. Venkaiah Naidu honouring Baba Yogendra, Founder of Sanskar Bharti with Rushi Samman, at Guru Samman - Abhinandan Samaroh, organised by Samkalp, a Project by Jan Kalyan Shiksha Samiti, in New Delhi.JPG.  You may wish to create a new image as a crop.  Commons has a cropping tool you can enable in preferences that makes it easy to create a new image as a crop. -- Whpq (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks Whpq! — DaxServer (t · m · c) 15:31, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

File:B737-300 FMC.jpg
Image File:B737-300 FMC.jpg is marked as a self-made file. However, it looks like a screenshot from a flight simulator application. As such, it is likely copyright material, not created by the uploader. cagliost (talk) 09:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @Cagliost It's hosted on Commons so you need to raise your concerns there. Nthep (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Done, thanks. cagliost (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

What tag fits California government "free use" ?
Quoted from government website: "In general, information presented on this web site, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain. It may be distributed or copied as permitted by law." from https://hsr.ca.gov/privacy-policy/

I can't figure out what tag best fits this release! Robert92107 (talk) 05:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I have added four maps to a wiki page which use this policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert92107 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I think this one might fit well 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚(🕷)  - (✉) 11:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

File:Edward W. Hardy Black Logo.png
File:Edward W. Hardy Black Logo.png is basically the name of Edward W. Hardy written in what seems to be nothing more than some fancy script. While there's no doubt it's probably trademarkable as a logo, I'm not sure whether it's copyrightable. If it can be converted to PD-logo, then great; otherwise, I don't see any justification for it's non-free use per WP:NFCC. Anyone got any opinions on this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Figures from research paper
Hello,

Are figures from research papers allowed on Wikipedia or do I need to obtain consent from the authors? It is not a data table or graph, so I cannot reproduce it. It is a figure explaining how different variables are related to each other. See Figure 1 on Page 532 of https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016059 KiwiRabbit (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . Since figures from most research papers aren't automatically freely licensed just because they're in a reasearch paper, it's best to start with the assumption that they're protected by copyright and that someone's consent is needed for them to be uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons under an acceptable free license. Are the figures attributed to anyone other than the authors of the paper? Sometimes such attirbution is right in the figure's caption, but other times it may be somewhere near the end of the paper. If the authors got the figures from someone else, they might've been given permission to use them in their paper by the original creators. That permission, however, wouldn't automatically extend to other third-parties the type of WP:CONSENT Wikipedia requires most likely goes way beyond something needed for use in one particular paper. On the other hand, if the figures aren't attirbuted to anyone else, and no information is provided about their en:provenance, then it might be wise to contact the authors themselves and see what they say. If the authors say they're the copyright holders of the figures and neither the papers of the figures in question aren't clearly released under a free license, you're going to need author consent. You can find some examples of how to ask for copyright holder consent by email at WP:PERMISSION. The only alternative to uploading such an image to Wikipedia under a free license would be to upload it as non-free content. Non-free content doesn't need copyright holder consent to be uploaded, but each use of the file is required to satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. This policy is quite restrictive and there are ten criteria that each use needs to satisfy. It's kind of hard to say anything more than that without know exactly what the image is and how it's going to be used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Serbia men's national 3x3 team
I have been trying to add picture of KSS logo several times now in infobox of article in question. 3x3 team is under control of Basketball federation of Serbia - https://kss.rs/istorija-3x3/.

Any help? Adelbeighou (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You would have to add a WP:Fair use rationale on the File:Kss-logo-cyr-full-color.png information page for Serbia men's national 3x3 team. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . When a WP:BOT is removing a file like this each time you re-add to some article, there's usually a pretty good reason why and the bot will keep removing the file as long as whatever the relevant issue is remains unresolved. So, it's better to ask for assistance sooner than later because continuing to re-add the file may be mistaken for edit warring, which in turn could possibly lead to your account being blocked by an adminsitrator. Edit warring of any kind is not really a good idea, but edit warring with a bot is particularly unwise since a bot is going to keep coming back and doing what it's been tasked to do as long as the underlying problem the bot is seeing isn't resolved. This particular bot left an edit summary containing a link to WP:NFC each time explaining why it was removing the file. Did you take a look at that page because it basically says the same thing that posted above. This bot is checking whether there's a separate specific non-free use rationale provided on the file page for each of that particular file's uses. Non-free use is not automatic and there are ten criteria that each use needs to satisfy. You kept adding the file to the 3X3 article without adding a rationale for the use to the file's page, which is a violation so to speak. So, adding the missing rationale will stop the bot will from removing the file.Now, providing a separate specific non-free use rationale for each use, is WP:JUSTONE of the aforementioned ten crieria. Even though it should stop the bot from removing the file, the file's non-free use could be challenged for not satisfying one or more of the other criteria. One of the main issues with logos such as this has to do with item 17 of WP:NFC. The logo of a national sports federation like Basketball Federation of Serbia is almost always OK for primary identification purposes in the article about the federation itself, but is often deemed unacceptable when used for the same reason in articles about individual national teams. This is because the federation is considered the "parent entity", whereas an individual team is considered to be a "child entity". In the case of child entities, it preferrable to use a logo specific to the individual team itself instead of simply using the main federation logo. So, if there's a Serbia Basketball 3X3 logo that is used to identify the team, then it would be much better to use that instead. Is the logo seen here, here or here an official one that is used to identify the team? If it is, then that probably should be uploaded and used instead of the main federation logo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not fully understand what I needed to do and I did not understand recommendation made by a bot, but I do now. Thank you both for clarification and suggestions. Adelbeighou (talk) 08:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Non-free COAs
I'm wondering about the non-free use of File:Coat of arms of Harry Goodhew.jpg in Harry Goodhew. It seems entirely WP:DECORATIVE per WP:NFCC and WP:NFC, but I'm also wondering if whether it violates WP:FREER as well. The blazon (i.e. the written description) of a coat-of-arms (COA) is typically not considered eligible for copyright protection, but individual visual recreations based on the heraldry usually are. Couldn't someone essentially create a free version of this COA based on its blazon, thus making any non-free one unacceptable per FREER. Obviously, there would accuracy concerns with any individual representation, but it still seems possible to create a reasonably accurate one for Wikipedia's purposes. After all, the source provided for this file is basically someone's visual representation of the blazon, isn't it? Why can't someone else do essentially the same thing and then release their version under a free license? There are also similar issues regarding the non-free use of File:Joy alappat motto.jpeg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I concur. There are entire software packages (for antiquarians and members of the SCA) dedicated to this purpose. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  19:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Logo Plenitude for Eni Plenitude
Hi, I tried to upload the new logo of Eni Plenitude, which is also used in the Italian page, but unfortunately the logo has been removed due to an issue with fair use. Could someone please help me with the upload process? Thank you, Andreanabo23 (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The use of non-free content must comply with all of the non-free content criteria. In the case of File:Logo Plenitude.png, the "article" (WP:NFCC) parameter in the non-free use rationale is incorrect.  You need to put in the name of the article without quotes or brackets.  You stated it was for the article "Plenitude logo" instead of "Eni Plenitude".  If you fix that, you can add that back to the article, and it should be okay. -- Whpq (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . I've gone ahead and fixed this for you and re-added the file to the article, but please keep in mind what Whpq posted above for future reference. The bot that removed the file is checking whether there's a separate specific non-free use rationale provided for each use of the file as required by non-free content use criterion #10c, and the way it typically does this is by looking to see whether the name of the article where the file is being used is given in the article parameter of the file's non-free use rationale. So, if an incorrect article name (even a misspelled article name) has been added to the non-free use rationale, the bot is likely going to remove the file. Moreover, the bot will keep removing the file each time it's re-added as long as it's still unable to match the non-free use rationale with the way the file is being used. The bot always leaves an edit summary linking to WP:NFC explaining this, but perhaps you missed that. Anyway, it's best to ask for help sooner after the file has been removed the first time than later when you notice a bot is removing a file because the bot is almost always doing what it's supposed to do and will keep doing what it's supposed to do until the reason for removing the file has been addressed. Continuing to re-add a file in such a case, even if you think the bot is wrong, may be mistaken for edit warring and could lead to your account being blocked. Finally, fixing the problem with the article parameter in the non-free use rationale should stop the bot from removing the file, but it doesn't automatically make a particular non-free use valid as explained in WP:JUSTONE. There are ten non-free content use criteria that each non-free use needs to meet and failing anyone of them means the use is non-compliant. This file should be OK since I agree with Whpq's assessment of the use; however, if the file is removed again by someone else, you shouldn't just assume they're wrong but should instead try to figure out why before re-adding the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

PD-signature
File:Signature Ioan Iovitz Popescu.jpg is licensed as non-free symbol, but that seems a bit of a stretch. Since most signatures aren't eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law per c:COM:SIG, it would seem OK to treat this as PD-ineligible-USonly or something similar on the oft chance this would be protected per c:COM:Hungary. If that's not possible, then there seems to be multiple reasons why this is not acceptable per WP:NFCCP. First, the file is supposed to have been emailed to the uploader by the Popescu for use specifically on Wikipedia, but it otherwise has never been published. So, that would seem to be a problem per both WP:FREER and WP:NFC since Popescu could give his consent and there's no way to verify whether the signature is authentic. There is also a WP:NFC issue since there's nothing about the signature at all outside of the main infobox and thus no clear reason how seeing it is nothing more than WP:DECORATIVE non-free use. Any opinions on whether this is OK to convert to PD? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * While the tag Template:PD-signature does exist, the essay Signatures_of_living_persons ("Editors should provide clear justification of importance for the use of the signature of any living person where such signature is not already available in widely published sources.") raises important privacy concerns. I would disallow its use as problematic and purely decorative. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a good point to make and is why I don't think the signature would meet WP:NFCC if the file needs to remain licensed as non-free content. Freely licensed and PD files, however, aren't subject to same criteria for inclusion as non-free ones; so, such a file wouldn't be subject to NFCC#8. Whether such a file should be used, therefore, might be something that needs to be discussed on the article's talk page to determine whether there's a consensus to do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I removed the signature at Ioan-Iovitz Popescu citing WP:BOLD and WP:BLPSIGN. We'll see if anyone objects. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Memes in the context of documenting internet phenomena
Hello!

My question is to whether copyright policy applies to memes shared across the internet, when added to an article for the purpose of documenting internet phenomena. If it does not, then what if the meme itself utilizes images or stills that may be subject to copyright? (An example being a meme that uses a screenshot from an anime as the base image).

Thank you! Snokalok (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Meme images are subject to copyright and thus are covered by WP:NFC. Doesn't mean you can't use an image but there better be significant coverage of the meme on its own and the image essential to understand it. eg as in All your base are belong to us. M asem (t) 02:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Copyright question regarding British topographical maps
Hello everyone, here it says: Since 2010, almost all information owned by the UK Crown is offered for use and re-use under the Open Government Licence. Does this also apply for documents that had been published before 2010? Specifically for topographical maps that show a Crown Copyright notice like this one to the right?--Ratzer (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @Ratzer I don't think so, see . As I understand OGL it wasn't a "swap old conditions for new" but "from now on ..." Nthep (talk) 10:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * However, crown copyright expires 50 years after publication, so 1977 works will be in the public domain in 2028 as is everything pre-1972. ww2censor (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)